USPTO New Fee Schedule

By Dennis Crouch

Today the USPTO published its final fee-setting rules under what is being termed the USPTO’s “Section 10 authority” based upon Section 10 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act that provides the USPTO with broad authority to set fees with the major caveat being that the fees as a whole be set to recover the aggregate costs of the Patent Office. The new fees are scheduled to become effective on March 19, 2013. (A few days after the March 16, 2013 critical date for the First-to-File Changes.)

The major changes include:

  • Micro entity 75% reduction for most fees (universities qualify and may want to file provisional applications now and wait to file their non-provisional applications).
  • Total Filing Fees – Up: $1,260 to $1,600.
  • Issue Fees – Down: $1,770 to $960 and $300 publication fee eliminated. (These will not be implemented until January 2014).
  • Maintenance Fees: Up
    • First Fee at 3 ½ years: $1,150 to $1,600.
    • Second Fee at 7 ½ years: $2,900 to $3,600.
    • Third Fee at 11 ½ years: $4,810 to $7,400.
  • Extension-of-time fees up about 10%
  • Claim Fees: Up
    • More than 3 independent claims: $250 to $420 per claim.
    • More than 20 total claims: $62 to $80 per claim.
  • RCE Fees: UP: $930 to $1,200 and new surcharge of $500 for filing a second RCE.
  • Appeals: Slightly Cheaper file an appeal, but a new surcharge of $2,000 for actually forwarding the brief to the PTAB rather than settling the case with the examiner.
  • Ex Parte Reexamination: Down from $17,750 to $12,000, small and micro entity privileges apply.
  • Inter Partes Reviews will cost $23,000 ($14,000 refund if IPR petition is rejected).
  • Post Grant Reviews will cost $30,000 ($18,000 refund if PGR petition is rejected).
  • Derivation Petition remains $400.
  • Assignments: Free if submitted electronically this is down from $40.

More here: https://t.co/GCbHlXN1

Design patent fees are also changing:

  • Total Filing Fees – $530 to $760
  • Issue Fee – Down: $1010 to $560

67 thoughts on “USPTO New Fee Schedule

  1. “I’ve also never had to reopen after an appeal notice has been filed. Just saying.”

    Lulz.

    Let me guess, you’re one of those examiners who in interviews likes to say, “Go ahead and appeal, I’ve never lost.”

    75% of applications in which a pre-appeal request and/or an appeal brief is filed are re-opened. But you’ve never re-opened.

    Right.

    I got some beach front property in Nebraska you might be interested in.

  2. The 75% figure is from Ron Katznelson’s review of applications in which a pre-appeal request and/or appeal brief were filed. The cases where a notice of appeal is filed simply as an extension of time, either to continue negotiating with the examiner or to draft a CIP, do not affect this number. I explained that to Ned above. Not sure what you are still not getting about that.

  3. My read of 35 USC 123 is that part (d) stands apart from part (a), meaning that universities can qualify as micro entities even if the patent or application is licensed to a large entity. Has this been clarified? Probably not the intent, but it is not clear that subpart (4) under part (a) relating to “has not assigned, granted or conveyed” to an entity exceeding the income limit applies to part (d), as other subparts under (a) clearly do not apply to univeristies.

  4. We’re definitely in alignment on this one, anon. Congress will continue to “steaL” from the USPTO fee “piggybank” as long as they can get away with it.

  5. Re: “appeal notices are often filed where the applicant needs more time to draft a CIP to overcome a 112″
    ?? Given the present examinations backlog and the fact that a CIP filed more than 2.5 years after its parent application filing date is thus being filed more than a year after the publication of the parent application, which makes the published 112 deficient parent application 102/103 prior art against such a CIP, I would be amazed that this practice is still “often” and shocked that examiners are not catching this.

  6. I remember that point in the Congressional dialogue – certain members actually refused to commit to not lifting the funds because they wanted to maintain “budgetary control” – notwithstanding the fact that budgetary control was still in place.

    Anyone aware of politics should be able to discern from that exchange that what was really at stake was the ability to fund other government ventures by siphoning the innovation tax.

    It’s funny how certain regulars have never complained about this aspect of the government…

  7. With emphasis on “supposedly,” Jason. All Congress basically did in the AIA (Abominable Inane Act) was “promise” not to “skim” USPTO fees (as they’ve done unabated since 1992 to the tune of around $1 billion or so). I trust that “promise” as far as I can spit.

