SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 1
Download to read offline
Kenneth Horton                                                              Main: (801) 328-3600
Kirton|McConkie                                                             Direct: (801) 321-4897
1800 Eagle Gate Tower                                                       Fax: (801) 212-2056
60 East South Temple                                                        Cell: (801) 809-0310
P.O. Box 45120                                                              khorton@kmclaw.com
Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0120                                               http://www.linkedin.com/in/HortonIP
                                      THE IP LEGAL MINUTE
                                APRIL 2012: AFTER FINAL ADJUSTMENTS
Earlier this month, the PTO implemented the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) program. The details of the
AFCP project can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/afcp_guidelines.pdf. This program
hopefully will stem the growing problem of lengthy delays after an RCE has been filed. RCEs were traditionally
placed at the front of Examiner’s docket. This placement was changed several years ago when RCEs were
transitioned to the “new work” docket, effectively lengthening consideration of an RCE from several months to
several years. This change was implemented to expedite examiners picking up “new” cases. And while this change
has worked, it has created a backlog of RCE cases.

Under the AFCP, an After Final (AF) Amendment under 37 CFR 1.116(b) will be entered when it may lead to earlier
allowance of the application without undue burden on the Examiner or Applicant. Specifically, an AF Amendment
will be entered when:

   1. The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by canceling claims or complying with
      formal requirement(s) in response to objection(s) made in the final Office Action.
   2. The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by rewriting objected-to claims in
      independent form.
   3. The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by incorporating limitations from objected-
      to claims into independent claims, if the new claim can be determined to be allowable with only a limited
      amount of further consideration or search.
   4. The amendment can be determined to place the application in condition for allowance with only a limited
      amount of further search or consideration, even if new claims are added without cancelling a corresponding
      number of finally rejected claims.
   5. The amendment can be determined to place the application in condition for allowance by adding new
      limitation(s) which require only a limited amount of further consideration or search.
   6. The response comprises a perfected 37 CFR 1.131 or 37 CFR 1.132 affidavit or declaration (i.e. a new
      declaration which corrects formal defects noted in a prior affidavit or declaration) which can be determined
      to place the application in condition for allowance with only a limited amount of further search or
      consideration.

The change in AF practice is the phrase “limited amount of further consideration or search.” Examiners are directed
to decide whether the nature and extent of the amendments/arguments presented in the AF response can be
considered within the “limited amount” of time (3 hours) authorized by the AFCP program. If not, Examiners are
directed to treat the AF response under the existing rules and will not receive the extra 3 hours.

Hopefully, the AFCP program will expand the scope of AF practice. For several years, like many practitioners I
have used AF amendments sparingly because they do not advance prosecution: Examiners are too quick to deny
entry of any amendments and to consider any additional arguments. I have used AF amendments mostly to clarify
the issues (for appeal) or to clarify the Examiner’s position on the prior art.

While Examiners will be motivated to consider a submission under the AFCP program, this will not change the
timing issues. As with any AF amendment, the response period to the final Office Action is not tolled by filing of
the AF amendment. So you must watch the docket carefully to make sure the application does not go abandoned
because of an Examiner delay in issuing the Advisory Action.

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Restaurant fundraiser letter pdf 3
Restaurant fundraiser letter pdf 3Restaurant fundraiser letter pdf 3
Restaurant fundraiser letter pdf 3nmx1
 
Opposites level 2 lesson show test
Opposites level 2 lesson show testOpposites level 2 lesson show test
Opposites level 2 lesson show testlittleaussielearners
 
Segundo trimestre de licenciaturasf
Segundo trimestre de licenciaturasfSegundo trimestre de licenciaturasf
Segundo trimestre de licenciaturasfPolinter
 
Going online
Going onlineGoing online
Going onlineRemmy112
 
таблица для жюри
таблица для жюритаблица для жюри
таблица для жюриwbdbkm
 
2011 hoa-skkn-ppgd-phi
2011 hoa-skkn-ppgd-phi2011 hoa-skkn-ppgd-phi
2011 hoa-skkn-ppgd-phihanhtvq
 
Liposuction in-hyderabad
Liposuction in-hyderabadLiposuction in-hyderabad
Liposuction in-hyderabadAkruticosmetic
 
