Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) provides additional time to a patent term to compensate patent holders for certain delays introduced by the USPTO during patent prosecution. PTA is calculated based on three types of delays: A) USPTO delays in responding to filings; B) delays when prosecution exceeds three years; and C) delays due to interferences, appeals, or secrecy orders. The amount of PTA is determined by adding together delays from these types, subtracting overlapping delays or applicant-caused delays, and cannot exceed five years. Two important court cases, Wyeth v. Kappos and Novartis v. Lee, impacted PTA calculations by clarifying how the USPTO should determine
Presentation on the Patent Process in US
Contact Us for Intellectual Property Services
BananaIP Counsels
Regd Office
No.40,3rd Main Road,JC Industrial Estate,
Kanakapura Road,Bangalore – 560 062.
Email: contact@bananaip.com
Telephone: +91-80-26860414 /24/34
The document provides an overview of pharmaceutical patenting in India. It discusses key topics such as the role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) like patents, trademarks, and trade secrets in the pharmaceutical industry. It also examines India's pharmaceutical industry evolution from pre-independence to present. Specific issues covered include requirements for patentability, types of pharmaceutical patents, Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, evergreening practices, compulsory licensing provisions, and mail box applications. The document uses examples like the Novartis case related to Gleevec and Natco Pharma's compulsory license for Bayer's anti-cancer drug Nexavar to illustrate relevant legal concepts and issues in Indian pharmaceutical patenting.
Compulsory licensing is when a government allows someone else to produce a patented product or process without the consent of the patent owner or plans to use the patent-protected invention itself.
The document discusses different types of patent searches including patentability searches, freedom to operate searches, validity searches, landscape searches, state-of-the-art searches, bibliographic searches, continuing searches, assignment searches, number searches, name searches, subject searches, classification searches, family searches, and legal status searches. It provides details on the purpose, timing, and scope of each type of search.
The document discusses various topics related to patent searching and drafting patent claims including:
1) The purposes of conducting patent searches such as avoiding infringement and monitoring competitors.
2) Resources for conducting patent searches such as online databases and tools from patent offices which provide time-efficient and cost-effective access to comprehensive international patent information.
3) Key considerations for drafting patent claims including writing broad and narrow claims to fully cover the invention while avoiding prior art and unnecessary limitations.
Filing a Patent application is the first step towards protecting an invention. This presentation details in brief on how and where to file a patent application along with the other documentary and statutory requirements.
A patent is a negative right that allows the patent holder to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the claimed invention in the country where the patent is granted. To obtain a patent, an invention must be novel, non-obvious, and adequately described in the patent application. There are various types of patent applications that can be filed, including provisional, utility, design, plant, and PCT applications. Requirements for patentability include novelty, non-obviousness, enablement, and best mode disclosure.
The document discusses the Indian Patent Act of 1970 and the process for obtaining a patent in India. It provides background on intellectual property rights and patents. It then outlines the key stages of filing a patent application in India, including formality check, publication, request for examination, examination and issuance of an examination report, response from applicant, pre-grant opposition, and final grant of the patent. It also discusses different types of patent applications under Indian law such as provisional, ordinary, convention, and divisional applications.
Presentation on the Patent Process in US
Contact Us for Intellectual Property Services
BananaIP Counsels
Regd Office
No.40,3rd Main Road,JC Industrial Estate,
Kanakapura Road,Bangalore – 560 062.
Email: contact@bananaip.com
Telephone: +91-80-26860414 /24/34
The document provides an overview of pharmaceutical patenting in India. It discusses key topics such as the role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) like patents, trademarks, and trade secrets in the pharmaceutical industry. It also examines India's pharmaceutical industry evolution from pre-independence to present. Specific issues covered include requirements for patentability, types of pharmaceutical patents, Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, evergreening practices, compulsory licensing provisions, and mail box applications. The document uses examples like the Novartis case related to Gleevec and Natco Pharma's compulsory license for Bayer's anti-cancer drug Nexavar to illustrate relevant legal concepts and issues in Indian pharmaceutical patenting.
Compulsory licensing is when a government allows someone else to produce a patented product or process without the consent of the patent owner or plans to use the patent-protected invention itself.
The document discusses different types of patent searches including patentability searches, freedom to operate searches, validity searches, landscape searches, state-of-the-art searches, bibliographic searches, continuing searches, assignment searches, number searches, name searches, subject searches, classification searches, family searches, and legal status searches. It provides details on the purpose, timing, and scope of each type of search.
The document discusses various topics related to patent searching and drafting patent claims including:
1) The purposes of conducting patent searches such as avoiding infringement and monitoring competitors.
2) Resources for conducting patent searches such as online databases and tools from patent offices which provide time-efficient and cost-effective access to comprehensive international patent information.
3) Key considerations for drafting patent claims including writing broad and narrow claims to fully cover the invention while avoiding prior art and unnecessary limitations.
Filing a Patent application is the first step towards protecting an invention. This presentation details in brief on how and where to file a patent application along with the other documentary and statutory requirements.
A patent is a negative right that allows the patent holder to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the claimed invention in the country where the patent is granted. To obtain a patent, an invention must be novel, non-obvious, and adequately described in the patent application. There are various types of patent applications that can be filed, including provisional, utility, design, plant, and PCT applications. Requirements for patentability include novelty, non-obviousness, enablement, and best mode disclosure.
The document discusses the Indian Patent Act of 1970 and the process for obtaining a patent in India. It provides background on intellectual property rights and patents. It then outlines the key stages of filing a patent application in India, including formality check, publication, request for examination, examination and issuance of an examination report, response from applicant, pre-grant opposition, and final grant of the patent. It also discusses different types of patent applications under Indian law such as provisional, ordinary, convention, and divisional applications.
The document discusses intellectual property (IP) and patents. It defines IP and the main methods of protecting IP, including patents. Patents provide a temporary monopoly on inventions and encourage innovation. The summary describes the patent process, including filing requirements, examination, opposition periods, and duration of typically 20 years. It outlines strategies for patenting, such as aggressively patenting everything or using patents defensively. The benefits of patents include exclusivity, monopoly pricing and licensing income. Infringement can result in injunctions or requirement to pay reasonable royalties or lost profits.
The document discusses non-obviousness, which is a requirement for patentability. To satisfy non-obviousness, an invention must not be obvious to someone with skill in the related field. While it does not need to be a brilliant act of new genius, the combination of elements cannot be obvious and must provide a utility greater than the sum of the parts. The patent application process involves initially filing a provisional application, then a formal application which undergoes review and potential appeals before a patent is issued. The process is lengthy and obtaining a US patent can cost over $1 million due to extensive legal costs.
