USPTO Proposed Fee Changes

The USPTO has issued a set of proposed fee changes with public comments due September 30, 2019 (fee.setting@uspto.gov). Basically, all of the fees are going up by around 5-10% with a few much higher.

Major proposed new fees:

  • New Fee: Non-DOCX Application Filing Surcharge Fee of $400
  • New Fee: Annual Fee for Patent Practitioner

Significant Fee Adjustments:

  • Late maintenance fee payment – $500 up from $160.
  • Expedited Design Patent Examination – $2,000 up from $900.
  • Utility Filing + Search + Examination Fees – $1,720 up 6% from $1620
  • Utility Issue Fee – $1,200 up 20% from $1,000.
  • First Maintenance Fee – $2,000 up 24% from $1,600.
  • Provisional Application Fee – $300 up from $280.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/31/2019-15727/setting-and-adjusting-patent-fees-during-fiscal-year-2020

154 thoughts on “USPTO Proposed Fee Changes

  1. 12

    I love the fact that my pal Shifty is still trying.

    It would be better though if he were to put his new threads “at the top” instead of nesting them well beyond the numerical system for replies.

  2. 11

    In trying to play another “gotcha” game, our shifting historical pseudonym friend has inadvertently stumbled upon another problem with the package for increased fees.

    That is: expected filings were not met in volume.

    Shifty does not include whether or not this trend impacts the future expected filings.

    One may be interested in knowing that the USPTO price model is a “zero-profit” model.

    That model then appears to drive price increases for services dwindling in demand.

    This may accentuate a “death spiral” — and certainly should draw the attention of the Office of Management and Budget (and various bureaucratic cost rules and impact analysis)

    As Shifty is clearly of the Examiner Corp, he may be seeing these ramifications in a more personal manner.

    (Shifty, note how a new topic as a sub-thread is formed by posting at top)

  3. 10

    Well down below, our shifting historical-pseudonym friend ventures into a completely different subject with:

    As a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and a party to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual-Property Rights (TRIPS), the United States is obligated to provide trade secret protection.

    Did you want to flesh that out? You are aware perhaps that it has only been recently that the US (on a Federal level) has had a law on the books “protecting trade secrets,” eh? (one that does not pre-empt the longstanding arena of Trade Secret protection: State laws)

  4. 9

    As to DOCX, read Carl Oppedahl’s comment:

    link to uspto.gov

    The USPTO’s IT infrastructure is a patchwork, lacking consistency in formats and sewn together of multiple standards and NON-standards, as well as proprietary goop. Some pdf viewers don’t work. The USPTO is too closely aligned with monopolies, like who has a special API?

    The EPO’s IT is streamlined and head-n-shoulders above that of the USPTO. Just do a little programming and you will see.

    The USPTO needs to re-think its IT and be world class, rather than world crash – every week I see significant glitches. I email EBC, but they are limited.

    The USPTO is not ready for DOCX, but who cares, the monopolies want to force it down users’ throats to make the process more difficult and costly.

  5. 8

    Please review numbers:

    Utility Filing + Search + Examination Fees – $1,720 up 6% from $1620

    Unless I’m missing something, the current is $1,720 and the increase is $1,820.

  6. 7

    I think that this pending PTO rule proposal there should be a real concern among patent attorneys and agents who do not keep up with changes like this. Specifically, the likely new required annual fee for maintaining their PTO patent practice registrations.
    In my prior experiences, quite a few patent attorneys did not even promptly provide the PTO OED with their current mailing address when they moved. Their former firm or company may well not forward to them PTO OED warning letters that they will no longer be registered to practice patent matters in the PTO due to missing their annual fee payment, even IF the OED does try to warn them. They might continue to file papers in the PTO after having been removed from the Roster.

  7. 6

    Assuming “we’re going to party like it’s 2009” (last time specific practitioner retention fee came up), will the fee be $168, today’s value of the previously-proposed $118 fee?

    More fundamentally, where in the patent laws is there an authorization for this agency to make up brand new fees out of the blue (practitioner fees, anti-pdf fees)?

    As opposed to what does seem to be authorized by law, e.g., bumping existing fees upward to cover projected costs?

    Kind of an aside, but please hep a non-IT feller out if you will – why are PDFs bad? Harder on the publications section than docx?

    1. 6.1

      Note to self; read comments bottom up first. Looks like DB’s already covered what I asked.

    2. 6.2

      As far as I can tell, PDFs don’t inherently store the text–sometimes the PDF is just an image of the document, meaning to extract the text an OCR process must be applied. Since the OCR isn’t perfect, it causes problems for the publication and the examiners

      1. 6.2.1

        fair points.