  8. As best I recall, the AIA act supposedly prohibits this. It should go into a special PTO reserve fund. But there’s going to be a huge surplus unless the PTO needs some $10,000 toilets, examiner training sessions in the bahamas, etc. Inflation isn’t 200%.

    Jason

  9. Dennis,

    Thanks much for promptly posting this final rule on PTO fees. There’s much to digest here and advise our clients about.

  10. It’s actually much higher than you would think. You see it all the time where attorneys clearly have started writing the appeal brief, realize they’re mistaken, and then file the RCE with an amendment and the arguments are as detailed as an appeal brief would be (hinting at what happened). Similarly, appeal notices are often filed where the applicant needs more time to draft a CIP to overcome a 112, 1st paragraph rejection. I’d say over 30% of appeal notices that have hit my docket have ended up with applicants not filing an appeal brief.

    I’ve also never had to reopen after an appeal notice has been filed. Just saying.

  11. IANAE,

    Rest assured, I am posting with a single moniker. I voluntarily did this as a sign of good faith for a better blog. I see that my gesture has not been reciprocated, that the truly offensive blog behavior from you and particular others continues unabated (and apparently with no hint of any consequences from Prof Crouch).

    Hey, it’s his blog, so he can do what he wants. I get that he doesn’t want to act like a policeman, but asking for suggestions for making a higher quality blog and then ignoring the suggestions and abiding by the continued crrp for whatever reason won’t get you the stated quality result. Wishing for better quality but doing nothing about the intellectually dishonest posting habits won’t get you anywhere.

  12. IANAE, every dependent claim is the same thing as an independent claim.  There could be no difference between claim 3 depending from 1 and claim 3 depending from 2, from 1.  i don't know where you are going with this.

    Perhaps they should have a rule not to examine dependent claims.  In such a case, the independent claims are amended and require a new search, the applicant has to pay full price for an RCE anyway.  

    If anything, I simply do not understand the initial discount for dependent claims.

     

  13. “Regarding appeals being filed due to examination problems, in the appeals decided on their merits by the PTAB, over 65 percent result in affirmance of at least some of the rejected claims (see link to uspto.gov). This data demonstrates that the PTAB is affirming a larger percentage of rejected claims than it reverses. The Officebelieves that the affirmance rate would be much lower if there were significant problems with the examination process.”

    What a crock. I recently received an appeal decision classified as “affirmation in part”. 21 of the 24 rejections were reversed. The remaining rejections should also have been reversed, but the board wanted to call it an affirmation in part so they made up a reason to affirm re 1 set of claims. The office calls the 21 wrong claim rejections, not a problem. And its ok that prosecution was delayed 3 years and the applicants had to pay appeal fees and attorney time for the appeal brief and reply brief preparation… not to mention the reply to the subsequent office action …

    AAAArrrrgh!

  14. Is it your position that dependent claims, by there mere existence as dependent claims, are always appropriately restricted?

  15. Simply putting them in independent form should not require an additional fee if they do not require further examination,

    You’re asking the PTO to grant you claims that, had you originally presented them in allowable form, would have incurred the excess claim fees on filing. These fees aren’t “additional”, they’re fees that you managed to defer by structuring your original claim set as:

    1. An old thing.

    2. The old thing of claim 1, further comprising invention 1.

    3. The old thing of claim 1, further comprising invention 2.

    And so on.

    They may not require “further” examination, but they have already required the exact same examination as if they had been originally presented in independent form. That’s what you’re paying for.

    Well, that and poor claim drafting.

  16. IANAE, I gave an extreme example to illustrate the point.  The fees for examination have already been paid.  Simply putting them in independent form should not require an additional fee if they do not require further examination, which is the case when they have been "allowed"  (objected to, to be technically correct).

  17. I understand that, Ned. But the 75% of re-openings come from data that Ron Katznelson obtained from the PTO that only includes cases in which a pre-appeal request and/or an appeal brief is filed. So your practice of using a Notice of Appeal as an extension of time wouldn’t be factored into that data (unless you were including a pre-appeal request with your notice of appeal).

  18. Claims 2-5000, all dependent from 1,

    All dependent directly from 1, right? Because that’s the only way this fact scenario comes to pass. Is that how we’re all drafting dependent claims these days?