The document discusses various formats and types of patent claims. It describes the typical format of a patent claim as a single sentence with an identifier like "Claim 1". Claims have a preamble that identifies the category of invention, a transitional phrase like "comprising", and a body that describes interrelated elements. The document provides examples of different types of claims like independent claims, dependent claims, improvement claims, two-part form claims, means-plus-function claims, and apparatus and method claims. It also discusses proper punctuation, antecedent basis, reference numerals, and multiple claim elements.
This presentation describes what happens to applications in the European patent grant procedure.
From filing through to grant and beyond, the file goes through a number of different stages.
This presentation looks at these stages in the order in which they occur in the procedure.
This document provides an overview of the patent filing process in India. It begins by defining what a patent is and noting that it provides exclusive rights for 20 years. It then outlines the key steps and requirements for filing a patent application in India, including which documents are needed, who can file, where to file, and how to file. The document explains the timeline for publication, request for examination, and potential hearing. It also describes what is not patentable under Indian law and the criteria the examiner evaluates like novelty, non-obviousness, and industrial applicability. The review and response process is summarized, concluding with the potential outcomes of acceptance, rejection, or partial acceptance of claims.
This document provides an overview of international patent filing options including the Paris Convention and Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). It discusses key differences and procedures for both options. The Paris Convention allows direct foreign filing within 1 year but is typically less expensive than PCT. PCT provides up to 30 months to decide where to file but is usually more expensive. It also summarizes PCT procedures including international search, publication, preliminary examination (optional) and national phase entry.
Start from Patentability – 4 legal requirements
req.1: a statutory class – lawsuits & 5 classes cover processes, Machines, Manufactures, Compositions, New use
req.2: Utility including software, non-patentable case by drug issue & how to turn back a whimsical case
Req.3: Novelty - prior art (Reduction to Practice)
The document discusses patentability requirements in the US, including utility, novelty, and non-obviousness. It provides details on the types of subject matter that can be patented, conditions for novelty like anticipation and statutory bars, and considerations for non-obviousness. It also discusses the European patent regime and takes questions.
This document discusses several patent cases in India between foreign pharmaceutical companies and Indian generic drug manufacturers. It summarizes key patent cases such as Novartis vs. India regarding Glivec, Bayer vs. Natco regarding Nexavar, Roche vs. Cipla regarding Tarceva. It also discusses India's patent laws including sections 3(d) and compulsory licensing. Many foreign drug patents were revoked by Indian courts based on lack of innovation or in the interest of public health and making medicines more affordable in India. The document supports India's stance on promoting generic competition and ensuring access to healthcare.
Presentation at the Center for Professional Advancement (CFPA) Course on Generic Drug Approval, August 2013. New Brunswick, NJ., with a focus on the patent provisions of the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act
The document provides information on assessing novelty for patent applications. It describes novelty as a new invention within an existing field. The steps for assessing novelty include checking if the invention falls under non-patentable categories, searching prior art databases using keywords to identify previous similar inventions, and analyzing if the invention has been previously published, used or communicated based on patent law sections. The document also lists several major prior art databases and search techniques.
The document provides information about the patenting system in India. It defines what a patent and invention are, explains the criteria for patenting including novelty, inventive step, and industrial application. It describes the patenting process in India, including who can apply, where to apply, fees, and the stages from filing to grant of a patent. It also discusses what is not patentable in India and provides examples of patent infringement cases like Apple vs Samsung and Novartis' patent plea.
The presentation herein, on the US Patent Process, has been delivered by Mr. Nitin Nair at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, for Senior Officials of the Ministry of MSME, Government of India. For more information about the presentation or the event, you may contact the Sinapse team at sinapse@bananaip.com.
BananaIP Counsels
Regd Office
No.40,3rd Main Road,JC Industrial Estate,
Kanakapura Road,Bangalore – 560 062.
Email: contact@bananaip.com
Telephone: +91-80-26860414 /24/34
General And Provisional Specifications Of PatentsAbhas Agrawal
The document discusses the key aspects of patents and patent specifications. It defines what a patent is and explains that a patent provides exclusive rights over an invention for a limited time. It then describes the two main types of patent specifications - general specifications and provisional specifications. For general specifications, it outlines the typical sections including title, background, summary, description of drawings, detailed description, and abstract. For provisional specifications, it notes they disclose the nature of the invention and must later be followed by a complete specification within 12 months to maintain the priority date.
IPFlair provides the best patent consultant in India with the online patent filing process. So get patented today with IPFlair and boost up your business strategy.
This document provides an overview of patent processing and applications. It defines a patent as a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to an inventor for a limited time in exchange for publicly disclosing an invention. The document discusses the patent process, types of patents including utility patents, design patents and plant patents. It also describes different types of patent applications including national, regional, international and provisional applications.
The document discusses the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) in patent law. It defines direct and indirect infringement and explains the triple identity test used to determine equivalency. It provides examples of how DOE has been applied in cases involving welding fluxes, piston devices, pharmaceutical compounds, and preservatives. It also briefly discusses how DOE is applied in other countries like Europe, France, and Japan.
The document discusses the history and evolution of patent law in India from 1856 to the present. Key developments include the first patent legislation in 1856, amendments in 1857 and 1859, consolidation of laws in 1888, establishment of the Controller of Patents in 1911, recommendations of committees in 1949 and 1957 that led to the Patents Act of 1970, and India's adoption of international treaties and organizations related to intellectual property including TRIPS in 1994.
This document provides an overview of the case of Natco Pharma Ltd. vs Bayer regarding the granting of the first ever compulsory license for a pharmaceutical patent in India. It discusses the key considerations and timeline of the case, including Natco's application for a compulsory license to produce the cancer drug Nexavar at an affordable price after Bayer refused to provide a voluntary license or lower the price. The document summarizes the Indian Patent Act provisions for compulsory licensing and the IPAB verdict upholding the license grant with a slightly increased royalty rate for Natco. It also outlines some of the effects on access to medicines and potential solutions.
The document discusses the Indian Patent Act of 1970, which governs the granting of patents in India and provides intellectual property protections for inventions. Key aspects covered include the requirements for an invention to be patentable, the types of patents granted, procedures for obtaining and renewing a patent, rights of a patentee, and exclusions from patentability. The patent system aims to reward inventors while ensuring availability of inventions for public use.