  8. 5

    ◾New Fee: Non-DOCX Application Filing Surcharge Fee of $400
    ◾New Fee: Annual Fee for Patent Practitioner

    The first of these is more like a “whip” to encourage particular behaviors. These need to be set high. I don’t have a problem with that sort of thing.

    The second fee is … odd. Beyond paying to maintain the list of practitioners and enter the name in the PTO’s database, what is the money going towards exactly? And why “annual”? How about a one time only payment? Or once every five years? Why introduce more transactions than necessary?

    As stated before, my preference would be for the PTO to start ratcheting excess claim fees up a lot higher and put some limits (or pressure) on the number of patent applications being filed and owned by single entities (including their subsidiaries). In other words, at a certain point, tax the most prolific users of the system and put an effective lid on the amount of patent IP that a single entity can control. The goal would be to increase competition in whatever fields are “carved out” by a particular entity, and to diminish the likelihood of an entity — particularly a non-practicing entity — from having too much control over any area of scientific/technical endeavor.

    1. 5.1

      If you want to increase competition (in a meaningful manner), do NOT attempt to cap out innovation protection.

      That and the abject
      F
      A
      I
      L
      that you exhibit in understanding how administrative agencies are supposed to work in our system of government merely represent more of your (in)famous cognitive dissonance.

      Maybe try reading what Dave Boundy linked to…

      1. 5.1.1

        “If you want to increase competition, do not limit government granted monopoly powers in any way.”

        Funny stuff. And coming from a glibertarian! Better yet.

        1. 5.1.1.1

          Your “one-bucketing” is noted.

          Try thinking first (and recognizing that first and foremost, I have always been PRO-innovation protection).

          Supposedly, you serve clients wanting a strong pro-innovation protection set of laws (hence the notes as to your cognitive dissonance).

          1. 5.1.1.1.1

            I’m not “bucketing” anything. You’re a glibertarian and you’re a ridiculous low-IQ hypocrite. That’s not “bucketing”. That’s just another example of an already proven correlation.

            LOL

            [shrugs]

            1. 5.1.1.1.1.1

              Keep on [shrugging] as you have no proof of anything – while you put in black and white the proof of my statement.

              Believe it: people have a whole spectrum of views, and just do not fit into your “me or everyone else” buckets.

              1. 5.1.1.1.1.1.1

                Believe it: people have a whole spectrum of views

                Right. You want to make it easier for patent holders to sue people with junk patents AND you believe that “political correctness is the worst thing ever”. The whole spectrum! You’re so super complicated and full of surprises, not like all those other glibertarians who start barking about communism anytime someone proposes to diminish income disparity. Oh but wait — you suffer from that illness, too. The whole spectrum, indeed.

                LOL

    2. 5.2

      “In other words, at a certain point, tax the most prolific users of the system and put an effective lid on the amount of patent IP that a single entity can control. The goal would be to increase competition in whatever fields are “carved out” by a particular entity, and to diminish the likelihood of an entity — particularly a non-practicing entity — from having too much control over any area of scientific/technical endeavor.”

      The most distinctly leftist way to encourage people/entities to not control/possess “too much” of a thing … taxes. Not saying it is a hugely bad idea here, but I am not on board with it at this time as there does not seem to be any pressing need for such.

      1. 5.2.1

        By all means let’s wait until the disaster is staring us in the face before we do anything! After all, these are wealthy entitled people and making it more costly for them to procure their 50,000th patent would be sooooo unfair.

        1. 5.2.1.1

          Gee – if we run into a “bad” situation in which patents are used as a stick and force others to innovate around the granted patents, we may spur innovation (the adage: necessity is the mother of invention)…

          0h wait…

        2. 5.2.1.2

          “By all means let’s wait until the disaster is staring us in the face before we do anything!”

          It might be a problem in some areas, I cannot say. All I will say for sure is that I have not heard anyone btching about the high numbers of patents held by corps in my area. In all of 15 yearsish of being in the field I haven’t heard one person btch about this once. And there are a lot of corps that have a lot of patents in my field.

          1. 5.2.1.2.1

            All I will say for sure is that I have not heard anyone btching about the high numbers of patents held by corps in my area.

            That’s nice. I have never known or expected you to be particularly creative, or to even look for creative thinking unless it involves taking a sh-t on women or some minority group that doesn’t fit into your childish “Western Civilization Is Teh Greatest In Universe!” mythology.