    Now to get all approximately 5000 claims issued, you would have to pay excess claims fees for about 5000 independent claims,

    What are the odds that your client managed to disclose five thousand distinct inventions in a single application, none of which can be grouped together in more general terms by a skilled practitioner such as yourself, and all of which he simply has to have in independent form?

    Even if that happens to be the case, it would mean that the examiner has taken it upon himself, in the ten hours or so he has to examine the application, to search five thousand separate inventions and satisfy himself that none of them are found anywhere in the prior art. As if they were independent claims themselves. That’s gotta be worth a couple hundred bucks per claim. Better than a five thousand way restriction.

    but all such claims have already been allowed?

    No, they’ve been objected to. They won’t be allowed until you present them in independent form and pay the necessary fees for so doing.

    I wonder what a petition to the Director might be in order?

    On what grounds?

  19. AAA, I use a notice of appeal at times simply to buy time while we continue to negotiate with the examiner. We never really intend to actually file a brief.

  20. Les, let me understand you.

    Claim 1 not allowed.

    Claims 2-5000, all dependent from 1, are allowed.

    Now to get all approximately 5000 claims issued, you would have to pay excess claims fees for about 5000 independent claims, but all such claims have already been allowed?

    That could add up to be serious money, indeed.

    I tend to agree with your statement. I wonder what a petition to the Director might be in order?

  21. “Almost 50% reversal? Shocking.”
    I know … particularly when the “appeal conferences” filtered out a great many of the really bad ones.

  22. An article on “configured to” language is found here:
    link to allthingspros.blogspot.com

    Since Typhoon Touch came out, the PTAB started reversing a lot of rejections that ignored that language. However, you still have APJ’s producing stuff like this:
    link to dl.dropbox.com
    that completely ignores the holding of Typhoon Touch.

    Interestingly enough, this particular APJ tops this list for highest percentage of affirmances:
    http://www.jianqchyun.com/bpai-stats—art-units/art-unit-2100/judges

    The great discrepency between the affirmance/reversal rates of these APJs lends credence to the notion that some APJs are “team players” and some are not. The APJ for the case above is definitely a “team player.”

  23. “Let’s be clear: I’m talking about the time that is being wasted during 65% of appeals when a claim being appealed by Mr. AppealEverything is found to have been properly rejected.”

    If that ever happens I’ll be sure to let you know.

  24. at least one claim is reversed.

    What about all the rejections where “at least one claim” is objected to? Are we ever happy with those claims? Of course not. Claim 17 is of no value to my client. It’s an insult! He deserves claim 1! But coming from the appeal board, it’s a badge of honor for a job well done. A victory of some kind… starts with P…

  25. What about the nearly 50% of the time when at least one claim is reversed.

    The USPTO likes to phrase “affirmance-in-part,” which is just another way of saying “reversal-in-part.”

  26. If you combine reversals and affirmances-in-part, for FY2012, you get 46.9% of appeals in which at least one claim was reversed. This is from a group (the PTAB) that has an institutionl bias to “support their own.”

    You’re not kidding that it’s hardly an endorsement of the quality of work coming out of the PTO. Almost 50% reversal? Shocking. These guys aren’t even good at being unreasonable and having an institutional bias.

  27. “Appeal decisions aren’t mass produced”

    haha … that’s a good one. I’ll remember that one they next time at a bar with my friends.

  28. “I’ve seen such rejections. But I very very rarely needed to appeal them. It never got that far. Why would I let that happen?”

    MM’s dream world where all the Examiner’s are knowledgeable and reasonable. Where is this magical art unit in which you are practicing?

    “One likely reason is that the pre-appeal request or appeal brief clarified the applicants’ claims (or appeared to) and mooted the rejection (or appeared to).”
    Clarified the claims? You mean that the Examiner decided to re-read (or closely read for the first time) the arguments presented in response to the non-final office action (whereas previously, the Examiner wrote “Applicant’s arguments have been considered but deemed non-persuasive” and sent it out with a final office action”).

    “More specifically, the people at the PTO are human beings faced with tackling an unprecedented onslaught of incredible horses–t brought to them by lawyers who are paid a lot of money to make their jobs as challenging as possible”
    boo hoo … it always comes back to horse—t patent applications with you? They are the bane of the USPTO and your existence … except, of course, your patent applications which fly through with no problems and smelling like a rose. If horse—t patent applications cause the problem of overworked examiners, how come none of those overworked examiners have ever worked on your applications?