Now that the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) and the
European Patent Office (EPO) have adopted and migrated to the new Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) System, professional patent searchers as well as private inventors have a new power tool for accessing patent information world-wide. Bob Craig, a former USPTO Patent Examiner and International Classifier Rapporteur, has unique knowledge and insight about the CPC and will be sharing his thoughts on the new System at the October 3, 2015 meeting.
The document discusses intellectual property (IP) and patents. It defines IP and the main methods of protecting IP, including patents. Patents provide a temporary monopoly on inventions and encourage innovation. The summary describes the patent process, including filing requirements, examination, opposition periods, and duration of typically 20 years. It outlines strategies for patenting, such as aggressively patenting everything or using patents defensively. The benefits of patents include exclusivity, monopoly pricing and licensing income. Infringement can result in injunctions or requirement to pay reasonable royalties or lost profits.
The document discusses non-obviousness, which is a requirement for patentability. To satisfy non-obviousness, an invention must not be obvious to someone with skill in the related field. While it does not need to be a brilliant act of new genius, the combination of elements cannot be obvious and must provide a utility greater than the sum of the parts. The patent application process involves initially filing a provisional application, then a formal application which undergoes review and potential appeals before a patent is issued. The process is lengthy and obtaining a US patent can cost over $1 million due to extensive legal costs.
The document discusses various formats and types of patent claims. It describes the typical format of a patent claim as a single sentence with an identifier like "Claim 1". Claims have a preamble that identifies the category of invention, a transitional phrase like "comprising", and a body that describes interrelated elements. The document provides examples of different types of claims like independent claims, dependent claims, improvement claims, two-part form claims, means-plus-function claims, and apparatus and method claims. It also discusses proper punctuation, antecedent basis, reference numerals, and multiple claim elements.
This presentation describes what happens to applications in the European patent grant procedure.
From filing through to grant and beyond, the file goes through a number of different stages.
This presentation looks at these stages in the order in which they occur in the procedure.
This document provides an overview of the patent filing process in India. It begins by defining what a patent is and noting that it provides exclusive rights for 20 years. It then outlines the key steps and requirements for filing a patent application in India, including which documents are needed, who can file, where to file, and how to file. The document explains the timeline for publication, request for examination, and potential hearing. It also describes what is not patentable under Indian law and the criteria the examiner evaluates like novelty, non-obviousness, and industrial applicability. The review and response process is summarized, concluding with the potential outcomes of acceptance, rejection, or partial acceptance of claims.
This document provides an overview of international patent filing options including the Paris Convention and Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). It discusses key differences and procedures for both options. The Paris Convention allows direct foreign filing within 1 year but is typically less expensive than PCT. PCT provides up to 30 months to decide where to file but is usually more expensive. It also summarizes PCT procedures including international search, publication, preliminary examination (optional) and national phase entry.
Start from Patentability – 4 legal requirements
req.1: a statutory class – lawsuits & 5 classes cover processes, Machines, Manufactures, Compositions, New use
req.2: Utility including software, non-patentable case by drug issue & how to turn back a whimsical case
Req.3: Novelty - prior art (Reduction to Practice)
The document discusses patentability requirements in the US, including utility, novelty, and non-obviousness. It provides details on the types of subject matter that can be patented, conditions for novelty like anticipation and statutory bars, and considerations for non-obviousness. It also discusses the European patent regime and takes questions.
This document discusses several patent cases in India between foreign pharmaceutical companies and Indian generic drug manufacturers. It summarizes key patent cases such as Novartis vs. India regarding Glivec, Bayer vs. Natco regarding Nexavar, Roche vs. Cipla regarding Tarceva. It also discusses India's patent laws including sections 3(d) and compulsory licensing. Many foreign drug patents were revoked by Indian courts based on lack of innovation or in the interest of public health and making medicines more affordable in India. The document supports India's stance on promoting generic competition and ensuring access to healthcare.
Presentation at the Center for Professional Advancement (CFPA) Course on Generic Drug Approval, August 2013. New Brunswick, NJ., with a focus on the patent provisions of the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act
The document provides information on assessing novelty for patent applications. It describes novelty as a new invention within an existing field. The steps for assessing novelty include checking if the invention falls under non-patentable categories, searching prior art databases using keywords to identify previous similar inventions, and analyzing if the invention has been previously published, used or communicated based on patent law sections. The document also lists several major prior art databases and search techniques.
The document provides information about the patenting system in India. It defines what a patent and invention are, explains the criteria for patenting including novelty, inventive step, and industrial application. It describes the patenting process in India, including who can apply, where to apply, fees, and the stages from filing to grant of a patent. It also discusses what is not patentable in India and provides examples of patent infringement cases like Apple vs Samsung and Novartis' patent plea.
The presentation herein, on the US Patent Process, has been delivered by Mr. Nitin Nair at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, for Senior Officials of the Ministry of MSME, Government of India. For more information about the presentation or the event, you may contact the Sinapse team at sinapse@bananaip.com.
BananaIP Counsels
Regd Office
No.40,3rd Main Road,JC Industrial Estate,
Kanakapura Road,Bangalore – 560 062.
Email: contact@bananaip.com
Telephone: +91-80-26860414 /24/34
General And Provisional Specifications Of PatentsAbhas Agrawal
The document discusses the key aspects of patents and patent specifications. It defines what a patent is and explains that a patent provides exclusive rights over an invention for a limited time. It then describes the two main types of patent specifications - general specifications and provisional specifications. For general specifications, it outlines the typical sections including title, background, summary, description of drawings, detailed description, and abstract. For provisional specifications, it notes they disclose the nature of the invention and must later be followed by a complete specification within 12 months to maintain the priority date.
IPFlair provides the best patent consultant in India with the online patent filing process. So get patented today with IPFlair and boost up your business strategy.
This document provides an overview of patent processing and applications. It defines a patent as a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to an inventor for a limited time in exchange for publicly disclosing an invention. The document discusses the patent process, types of patents including utility patents, design patents and plant patents. It also describes different types of patent applications including national, regional, international and provisional applications.
The document discusses the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) in patent law. It defines direct and indirect infringement and explains the triple identity test used to determine equivalency. It provides examples of how DOE has been applied in cases involving welding fluxes, piston devices, pharmaceutical compounds, and preservatives. It also briefly discusses how DOE is applied in other countries like Europe, France, and Japan.