ಕಬರ್ ಎತ್ತರಿಸಿ ಕಟ್ಟುವುದು
ಕಬರ್ ಎತ್ತರಿಸಿ ಕಟ್ಟುವುದುಕಬರ್ ಎತ್ತರಿಸಿ ಕಟ್ಟುವುದು
ಕಬರ್ ಎತ್ತರಿಸಿ ಕಟ್ಟುವುದುFAHIM AKTHAR ULLAL
 
Recipe Of A Successful Musical
Recipe Of A Successful MusicalRecipe Of A Successful Musical
Recipe Of A Successful MusicalParnyan
 
Contents share using dropbox
Contents share using dropboxContents share using dropbox
Contents share using dropboxalauddindcl
 

Viewers also liked (12)

Restaurant fundraiser letter pdf 3
Restaurant fundraiser letter pdf 3Restaurant fundraiser letter pdf 3
Restaurant fundraiser letter pdf 3
 
Opposites level 2 lesson show test
Opposites level 2 lesson show testOpposites level 2 lesson show test
Opposites level 2 lesson show test
 
Segundo trimestre de licenciaturasf
Segundo trimestre de licenciaturasfSegundo trimestre de licenciaturasf
Segundo trimestre de licenciaturasf
 
Going online
Going onlineGoing online
Going online
 
таблица для жюри
таблица для жюритаблица для жюри
таблица для жюри
 
2011 hoa-skkn-ppgd-phi
2011 hoa-skkn-ppgd-phi2011 hoa-skkn-ppgd-phi
2011 hoa-skkn-ppgd-phi
 
Das Mannheim Magazin – Ausgabe 1
Das Mannheim Magazin – Ausgabe 1Das Mannheim Magazin – Ausgabe 1
Das Mannheim Magazin – Ausgabe 1
 
Liposuction in-hyderabad
Liposuction in-hyderabadLiposuction in-hyderabad
Liposuction in-hyderabad
 
Testing1
Testing1Testing1
Testing1
 
ಕಬರ್ ಎತ್ತರಿಸಿ ಕಟ್ಟುವುದು
ಕಬರ್ ಎತ್ತರಿಸಿ ಕಟ್ಟುವುದುಕಬರ್ ಎತ್ತರಿಸಿ ಕಟ್ಟುವುದು
ಕಬರ್ ಎತ್ತರಿಸಿ ಕಟ್ಟುವುದು
 
Recipe Of A Successful Musical
Recipe Of A Successful MusicalRecipe Of A Successful Musical
Recipe Of A Successful Musical
 
Contents share using dropbox
Contents share using dropboxContents share using dropbox
Contents share using dropbox
 

Similar to April 2012 IP Legal Minute

October 2012 IP Legal Minute
October 2012 IP Legal MinuteOctober 2012 IP Legal Minute
October 2012 IP Legal Minutekhorton123
 
Oct 2013 IP Legal Minute
Oct 2013 IP Legal Minute Oct 2013 IP Legal Minute
Oct 2013 IP Legal Minute Ken Horton
 
August 2012 IP Legal Minute
August 2012 IP Legal MinuteAugust 2012 IP Legal Minute
August 2012 IP Legal Minutekhorton123
 
July 2012 IP Legal Minute
July 2012 IP Legal MinuteJuly 2012 IP Legal Minute
July 2012 IP Legal Minutekhorton123
 
May 2012 IP Legal Minute
May 2012 IP Legal MinuteMay 2012 IP Legal Minute
May 2012 IP Legal Minutekhorton123
 
December 2011 Newsletter
December 2011 NewsletterDecember 2011 Newsletter
December 2011 Newsletterkhorton123
 
Q2 2015 IP Legal Minute
Q2 2015 IP Legal MinuteQ2 2015 IP Legal Minute
Q2 2015 IP Legal MinuteKen Horton
 
February 2012 IP Legal Minute
February 2012 IP Legal MinuteFebruary 2012 IP Legal Minute
February 2012 IP Legal Minutekhorton123
 
Q3 2014 IP Legal Minute
Q3 2014 IP Legal MinuteQ3 2014 IP Legal Minute
Q3 2014 IP Legal Minutekhorton123
 
Protecting Innovation Under the American Invents Act
Protecting Innovation Under the American Invents ActProtecting Innovation Under the American Invents Act
Protecting Innovation Under the American Invents ActPatterson Thuente IP
 
Department of Energy Preliminary Regulatory Reform Plan
Department of Energy Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanDepartment of Energy Preliminary Regulatory Reform Plan
Department of Energy Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanObama White House
 