    Try to keep your BS consistent.

  29. “Some portion of those are reopened (or abandoned) by applicants who say oops.”

    A small percentage. As a client, once you’ve paid both the USPTO fees to file the appeal and your attorney fees to draft the appeal, you are committed.

  30. Whose time is wasted by an appeal?

    Let’s be clear: I’m talking about the time that is being wasted during 65% of appeals when a claim being appealed by Mr. AppealEverything is found to have been properly rejected.

    Whose time is being wasted? The time of the other applicants who don’t “appeal everything” and who aren’t NPE/troll wannabes throwing TP at the bathroom wall to see what sticks. There’s other people in line, you know, and a finite amount of examiners. But you know this already. That’s key to your strategy.

  31. “This data demonstrates that the PTAB is affirming a larger percentage of rejected claims than it reverses.”

    If you combine reversals and affirmances-in-part, for FY2012, you get 46.9% of appeals in which at least one claim was reversed. This is from a group (the PTAB) that has an institutionl bias to “support their own.”

    This is hardly an endorsement of the quality of the work coming out of the USPTO bearing in mind that a very large percentage of appeals get withdrawn by the USPTO before even making it to the PTAB.

    This doesn’t even take into account that many clients simply will not appeal for any reason no matter how bad the rejection.

  32. Doesn’t that fly in the face of economies of scale?

    What economies of scale? Appeal decisions aren’t mass produced, they’re individually produced in quantity.

  33. “The Office likewise estimates that only one-third of applicants who appeal final rejections will pay the additional $2,000 appeal forwarding fee”

    Only one-third of appeals will get forwarded to the PTAB? What about the other two-thirds? The USPTO goes “ooops, our mistake”?

  34. I’m 100% certain in the dozens of appeals that I’ve filed since the start of the pre-appeal brief program, that in the instances in which prosecution was re-opened it was because the rejections were slam dunk reversals.

    I’ve seen such rejections. But I very very rarely needed to appeal them. It never got that far. Why would I let that happen?

    You got another explanation for why, after applicants file a pre-appeal request pointing out the errors in the OA, or an appeal brief, the PTO would decide to re-open?

    Sure. One likely reason is that the pre-appeal request or appeal brief clarified the applicants’ claims (or appeared to) and mooted the rejection (or appeared to). But as anyone who has reviewed the file histories of some truly c–ppy patents knows, the PTO often manages to screw that up by not requiring the applicant to amend the claims accordingly.

    Look, I’m not denying that the PTO makes mistakes. Of course they do. They’re human beings. More specifically, the people at the PTO are human beings faced with tackling an unprecedented onslaught of incredible horses–t brought to them by lawyers who are paid a lot of money to make their jobs as challenging as possible.

  35. “Appeal everything. Waste everyone’s time.”

    This is one of your stupider and more frequent comments. Whose time is wasted by an appeal? What time is wasted by an appeal?

  36. “Regarding appeals being filed due to examination problems, in the appeals decided on their merits by the PTAB, over 65 percent result in affirmance of at least some of the rejected claims”

    And if the examiners/SPE’s/TC Directors weren’t allowed to cherry pick which appeals went to the Board (i.e. re-open to avoid getting reversed), this number would drop to probably about 15%.

  37. If the cost reflects the cost of providing the service, then how would reducing appeals lower the cost per appeal?

    Doesn’t that fly in the face of economies of scale?

  38. “Also, if an applicant files a response to a final rejection within two months of the date of the final rejection, the shortened statutory period will expire at three months from the date of the final rejection or on the date the advisory action is mailed, whichever is later, thus minimizing the need for any extensions.”

    This has always struck me as pointless, and needlessly confusing. How exactly do you receive, docket, and respond to an Advisory Action the day that it is mailed? Why not just make the period the 3 month date? If you don’t get it by then, then you need to file the RCE anyway to avoid the compounding fees.

  39. Many times, it’s the first time the attorney has really looked at the details of the case. Amazingly, it seems that bad or disinterested attorneys [[are]] appeal[[ed]] more than good, engaged attorneys. I wonder if those two points are intertwined somehow.

    Still just as true.

    “Anyone who says that they’re great at communicating but ‘people are bad at listening’ is confused about how communication works.”