The document discusses the history and evolution of patent law in India from 1856 to the present. Key developments include the first patent legislation in 1856, amendments in 1857 and 1859, consolidation of laws in 1888, establishment of the Controller of Patents in 1911, recommendations of committees in 1949 and 1957 that led to the Patents Act of 1970, and India's adoption of international treaties and organizations related to intellectual property including TRIPS in 1994.
This document provides an overview of the case of Natco Pharma Ltd. vs Bayer regarding the granting of the first ever compulsory license for a pharmaceutical patent in India. It discusses the key considerations and timeline of the case, including Natco's application for a compulsory license to produce the cancer drug Nexavar at an affordable price after Bayer refused to provide a voluntary license or lower the price. The document summarizes the Indian Patent Act provisions for compulsory licensing and the IPAB verdict upholding the license grant with a slightly increased royalty rate for Natco. It also outlines some of the effects on access to medicines and potential solutions.
The document discusses the Indian Patent Act of 1970, which governs the granting of patents in India and provides intellectual property protections for inventions. Key aspects covered include the requirements for an invention to be patentable, the types of patents granted, procedures for obtaining and renewing a patent, rights of a patentee, and exclusions from patentability. The patent system aims to reward inventors while ensuring availability of inventions for public use.
Now that the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) and the
European Patent Office (EPO) have adopted and migrated to the new Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) System, professional patent searchers as well as private inventors have a new power tool for accessing patent information world-wide. Bob Craig, a former USPTO Patent Examiner and International Classifier Rapporteur, has unique knowledge and insight about the CPC and will be sharing his thoughts on the new System at the October 3, 2015 meeting.
Calculating Sec. 154 Patent Term Adjustmentswardjohn1346
This document summarizes patent term adjustment calculations under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) for determining extensions or adjustments to a patent term due to delays by the USPTO. It covers eligibility requirements, grounds for adjustments and reductions, procedures for requesting corrections, and examples of calculations including adjustments for USPTO delays and reductions for applicant delays. The document also discusses pre-grant and post-grant procedures for correcting patent term adjustment determinations.
The document discusses strategies for coordinating pre-grant and post-grant patent oppositions between the US and European patent systems. It outlines the differences between pre-grant opposition procedures, including third party observations, as well as post-grant procedures such as post-grant review and inter partes review. The document advises that if an application is filed in both the US and Europe, it may be better to initiate a pre-grant opposition in the US first to invoke discovery for prior art, before pursuing a post-grant opposition in Europe.
This document provides an overview of various algorithms for classification in natural language processing. It begins with an introduction to binary classification and examples such as spam filtering. It then discusses linear classification algorithms like Perceptron, Winnow, and Support Vector Machines (SVMs). Next, it covers multi-class classification and algorithms for this task including decision trees, Naive Bayes, and k-nearest neighbors. The document also introduces kernel methods for handling non-linear classification problems. Finally, it provides more details on decision trees, Naive Bayes, and their application to text classification problems.
This document discusses statistical concepts such as descriptive and inferential statistics, types of data, and properties of the normal distribution. It provides examples of how to calculate standardized scores (z-values) and probabilities using the normal distribution. Specifically, it shows how to find the probability of a student's test score falling within or exceeding certain ranges given the mean and standard deviation of scores from a sample of 120 students. Formulas and steps are outlined for standardizing values and determining the corresponding areas under the normal curve to obtain probabilities.
This document provides an overview of patent searching, including what patents are, the patent classification system, and a 7-step process for conducting a preliminary patent search. Key points include:
- Patents protect inventions and designs for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure.
- The US classification system organizes patents by characteristics and relationships. It is recommended for searching prior art.
- The 7 steps include: describing the invention, finding classifications, reviewing class definitions, searching patent databases, analyzing search results, and reviewing cited references.
- Databases like PatFT and AppFT can be searched by classification to find prior patents and applications. Claims, drawings and other details should be reviewed.
https://telecombcn-dl.github.io/2017-dlsl/
Winter School on Deep Learning for Speech and Language. UPC BarcelonaTech ETSETB TelecomBCN.
The aim of this course is to train students in methods of deep learning for speech and language. Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) will be presented and analyzed in detail to understand the potential of these state of the art tools for time series processing. Engineering tips and scalability issues will be addressed to solve tasks such as machine translation, speech recognition, speech synthesis or question answering. Hands-on sessions will provide development skills so that attendees can become competent in contemporary data anlytics tools.
The document discusses Patent Ductus Arteriosus (PDA), which is the persistence of the ductus arteriosus in newborns beyond the normal closure period of 3-5 days. It affects 5-10% of congenital heart defects and is more common in preterm infants. A PDA causes increased blood flow from the aorta to the pulmonary artery, overloading the lungs and right ventricle. Signs include a machinery murmur and enlarged heart. Treatment involves medical closure with indomethacin in preterm infants or surgical ligation of large defects.
The document provides information about multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) and backpropagation. It begins with definitions of perceptrons and MLP architecture. It then describes backpropagation, including the backpropagation training algorithm and cycle. Examples are provided, such as using an MLP to solve the exclusive OR (XOR) problem. Applications of backpropagation neural networks and options like momentum, batch vs sequential training, and adaptive learning rates are also discussed.
1. A perceptron is a basic artificial neural network that can learn linearly separable patterns. It takes weighted inputs, applies an activation function, and outputs a single binary value.
2. Multilayer perceptrons can learn non-linear patterns by using multiple layers of perceptrons with weighted connections between them. They were developed to overcome limitations of single-layer perceptrons.
3. Perceptrons are trained using an error-correction learning rule called the delta rule or the least mean squares algorithm. Weights are adjusted to minimize the error between the actual and target outputs.
Demonstration of a z transformation of a normal distributionkkong
The document demonstrates how to transform a normal distribution with a mean of 10 and standard deviation of 2 into a standard normal distribution with a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1 using the z-transformation formula. It shows that the z-transformation shifts and compresses the original distribution allowing its probabilities to be determined using standard normal distribution tables. As an example, it finds the probability of a value less than or equal to 8 in the original distribution to be 15.9% by transforming it to the equivalent value of -1 in the standard normal distribution.
1) The document discusses the characteristics and properties of the normal distribution, including that it is bell-shaped and symmetrical about the mean.
2) It defines z-values as a way to standardize normal distributions by transforming data values into standard scores based on the mean and standard deviation.
3) Examples are provided to demonstrate calculating probabilities using the standard normal distribution, such as finding the percentage of observations that fall within a certain number of standard deviations from the mean.