Amending Patent Specifications In Vietnam - Best Practices for Applicants.pdf
Amending Patent Specifications In Vietnam - Best Practices for Applicants.pdfAmending Patent Specifications In Vietnam - Best Practices for Applicants.pdf
Amending Patent Specifications In Vietnam - Best Practices for Applicants.pdfKENFOX IP & Law Office
 
Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule
Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule
Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule - Mark - Fullbright
 
A Basic Communications Law Primer for Elected Officials
A Basic Communications Law Primer for Elected Officials  A Basic Communications Law Primer for Elected Officials
A Basic Communications Law Primer for Elected Officials Best Best and Krieger LLP
 
Whitney MCMurdie's Intern Presentation Fall 2013 Legal
Whitney MCMurdie's Intern Presentation Fall 2013 Legal Whitney MCMurdie's Intern Presentation Fall 2013 Legal
Whitney MCMurdie's Intern Presentation Fall 2013 Legal RenewMO
 
Cellphone Tower Regulation: Maximizing Revenue While Protecting Local Interests
Cellphone Tower Regulation: Maximizing Revenue While Protecting Local InterestsCellphone Tower Regulation: Maximizing Revenue While Protecting Local Interests
Cellphone Tower Regulation: Maximizing Revenue While Protecting Local InterestsBest Best and Krieger LLP
 

Similar to April 2012 IP Legal Minute (20)

October 2012 IP Legal Minute
October 2012 IP Legal MinuteOctober 2012 IP Legal Minute
October 2012 IP Legal Minute
 
Oct 2013 IP Legal Minute
Oct 2013 IP Legal Minute Oct 2013 IP Legal Minute
Oct 2013 IP Legal Minute
 
August 2012 IP Legal Minute
August 2012 IP Legal MinuteAugust 2012 IP Legal Minute
August 2012 IP Legal Minute
 
July 2012 IP Legal Minute
July 2012 IP Legal MinuteJuly 2012 IP Legal Minute
July 2012 IP Legal Minute
 
May 2012 IP Legal Minute
May 2012 IP Legal MinuteMay 2012 IP Legal Minute
May 2012 IP Legal Minute
 
December 2011 Newsletter
December 2011 NewsletterDecember 2011 Newsletter
December 2011 Newsletter
 
Q2 2015 IP Legal Minute
Q2 2015 IP Legal MinuteQ2 2015 IP Legal Minute
Q2 2015 IP Legal Minute
 
February 2012 IP Legal Minute
February 2012 IP Legal MinuteFebruary 2012 IP Legal Minute
February 2012 IP Legal Minute
 
He M 510
He M 510He M 510
He M 510
 
Q3 2014 IP Legal Minute
Q3 2014 IP Legal MinuteQ3 2014 IP Legal Minute
Q3 2014 IP Legal Minute
 
Protecting Innovation Under the American Invents Act
Protecting Innovation Under the American Invents ActProtecting Innovation Under the American Invents Act
Protecting Innovation Under the American Invents Act
 
Department of Energy Preliminary Regulatory Reform Plan
Department of Energy Preliminary Regulatory Reform PlanDepartment of Energy Preliminary Regulatory Reform Plan
Department of Energy Preliminary Regulatory Reform Plan
 
Section 408 Review
Section 408 ReviewSection 408 Review
Section 408 Review
 
Amending Patent Specifications In Vietnam - Best Practices for Applicants.pdf
Amending Patent Specifications In Vietnam - Best Practices for Applicants.pdfAmending Patent Specifications In Vietnam - Best Practices for Applicants.pdf
Amending Patent Specifications In Vietnam - Best Practices for Applicants.pdf
 
SWCLC agenda for May 2020
SWCLC agenda for May 2020SWCLC agenda for May 2020
SWCLC agenda for May 2020
 
Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule
Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule
Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule
 
A Basic Communications Law Primer for Elected Officials
A Basic Communications Law Primer for Elected Officials  A Basic Communications Law Primer for Elected Officials
A Basic Communications Law Primer for Elected Officials
 
Whitney MCMurdie's Intern Presentation Fall 2013 Legal
Whitney MCMurdie's Intern Presentation Fall 2013 Legal Whitney MCMurdie's Intern Presentation Fall 2013 Legal
Whitney MCMurdie's Intern Presentation Fall 2013 Legal
 