  40. The Office estimates that about two-thirds of applicants who appeal final rejections will pay only the $800 (large entity) notice of appeal fee, which is less than would be paid in the same situation under the current fee structure ($1,260 for large entities). The Office likewise estimates that only one-third of applicants who appeal final rejections will pay the additional $2,000 appeal forwarding fee, which, in total with the notice of appeal fees ($800 plus $2,000 equals $2,800), is 43 percent less than the average historical cost of providing appeal services ($4,922).

    Of course the people who are complaining are the people who appeal everything as a matter of habit because that strategy “works for them.” Even when their fees are lowered, they still complain!

    Regarding appeals being filed due to examination problems, in the appeals decided on their merits by the PTAB, over 65 percent result in affirmance of at least some of the rejected claims

    Appeal everything. Waste everyone’s time. Pay up. Seems like the PTO is striking a fair balance. Of course, if the “appeal everything” folks stopped appealing everything, then maybe the fees could be reduced even further for everybody else.

  41. You got another explanation for why, after applicants file a pre-appeal request pointing out the errors in the OA, or an appeal brief, the PTO would decide to re-open? I’d be fascinated to hear it.

    To answer your question: Yes, I really do believe that’s the only explanation. I’m 100% certain in the dozens of appeals that I’ve filed since the start of the pre-appeal brief program, that in the instances in which prosecution was re-opened it was because the rejections were slam dunk reversals.

  42. As someone who has 75% of his appeals re-opened and allowed… yes.

    Many times, it’s the first time the examiner has really looked at the details of the case. Amazingly, it seems that bad or disinterested examiners are appealed more than good, engaged examienrs. I wonder if those two points are intertwined somehow.

  43. 75% of the cases in which a pre-appeal request or an appeal brief gets filed are re-opened by the PTO? Why? Because the rejections s#ck

    Do you really believe that’s the only explanation?

  44. “The Officebelieves that the affirmance rate would be much lower if there were significant problems with the examination process.”

    75% of the cases in which a pre-appeal request or an appeal brief gets filed are re-opened by the PTO? Why? Because the rejections s#ck and they would be reversed. So the affirmance rate would be much lower if those cases were actually forwarded to the Board. Former Chief APJ Fleming said the exact same thing at a conference at the PTO in April, 2010.

  45. From the Explanation of the Rules:

    The Office appreciates the PPAC’s support for eliminating the fee for submitting an appeal brief. Also, the Office is implementing the PPAC’s recommendation for lowering the Notice of Appeal fee in this final rule. The Office is lowering the fee for a Notice of Appeal to $800 (large entity) from the $1,000 (large entity) proposed in the NPRM and the Office will leave the fee for forwarding an appeal to the PTAB at the originally proposed $2,000 (large entity). Given the high cost to the Office of the appeals process, the fee adjustments are necessary to decrease the gap between cost of the appeal service and fee in order to improve the financial sustainability of the Office. As appeals are sometimes necessary due to differences of opinion between an applicant and the examiner, the Office has coupled the higher fees with a new staged fee structure to ease the cost impact on applicants when prosecution is reopened following submission of the appeal brief. The Office estimates that about two-thirds of applicants who appeal final rejections will pay only the $800 (large entity) notice of appeal fee, which is less than would be paid in the same situation under the current fee structure ($1,260 for large entities). The Office likewise estimates that only one-third of applicants who appeal final rejections will pay the additional $2,000 appeal forwarding fee, which, in total with the notice of appeal fees ($800 plus $2,000 equals $2,800), is 43 percent less than the average historical cost of providing appeal services ($4,922). The Office recognizes that total fees to receive an appeal decision from the PTAB will more than double. However, the Office estimates that less than 5 percent of applicants who receive final rejections will be paying both the notice of appeal and the appeal forwarding fee.
    Regarding appeals being filed due to examination problems, in the appeals decided on their merits by the PTAB, over 65 percent result in affirmance of at least some of the rejected claims (see link to uspto.gov). This data demonstrates that the PTAB is affirming a larger percentage of rejected claims than it reverses. The Officebelieves that the affirmance rate would be much lower if there were significant problems with the examination process.
    Likewise, Office data shows there is not a large problem with the timely treatment of an after final submission. During FY 2012, after final amendments were acted upon by the Office in an average of 8.8 days, and only 4.6 percent took over four weeks to be addressed. In fact, 60 percent of after final amendments were addressed within one week. Also, if an applicant files a response to a final rejection within two months of the date of the final rejection, the shortened statutory period will expire at three months from the date of the final rejection or on the date the advisory action is mailed, whichever is later, thus minimizing the need for any extensions.