Normal distribution and sampling distributionMridul Arora
This document provides an overview of Chapter 5 from the textbook, which covers normal probability distributions. Section 5.1 introduces normal distributions and the standard normal distribution, including their key properties and how to interpret related graphs. It describes how any normal distribution can be transformed into a standard normal distribution for calculation purposes. Section 5.1 also shows how to find areas under the standard normal curve using the standard normal table. Section 5.2 discusses how to calculate probabilities for normally distributed variables by relating them to areas under the normal curve. It provides examples of finding probabilities and expected values.
Mr. Prem Patil prepared this document on patents under the guidance of Mrs. Swati Gupta at Apeejay Stya University in Sohna. The document discusses intellectual property rights including patents, designs, trademarks, and copyright. It defines what constitutes an invention and provides an overview of the history of patents. The stages to obtain a patent including filing, examination, grant or withdrawal are outlined. The document also discusses who benefits from patents, the rights they provide, and the importance and limitations of patent information.
The document discusses the normal distribution and its key properties: bell-shaped and symmetrical around the mean, extending from negative to positive infinity with an area under the curve of 1. Approximately 95% and 99.9% of the distribution lies within 2 and 3 standard deviations of the mean, respectively. It also discusses how to calculate probabilities using the standard normal distribution where the mean is 0 and standard deviation is 1, and how to standardize other normal distributions.
The document discusses various third-party challenges to patents and patent applications that can be filed with the USPTO, including inter partes review (IPR), post grant review (PGR), covered business method patent review (CBM), preissuance submissions, and derivation proceedings. It provides details on the standards for instituting each proceeding, who can file, applicable grounds, timing requirements, procedures, and differences between the proceedings. USPTO fees for IPR are around $25k with typical total costs to completion of $350k-$700k. The overall success rate of IPRs is very high for petitioners, with around 85% of petitions granted and 60% of all claims found unpatent
America Invents Act: Recent Changes to US Patent Law and PracticeGary M. Myles, Ph.D.
The document summarizes changes brought by the America Invents Act to U.S. patent law and practice. Some key changes include transitioning from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to-file system, expanding the definition of prior art, creating new post-grant review proceedings like post-grant review and inter partes review, expanding prior user rights, and changing treatment of errors in inventorship. The changes aim to harmonize the U.S. system with other countries and improve patent quality and challenge procedures.
The presentation discusses different techniques for using US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) invalidity proceedings to invalidate issued patents. The presentation specifically discusses the new procedures available under the America Invents Act (AIA). Topics include Post-Grant Review (PGR) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) and cover business method review (CBM) programs. Deadlines as well as specific scheduling orders for these programs are discussed as well as how best to use the new programs at the USPTO.
Five major differences between IPRs and invalidation proceedingsAlexandraPuYang
Alexandra Yang of Fangda Partners examines the differences and similarities between IPRs in the U.S. and invalidation proceedings before the CNIPA to give U.S. practitioners and clients a clear picture of the patent invalidation proceedings in China.
The Leahy-Smith American Invents Act: More Complicated than 3D Chess?Patterson Thuente IP
American Invents Act (AIA).
Changes.
Proceedings.
Art.
How Long Will it Take to Cut Over to AIA?
How Much Will it Take to Get Up to Speed on the AIA?
First-to-File with Grace (FTFG).
Tips & Pointers for Transition.
What's Next?
American Invents Act (AIA) Overview.
AIA Transitions.
Changes.
Post Issuance Proceedings.
What You Need For a Patent.
Comparisons.
First Inventor to File with Grace (FTFG).
Prosecution Under FTFG.
Inter Partes Review (IPR) - A Brief UnderstandingsManoj Prajapati
An Inter Partes Review (IPR) is, Mini trial on Patent Validity before a panel of Patent Experts, Patent trial and Appeal Board, for challenging the validity of a United States patent on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, and on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Became effective on 16 September 2012 and emerging as a revolutionary tool in the field of Innovation.
This is a presentation on Patents and Designs delivered to the Cowichan Valley Bar Association - providing information corporate lawyers should know in order to advise their clients.
The document summarizes two key patent prosecution topics:
1) A recent court case established that for an application to claim priority, each intermediate application in the priority chain must explicitly refer to the prior application, not just a "reasonable understanding."
2) The calculation of Patent Term Adjustment is explained in detail, including that any time consumed by a Request for Continued Examination is subtracted regardless of when filed, and that the B term period can restart after a Notice of Allowance. A recent court case confirmed this interpretation.
The document discusses how the implementation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Uruguay Round legislation 20 years ago changed U.S. patent law and practice in several important ways. It overhauled patent term calculation from being 17 years from grant date to 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. This eliminated the strategy of stalling prosecution or filing continual continuations to extend patent term indefinitely. The legislation also introduced provisional patent applications, allowing inventors up to a year to further develop their invention before filing a non-provisional application. While much has changed since GATT, some patents filed prior to 1995 remain in effect today due to the transitional measures included in the legislation.
The document discusses the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in India. Key points:
- IPAB was established under Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act of 1999 to hear appeals on decisions of the Registrar regarding trademarks, geographical indications, patents, and more.
- It is headquartered in Chennai and has branches in major cities across India.
- IPAB comprises a Chairman, Vice Chairman, and technical members who hear appeals on registration, removal of trademarks/agents, and other IP matters. All appeals previously filed in High Courts are now transferred to IPAB.
The document summarizes India's patent system. It outlines that intellectual property rights allow creators of intellectual property to prevent others from commercially exploiting it for a given period. India's patent system is governed by acts like the Patent Act of 1970. To be patentable, an invention must be novel, involve an inventive step, and be capable of industrial application. The stages of obtaining a patent in India include filing, formality check, publication, examination, response from applicant, and potential pre-grant opposition. If objections are overcome, a patent certificate is granted. Renewal fees must be paid to keep the patent in force for its full term.
The document discusses the Indian patent system and amendments to the Indian Patent Act. It provides information on intellectual property rights in India, the types of patents, requirements for patentability, the patent application process, and key amendments to the Indian Patent Act in 2002 and 2005. The summary is as follows:
The document discusses the Indian patent system, including the types of patents, requirements for patentability, and stages of the patent application process from filing to grant of a patent. It also outlines key amendments made to the Indian Patent Act in 2002 and 2005, including hastening the patent grant process, provisions related to pre-grant and post-grant opposition, and inclusion of product patents in all fields.