Cellphone Tower Regulation: Maximizing Revenue While Protecting Local Interests
Cellphone Tower Regulation: Maximizing Revenue While Protecting Local InterestsCellphone Tower Regulation: Maximizing Revenue While Protecting Local Interests
Cellphone Tower Regulation: Maximizing Revenue While Protecting Local Interests
 
7 a
7 a7 a
7 a
 

More from khorton123

Q2 2014 IP Legal Minute
Q2 2014 IP Legal MinuteQ2 2014 IP Legal Minute
Q2 2014 IP Legal Minutekhorton123
 
Q4 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
Q4 2012 IP Strategy NewsletterQ4 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
Q4 2012 IP Strategy Newsletterkhorton123
 
June 2012 IP Legal Minute
June 2012 IP Legal MinuteJune 2012 IP Legal Minute
June 2012 IP Legal Minutekhorton123
 
Q3 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
Q3 2012 IP Strategy NewsletterQ3 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
Q3 2012 IP Strategy Newsletterkhorton123
 
March 2012 IP Legal Minute
March 2012 IP Legal MinuteMarch 2012 IP Legal Minute
March 2012 IP Legal Minutekhorton123
 
Q2 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
Q2 2012 IP Strategy NewsletterQ2 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
Q2 2012 IP Strategy Newsletterkhorton123
 
Q1 2012 IP Strategy Minute
Q1 2012 IP Strategy MinuteQ1 2012 IP Strategy Minute
Q1 2012 IP Strategy Minutekhorton123
 
January 2012 IP Minute Newsletter
January 2012  IP Minute NewsletterJanuary 2012  IP Minute Newsletter
January 2012 IP Minute Newsletterkhorton123
 
November 2011 Newsletter
November 2011 NewsletterNovember 2011 Newsletter
November 2011 Newsletterkhorton123
 
December 2010 Newsletter
December 2010 NewsletterDecember 2010 Newsletter
December 2010 Newsletterkhorton123
 
January 2010 Newsletter
January 2010 NewsletterJanuary 2010 Newsletter
January 2010 Newsletterkhorton123
 
March 2010 Newsletter
March 2010 NewsletterMarch 2010 Newsletter
March 2010 Newsletterkhorton123
 
April 2010 Newsletter
April 2010 NewsletterApril 2010 Newsletter
April 2010 Newsletterkhorton123
 
May 2010 Newsletter
May 2010 NewsletterMay 2010 Newsletter
May 2010 Newsletterkhorton123
 
June 2010 Newsletter
June 2010 NewsletterJune 2010 Newsletter
June 2010 Newsletterkhorton123
 
August 2010 Newsletter
August 2010 NewsletterAugust 2010 Newsletter
August 2010 Newsletterkhorton123
 
September 2010 Newsletter
September 2010 NewsletterSeptember 2010 Newsletter
September 2010 Newsletterkhorton123
 
November 2010 Newsletter
November 2010 NewsletterNovember 2010 Newsletter
November 2010 Newsletterkhorton123
 
August 2011 Newsletter
August 2011 NewsletterAugust 2011 Newsletter
August 2011 Newsletterkhorton123
 
Feb 2011 Newsletter
Feb 2011 NewsletterFeb 2011 Newsletter
Feb 2011 Newsletterkhorton123
 

More from khorton123 (20)

Q2 2014 IP Legal Minute
Q2 2014 IP Legal MinuteQ2 2014 IP Legal Minute
Q2 2014 IP Legal Minute
 
Q4 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
Q4 2012 IP Strategy NewsletterQ4 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
Q4 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
 
June 2012 IP Legal Minute
June 2012 IP Legal MinuteJune 2012 IP Legal Minute
June 2012 IP Legal Minute
 
Q3 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
Q3 2012 IP Strategy NewsletterQ3 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
Q3 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
 
March 2012 IP Legal Minute
March 2012 IP Legal MinuteMarch 2012 IP Legal Minute
March 2012 IP Legal Minute
 
Q2 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
Q2 2012 IP Strategy NewsletterQ2 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
Q2 2012 IP Strategy Newsletter
 
Q1 2012 IP Strategy Minute
Q1 2012 IP Strategy MinuteQ1 2012 IP Strategy Minute
Q1 2012 IP Strategy Minute
 
January 2012 IP Minute Newsletter
January 2012  IP Minute NewsletterJanuary 2012  IP Minute Newsletter
January 2012 IP Minute Newsletter
 