  46. The Board takes jurisdiction automatically after the filing of a reply brief or the expiration of the two month non-extendible period for filing a reply brief. Where’s the skill or labor required for that?

    No fees should be due until the appeal number is assigned.

  47. There should not be any fee for an appeal until the Board actually takes jurisdiction.

    Because determining whether jurisdiction should be taken requires no skill or labor.

  48. when the independent claim is allowable but is being rejected anyway,

    Alas, the eternal plight of the awesome patent agent.

    I’m willing to sacrifice the difference to save the cost of appeal?

    Then you’re clearly making a business decision for a client who has more important concerns than absolutely maximizing his claim scope, and you should consider maybe taking the three most important claims and rewriting the other sixteen to depend from one of them.

    Isn’t that just the sort of handy business advice your client thinks he’s paying you for?

  49. Glance through the MPEP. Dependent claims are to be examined. That work is covered by the filing, search and examination fees.

  50. Who should reap the benefit of all those dependent claims, examinations of which are being paid for but which are never examined because they depend from allowed independents?

  51. And when the independent claim is allowable but is being rejected anyway, but the 19 dependents are recognized as being allowable and I’m willing to sacrifice the difference to save the cost of appeal? You want to encourage me to appeal to save the difference between the appeal fees and the $420 x 17 you think is fair to charge me in excess claim fees?

  52. That appeal fee is highway robbery. The entirety should be refunded upon the examiner withdrawing the rejecting or the rejection being overturned.

  53. The claim has already been examined.

    Yes, it’s been examined sufficiently for the PTO to say “hey, we charged you for a dependent claim, but actually it cost us as much to examine as an independent claim, so we’re going to have to charge you more.”

    Just like when your client asks you to do something that sounds simple at first, but it takes you three days, you bill him more.

    The only difference is that the PTO gives you the choice to pay or not. They’ve done all the work already, but how many of the allowable claims you’re incapable of subsuming within a single claimable inventive concept is entirely up to you.

    Accordingly, your assertion that they are the same is clearly specious.

    Actually, my assertion is the exact opposite of that.

    Claims that are separately patentable cost more. When you file a set of 3/20 claims, you’re expecting (hoping?) the examiner will allow the independent claims, and he’ll hardly spend any time at all on the dependent claims because they depend from an allowable claim. So he spends “more” time on three claims and “less” time on 17 claims. That’s included with your filing fees.

    Suppose your independent claims are rejected. Every claim that depends directly from claim 1 suddenly costs “more”, because the examiner has to go searching for all those features too.

    If it turns out you have seven different patentable inventions in claims 2-8, and you want to rewrite them each in a separate independent claim, why should you get a discount simply because they originally depended from an invalid claim 1 that you’re not getting? Had you originally filed them as seven independent claims, you’d have no problem paying the exact same money for the exact same examination of the exact same claims. So what’s the real issue here?

    You should be happy that the examiner is letting you rewrite claims 2-8 as independent, charging you claim fees, and mailing a Notice of Allowance – instead of giving you a restriction requirement.

  54. No. It would be criminal to charge me a second time for the Filet because I place it between two slices of bread that came with my meal.

    The claim has already been examined. If you are saying all claims, should from the outset cost the same, whether they are independent or not, that position might be worthy of exploration. In that case we could all draft 20 independent claims from the outset.

    But the Office prefers the independent/ dependent format. The Office must prefer it for a reason. Accordingly, your assertion that they are the same is clearly specious.

  55. It is criminal

    It’s criminal for this restaurant to charge me for food that it’s already cooked and I’ve already eaten. After all, it’s a sunk cost for them by this point. Right?

    Maybe they could make you happier by refusing to indicate allowable dependent claims until you paid $420 per claim up front. Because then you’d be getting more value for your money, right?

    Indicating a claim as separately allowable is the same amount of work for the examiner, whether or not it was originally written in independent form. Either pay the fee, or draft an allowable generic claim.

  56. It is criminal to charge excess independent claim fees for already examined dependent claims being placed in independent form.

Comments are closed.