This document summarizes the key differences between the three main post-grant review procedures available at the USPTO: Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method (CBM) review. It outlines who can file each type of petition, the applicable validity grounds and standards, estoppel effects, and timelines. The document also provides an overview of the IPR process, including strategies for petitioners and patent owners, and considerations regarding expert testimony, motions to stay litigation, and evaluating claims to challenge.
Recent developments have increased the authority and discretion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in patent validity disputes. Join the co-chairs of our PTAB Litigation practice group for a practical discussion of how patent owners and petitioners can take advantage of these developments to increase success at the PTAB. Topics will include:
· The standard for proving that printed publications are prior art;
· The PTAB's increasing discretion to institute or deny petitions; and
· Significant Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions
The document summarizes highlights from the second year of post-issuance proceedings administered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). It discusses several notable cases from 2014 related to inter partes review, covered business method review, and post-grant review. Specifically, it discusses how the Federal Circuit addressed the appealability of PTAB decisions on petitions and clarified that only final written decisions can be appealed. It also summarizes trends in petitions filed and issues considered in the second year of these new proceedings introduced by the America Invents Act.
The document summarizes key aspects of the US Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). The MPEP describes US patent laws and regulations for prosecuting patent applications. It has 28 chapters covering topics like application filing procedures, patentability requirements, examination process, and post-grant procedures like appeals, corrections, and maintenance fees. The document provides an overview of several MPEP chapters, outlining procedures and guidelines for inventors and patent practitioners.
"Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA)," The Ohio State Bar AssociationDinsmore & Shohl LLP
The America Invents Act (AIA) enacted the most significant changes to U.S. patent law in over 60 years. It transitions the U.S. to a first-inventor-to-file system to harmonize with global practices. New post-grant review procedures allow third parties to challenge weak patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The AIA also aims to improve patent quality by expanding the prior commercial use defense and prior art submissions during prosecution. Major changes under the AIA include limiting false patent marking suits and replacing interference proceedings with the new derivation proceeding.
Similar to PRESENTATION ON PATENT TERM ADJUSTMENT (PTA) (20)
Basavarajeeyam is a Sreshta Sangraha grantha (Compiled book ), written by Neelkanta kotturu Basavaraja Virachita. It contains 25 Prakaranas, First 24 Chapters related to Rogas& 25th to Rasadravyas.
Adhd Medication Shortage Uk - trinexpharmacy.comreignlana06
The UK is currently facing a Adhd Medication Shortage Uk, which has left many patients and their families grappling with uncertainty and frustration. ADHD, or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, is a chronic condition that requires consistent medication to manage effectively. This shortage has highlighted the critical role these medications play in the daily lives of those affected by ADHD. Contact : +1 (747) 209 – 3649 E-mail : sales@trinexpharmacy.com
Promoting Wellbeing - Applied Social Psychology - Psychology SuperNotesPsychoTech Services
A proprietary approach developed by bringing together the best of learning theories from Psychology, design principles from the world of visualization, and pedagogical methods from over a decade of training experience, that enables you to: Learn better, faster!
8 Surprising Reasons To Meditate 40 Minutes A Day That Can Change Your Life.pptxHolistified Wellness
We’re talking about Vedic Meditation, a form of meditation that has been around for at least 5,000 years. Back then, the people who lived in the Indus Valley, now known as India and Pakistan, practised meditation as a fundamental part of daily life. This knowledge that has given us yoga and Ayurveda, was known as Veda, hence the name Vedic. And though there are some written records, the practice has been passed down verbally from generation to generation.
Histololgy of Female Reproductive System.pptxAyeshaZaid1
Dive into an in-depth exploration of the histological structure of female reproductive system with this comprehensive lecture. Presented by Dr. Ayesha Irfan, Assistant Professor of Anatomy, this presentation covers the Gross anatomy and functional histology of the female reproductive organs. Ideal for students, educators, and anyone interested in medical science, this lecture provides clear explanations, detailed diagrams, and valuable insights into female reproductive system. Enhance your knowledge and understanding of this essential aspect of human biology.
2. PATENT TERM ADJUSTMENT (PTA) IN US
• HISTORY
• AIM AND OBJECTIVE
• American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA)
• PATENT TERM FLOWCHART
• Baseline” Patent Term Pre-GATT or GATT (17 or
20 years)
• EXAMPLES
• TWO IMPORTANT CASES
• PRE AND POST AIA CORRECTIONS
3. HISTORY
YEAR DESSCRIPTION/ACT TERM
1790 Congress enacted and President Washington signed “An
act to promote the Progress of Useful Arts”
Fixed the term of a patent at 14
years from issue
Patent act of
1836
Permitted term extension of 7 addition years. A total of 21 years
1861 Congress gave all patents a term of 17 years from issue
17 year term remained the law for more than a century
Last 30 years, Congress made Term of a utility patent increasingly complicated in a series of three major
changes to the Patent Act
1984 Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act 1984 (Hatch-Waxman Act)
1995 Congress implemented the Uruguay Round of the GATT,
harmonizing U.S. patent terms with many foreign
jurisdictions. GATT included the Agreement on TRIPS
treaty
Mandated a minimum patent term
of 20 years from the application
date
This change prompted the U.S. Congress to create a system of PTA to compensate patent
holders for certain application-processing delays at the USPTO)
1999 American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) set forth most
of the current rules for Patent Term Adjustment
Changes to Patent Term
Adjustment, both from Congress
and Courts
4. American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA)
• Utility and plant applications filed on or after May 29, 2000
• Provides three (3) bases for adjustment under 35 U.S.C. §
154(b)(1):
– USPTO failure to take certain actions within specified time
frames “A” delay (35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(A))
– USPTO failure to issue a patent within three years of the filing
date under 111(a) or commencement date “B” delay(35 U.S.C.
§ 154(b)(1)(B))
– Delays due to interference, secrecy order, or successful
appellate review “C” delay(35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(C))
• Provides day-for-day adjustment for each failure or delay resulting
in adjustment
5. HOW PATENT TERM ADJUSTMENT IS CALCULATED
• Patent Term Adjustment is calculated based on examiner and applicant
delays during patent prosecution.