November 2011 Newsletter
November 2011 NewsletterNovember 2011 Newsletter
November 2011 Newsletter
 
December 2010 Newsletter
December 2010 NewsletterDecember 2010 Newsletter
December 2010 Newsletter
 
January 2010 Newsletter
January 2010 NewsletterJanuary 2010 Newsletter
January 2010 Newsletter
 
March 2010 Newsletter
March 2010 NewsletterMarch 2010 Newsletter
March 2010 Newsletter
 
April 2010 Newsletter
April 2010 NewsletterApril 2010 Newsletter
April 2010 Newsletter
 
May 2010 Newsletter
May 2010 NewsletterMay 2010 Newsletter
May 2010 Newsletter
 
June 2010 Newsletter
June 2010 NewsletterJune 2010 Newsletter
June 2010 Newsletter
 
August 2010 Newsletter
August 2010 NewsletterAugust 2010 Newsletter
August 2010 Newsletter
 
September 2010 Newsletter
September 2010 NewsletterSeptember 2010 Newsletter
September 2010 Newsletter
 
November 2010 Newsletter
November 2010 NewsletterNovember 2010 Newsletter
November 2010 Newsletter
 
August 2011 Newsletter
August 2011 NewsletterAugust 2011 Newsletter
August 2011 Newsletter
 
Feb 2011 Newsletter
Feb 2011 NewsletterFeb 2011 Newsletter
Feb 2011 Newsletter
 

April 2012 IP Legal Minute

  • 1. Kenneth Horton Main: (801) 328-3600 Kirton|McConkie Direct: (801) 321-4897 1800 Eagle Gate Tower Fax: (801) 212-2056 60 East South Temple Cell: (801) 809-0310 P.O. Box 45120 khorton@kmclaw.com Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0120 http://www.linkedin.com/in/HortonIP THE IP LEGAL MINUTE APRIL 2012: AFTER FINAL ADJUSTMENTS Earlier this month, the PTO implemented the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) program. The details of the AFCP project can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/afcp_guidelines.pdf. This program hopefully will stem the growing problem of lengthy delays after an RCE has been filed. RCEs were traditionally placed at the front of Examiner’s docket. This placement was changed several years ago when RCEs were transitioned to the “new work” docket, effectively lengthening consideration of an RCE from several months to several years. This change was implemented to expedite examiners picking up “new” cases. And while this change has worked, it has created a backlog of RCE cases. Under the AFCP, an After Final (AF) Amendment under 37 CFR 1.116(b) will be entered when it may lead to earlier allowance of the application without undue burden on the Examiner or Applicant. Specifically, an AF Amendment will be entered when: 1. The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by canceling claims or complying with formal requirement(s) in response to objection(s) made in the final Office Action. 2. The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by rewriting objected-to claims in independent form. 3. The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by incorporating limitations from objected- to claims into independent claims, if the new claim can be determined to be allowable with only a limited amount of further consideration or search. 4. The amendment can be determined to place the application in condition for allowance with only a limited amount of further search or consideration, even if new claims are added without cancelling a corresponding number of finally rejected claims. 5. The amendment can be determined to place the application in condition for allowance by adding new limitation(s) which require only a limited amount of further consideration or search. 6. The response comprises a perfected 37 CFR 1.131 or 37 CFR 1.132 affidavit or declaration (i.e. a new declaration which corrects formal defects noted in a prior affidavit or declaration) which can be determined to place the application in condition for allowance with only a limited amount of further search or consideration. The change in AF practice is the phrase “limited amount of further consideration or search.” Examiners are directed to decide whether the nature and extent of the amendments/arguments presented in the AF response can be considered within the “limited amount” of time (3 hours) authorized by the AFCP program. If not, Examiners are directed to treat the AF response under the existing rules and will not receive the extra 3 hours. Hopefully, the AFCP program will expand the scope of AF practice. For several years, like many practitioners I have used AF amendments sparingly because they do not advance prosecution: Examiners are too quick to deny entry of any amendments and to consider any additional arguments. I have used AF amendments mostly to clarify the issues (for appeal) or to clarify the Examiner’s position on the prior art. While Examiners will be motivated to consider a submission under the AFCP program, this will not change the timing issues. As with any AF amendment, the response period to the final Office Action is not tolled by filing of the AF amendment. So you must watch the docket carefully to make sure the application does not go abandoned because of an Examiner delay in issuing the Advisory Action.