• A delay = PTO delays in responding (the patent term would be extended 1
day for each day of Patent Office delay)
• B delay = Pendency after 3 years (the patent term would be extended 1 day
for each day after the 3 year period that the patent is not granted)
• C delay = Delay due to interference, appeal, secrecy orders (the patent term
would be extended 1 day for each day of the proceeding, order or appeal)
• Overlapping delays = Any overlap between A, B, or C delays
• Applicant delay = Applicant’s failure to engage in reasonable efforts to
conclude examination
• PTA = A delay + B delay + C delay - Overlapping delays -
Applicant Delay
6. Failure to take certain actions within specified time frames (14-
4-4-4):
• Failure to initially act on the application within fourteen
(14) months after filing date/commencement (patents
with issue date January 14, 2013 to present). Prior to
January 14, 2013, patents that issued from international
applications measured the start date from date that 35 USC
371(c) requirements were fulfilled.
• Failure to act on a reply or act on an appeal brief within
four (4) months after date the reply or appeal brief is filed
• Failure to act on an application within four (4) months
after a PTAB or court decision if allowable claims remain
in the application
• Failure to issue the patent within four (4) months of the
date the issue fee was paid and all outstanding
requirements were satisfied
7. USPTO failure to issue a patent within three years pendency:
• In an international (PCT) application, “date of
commencement of the national stage under 371” is start date
for the application
• In an application filed under 111(a), the filing date is start
date for the application
• The three-year period does not include time consumed by any
of:
– Continued examination (RCE) under 35 U.S.C. § 132(b)
– Secrecy order, interference, or any appellate review
– Applicant-requested delays
8. • Delays caused by an interference proceeding
(35 U.S.C. § 135(a))
• Delays caused by imposition of a secrecy order
(35 U.S.C. § 181)
• Delays caused by successful appellate review (requires a
PTAB/court decision reversing an adverse patentability
determination)
– all rejections of at least one claim must be reversed
– In some instances, a remand shall be considered a decision
reversing an adverse patentability determination
• These delays are the bases for patent term extension under Public
Law 103-465 (URAA)
9. PATENT TERM FLOWCHART
Determine whether pre-GATT term applies, GATT term applies or both
terms applies
Calculate pre-GATT term (17 years) or GATT terms (20 years) or both
Add Patent term adjustment
Add any terminal disclaimer
Add any Patent term extension
Check for premature termination (Maintenance fees, Judgements etc)
10. “Baseline” Patent Term Pre-GATT or GATT (17 or 20 years)
• The baseline term of a utility patent (or plant patent) is either the pre-GATT 17 year term, or
the GATT 20 year term.
• The determination of which baseline term applies is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 154(c)(1): The
term of a patent that is in force on or that results from an application filed before the date
that is 6 months after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act [i.e.,
June 8, 1995] shall be the greater of the 20 year term as provided in subsection (a) [i.e., the
GATT term], or 17 years from grant, subject to any terminal disclaimers.
11. WHEN AN APPLICATION
FILED BEFORE JUNE 8, 1995,
SPENDS LONG PERIODS IN
PROSECUTION BEFORE
ISSUANCE
•Patent Application 06/316,203 was
filed on October 29, 1981
•Following a 19 year interference,
it issued on March 28, 2006.
For GATT 29.10.1981+20 year=
29.10.2001
Pre-GATT 28.03.2006+17
years=28.03.2023
28.03.2023+1109= 10.04.2026
Patent expiration date
12. EXAMPLE
Example 1(facts)
• Application filed under 111(a) on 5/1/09
• RCE filed on 3/5/13
• Notice of Allowance mailed on 7/1/13
• Patent issues on 10/1/13
• There were no “A” Delays or “C Delays”
• No Applicant delays under 37 CFR 1.704(b) and (c)
13. Example 1 (Calculation)
• Days from filing to issue is (5/1/09 -10/1/13) = 1615
• Days RCE to NOA is (3/5/13 – 7/1/13) = 119
• Days considered as “B” days = 1615-119= 1496
• Overall “B delay” = 1496- 1097 = 399
• Overall PTA = A + B + C- overlap – applicant delay
• PTA = 0 + 399 + 0 – 0 – 0 = 399 days
14. Wyeth and Elan Pharma v. Kappos (as USPTO Director) (Fed. Cir. 2009)
The USPTO's view (shown below): The patentee is entitled to three years of PTA.
Wyeth's view (shown below): the patentee is entitled to four years of PTA
15. DECISION
• Director had taken an incorrect view of how § 154(b)(2) applies when there is
“overlap” between “periods of delay” addressed by the statute.
• Affirmed an order by the District Court for the District of Columbia granting
summary judgment in favor of Wyeth, in which the lower court found that
the USPTO had misconstrued 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(2)(A), and as a result, had denied
Wyeth a portion of the patent term to which it was entitled.
16. NOVARTIS v. LEE CASE (2013-1160, -1179), Decided: January 15, 2014
• Facts:
Between June 2009 and May 2011, Novartis filed four lawsuits in the District Court for the
District of Columbia claiming that, for twenty-three of its patents, the Director had
improperly determined the amount of patent term adjustment
NOVARTIS
•Novartis claimed that the Director’s
determinations of the patent term
adjustment rested on two mistaken
interpretations of § 154(b)(1)(B)(i) as it
applies to an applicant’s request for
continued examination under 35 U.S.C. §
132(b)—a process, authorized by Congress
in 1999, through which an applicant may
try to persuade an examiner to allow an
application after an otherwise-final
rejection.
•Novartis also claimed that denial of the
statutorily authorized term adjustments
constituted a taking of its property in
violation of the Fifth Amendment.
DIRECTOR
1. Director treated time spent in any
continuing examination, no matter when
initiated by the applicant, as not counting
toward the statute’s allotment to the PTO
of three years before adjustment time
begins to accrue
2. Director treated as not counting toward
the three years both the time from
initiation of continued examination to
allowance and, in addition, the time from
allowance to issuance—even though the
latter period is undisputedly counted
toward the three years in a case not
involving a continued examination.
17. Decision of DC: November 15, 2012, the district court dismissed
Novartis’s claims
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: PTO was
partly correct and partly incorrect in its interpretation.
• USPTO on the first point, holding that an RCE limits B delay regardless of when
during prosecution it is filed.
• Court also agreed with Novartis that the time period from allowance to patent
issuance is not part of the "continued examination" process referred to in the statute
and may contribute to the B delay.
FUTURE FROM THIS CASE:
• Patent holders may wish to review their recently issued U.S. patents to identify any
patents that took longer than 3 years to issue and in which RCEs were filed during
prosecution.
• Patent holders may wish to consider whether they are eligible to petition for
additional patent term for those patents in light of the Novartis decision.
• This holding is significant as it would extend the terms of many future patents,
typically by a few days to a few months.
18. PRE AND POST AIA (AIA Technical Corrections Act)
PRE AIA
• Applicants could petition to correct the
preliminary calculation, then petition
after issuance, then file a civil action
POST AIA
• Patentees must petition for a
correction (within 2 months after
issue, extendable).
• Fourteen (14) month PTA period and
the three (3) year PTA period are
measured from the same date: the date
on which an application was filed
under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a) in an
application under 35 U.S.C. § 111; or
the date of commencement of the
national stage under 35 U.S.C. §
371 in an international application.
On May 15, 2014, the USPTO published rules to implement the patent term adjustment (PTA)
provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) and the AIA Technical Corrections Act
19. EXAMPLE FOR DELAY
• January 1, 2008: Foreign national application filing date
• January 1, 2009: International filing date
• July 1, 2011: Declaration filed and 35 U.S.C. § 371(c) met
• November 1, 2012: Restriction
• December 1, 2012: Election
• May 1, 2013: Allowance
• June 1, 2013: Issue fee paid
• November 5, 2013: Issuance
20. • As application was filed on or after June 8, 1995, the 20 year GATT term applies.
• Baseline term expires on January 1, 2029.
• This patent is also eligible for PTA because the application was filed after May 29, 2000.
• The current A delay rules apply because the patent issued after the AIA Technical Corrections
Act became effective on January 14, 2013.
• There is no B delay, C delay, overlap, or applicant delay in this scenario.
• Application entered the U.S. national stage 30 months after its international filing date, on
July 1, 2011.
• Triggered a 14 month guarantee for the Patent Office to reply (i.e., by September 1, 2012.
• A restriction qualifies as a response for purposes of 14 month A delay, the restriction on
November 1, 2012, was delayed by 61 days beyond the 14 month guarantee.
• Applicant‟s election on December 1, 2012 triggered a 4 month guarantee for a reply by the
Patent Office (i.e., by April 1, 2012.
• Allowance from the Patent Office on May 1 was delayed by 30 days beyond the guarantee .
• Payment of the issue fee on June 1, 2013, triggered a guarantee of issuance in 4 months (i.e.,
by October 1, 2013).
• The actual issuance on Tuesday, November 5 was delayed by 35 days beyond the 4 month
guarantee.
SOLUTION
21. • delay is 61 days, plus 30 days, plus 35 days, or 126
days.
• Assuming no other effects, the expiration of this
patent is 126 days after the baseline expiration date,
or May 7, 2029.
• 01.01.2009+20 years+126 days= 07.05.2029
22. PFIZER, INC. v. MICHELLE K. LEE (2015-1265); Decided:
January 22, 2016
• FACTS: On May 2, 2003, Wyeth filed Patent Application No. 10/428,894
(“’894 application”) entitled “Calicheamicin Derivative-Carrier Conjugates,” which
generally claimed a pharmacological method utilized in the treatment of cancer.
• The ’894 application eventually issued as the ’768 patent on April 10, 2012. At the
time of filing, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(3), Wyeth filed an authorization for
the PTO to charge all required fees necessary for it to qualify automatically for all
authorized extensions of time during the pendency of the ’894 application.
• On July 28, 2003, the PTO mailed a Notice to File Missing Parts of Non-
provisional Application.
• Wyeth filed the missing parts of its application on December 8, 2003.
• The statutory deadline for the PTO to issue its first office action expired on July 2,
2004, fourteen (14) months from the date the application was filed.
• On August 5, 2005, having received no office action, Wyeth sent a letter to the PTO
asking when an office action on the merits might be expected.
23. • On August 10, 2005, 404 days after the July 2, 2004 deadline, the PTO mailed a
restriction requirement. A restriction requirement informs the applicant that “two or
more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application,” and that
the applicant is required to elect one of the inventions if the applicant wishes to
continue prosecuting the application.
• The deadline for Wyeth to reply to the restriction requirement was extended
automatically for up to six months based on Wyeth’s previously filed authorization
for extension of time.
• Accordingly, the deadline for Wyeth to respond was February 10, 2006. On
February 6, 2006, Wyeth participated in a telephone interview with the Examiner
and explained that the restriction requirement had omitted claims 75, 76, and 103-
106 from its categorization of the various claims in the application.
• During the interview, the Examiner acknowledged that the restriction
requirement was not complete; he agreed to withdraw it and issue a corrected
restriction requirement.
• The PTO issued a corrected restriction requirement on February 23, 2006, 601
days after the July 2, 2004 deadline. Appellants were given a new deadline to
respond to the corrected restriction requirement, which was also extended
automatically to six months.
• On May 22, 2006, Wyeth filed its response.
24. • PTO delayed the mailing of a separate office action with respect to the
applicants’ Request for Continued Examination (“RCE”).
• The PTO’s delay with respect to the RCE amounted to 280 days of additional A
Delay.
• The propriety of that calculation is not at issue in this appeal. Prosecution of the
’894 application continued until October 11, 2011, when the PTO issued a
Notice of Allowance.
• On April 10, 2012, the ’894 application issued as the ’768 patent, reflecting a
total PTA award of 1291 days, of which 684 days were attributed to A Delay.
• The PTO calculated this A Delay based upon: (1) the issuance of the examiner’s
first restriction requirement on August 10, 2005, 404 days beyond fourteen
months from the date on which Wyeth filed the ’894 application, and (2) the
issuance of the response to Wyeth’s RCE on April 22, 2011, 280 days beyond
four months from the date on which the RCE was filed.
• The PTO did not award A Delay for the 197 days that elapsed between the
issuance of the first restriction requirement and the mailing of the corrected
restriction requirement.
• It is that 197 days which are at issue.
25. CAFC DECISION
• 37 CFR § 1.704 provides that an applicant submitting a deficient paper to
the USPTO reduces available PTA until the deficiency is
corrected. Conversely, the court decided in Pfizer that the USPTO
mailing a deficient paper to the applicant does not accrue PTA (as long
as the paper satisfies the § 132 notice requirement). The court did not
acknowledge this discrepancy between deficient applicant action that
accrues delay versus deficient USPTO action that does not accrue delay.
• For now, in order to help maximize PTA, applicants may be wise to
double check filing papers for any omissions before their submission to
the USPTO and to double check in a timely fashion USPTO actions for
any deficiencies in order to bring them to the USPTO’s attention for
correction as soon as possible.