            1. 5.2.1.2.1.1

              “I have never known or expected you to be particularly creative”

              You should see muh arts from before I really got to full time work. I’m from 2x exhippy artist parents that would be starving if not for their boomer priv. They did instill some creativity. I’ve been thinking of reviving my arts. If not for just a hobby. I’m unironically literally inspired by recent social events.

              “I have never known or expected you to be particularly creative, or to even look for creative thinking unless it involves taking a sh-t on women or some minority group”

              I have never in my life sha t upon a whamen or a “minority”. Although a friend of mine literally did one time, when they were dating, I told him to marry that non-white girl, she is an attorney (tho doing low pay work, of her own volition) but he didn’t. But he did marry some other grl. Somewhat predictably an ebil white grl (he’s pretty leftist). Throwing a fund raiser for cancer stuff I see on my facebook. This is the same bruh that literally flew in from washington state to vote in VA before he officially moved back to washington from VA to stop me and other VAians from saving 500$ in VA state taxes (the republican’s tax plan saving 10% across the board). Considering that, how much should I donate MM?

              “that doesn’t fit into your childish “Western Civilization Is Teh Greatest In Universe!” mythology.”

              MM, come on bruh, you know good and well that whamen and minorities fit very well into the muh Western Civ is the gr8test myth, even if it was “mine”. Exquisitely in fact. *raises ebil pinky finger*. Their fitting in is literally why you ha te it.

            2. 5.2.1.2.1.2

              I feel like I should just drop this here vidya right here as it is a nice vidya for people to watch.

              link to youtube.com

  9. 4

    RE: “The Office proposes to implement an annual active patent practitioner fee under 37 CFR 1.21 and 11.8.

    “Currently, the costs of OED’s disciplinary and other functions are paid by patent applicants and owners. The Office proposes these fees so that practitioners, who directly benefit from registration, should bear the costs associated with maintaining the integrity of their profession, including the costs of OED’s register maintenance and disciplinary functions. This parallels the way many state bars operate where the services of maintaining the bar are often paid by the attorneys who are members of that bar. Accordingly, these fee collections are proposed to shift the costs of the services OED provides practitioners in administering the disciplinary system and register maintenance from patent applicants and owners to the practitioners.”

    — The logic underlying the USPTO’s rationale for this new fee is flawed. The USPTO mistakenly assumes that practitioners won’t just shift this cost back to patent applicants and owners through their legal services fees.

  10. 3

    There is a requisite “zero-sum” aspect to all fee changes (including— especially — fee increases).

    Do the proposed changes include this necessary element? If so, are there assumptions or trends that should bear more scrutiny?

  11. 2

    The proposed fee changes are absurd. The notice talks about the fees being necessary for “patent quality”, but that’s b.s. Unless and until the PTO starts holding examiners accountable for improper rejections of allowable claims, for failing to cite everything they could in the first OA rather than withholding to the second OA and using the citation of the withheld references as an excuse to make the second action final, and for procedural abuses, the quality of the PTO’s operations won’t improve.

  12. 1

    This rulemaking is very puzzling. There are a number of laws that bear on federal agency fee setting — Constitutional limits on the taxing power, the Independent Offices Appropriations Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and others. The AIA gave the PTO some exemptions from some provisions, but did not abrogate them entirely. The legislative history makes abundantly clear the limits of the PTO’s exemptions.

    This rulemaking is a study in bad agency in-house lawyering, a failure to protect a client from committing illegal acts. My comment letter explains some of the multiple illegal acts proposed, the Constitutional issue, the legislative history, and the like, at link to uspto.gov An article by Ron Katznelson, originally published at 85 Pat TM Copyright J (BNA) 206 (Dec. 7, 2012) is attached to my letter as an exhibit.

    1. 1.1

      Nicely done (admittedly a vast understatement).

      One (tongue in cheek) question: if the judicial branch — top to bottom — cannot ‘check themselves’ from rewriting statutory law under the guise of Common Law, why should the executive branch concern themselves with a “knowledgeable and powerful compliance function”…?

      1. 1.1.1

        Anon —

        The biggest difference is that all these statutes and Constitutional provisions are directed to checking the powers of the executive branch. They don’t apply to the judicial branch.

        Maybe your concern for the judiciary “rewriting the statutory law under the guise of Common Law” reflects a disconnect between your personal aspiration of where that law ought to lie vs. where as a matter of history it actually lies. Personal aspirational hopes for where the law might be aren’t much help in advising a client about what the law is.

        1. 1.1.1.1

          And certainly, as a counter, what the law “is” IS a matter for all attorneys under their various state paths (but that’s a separate discussion, and I would rather focus on your excellent write-up here).

          1. 1.1.1.1.1

            (“paths” ==> “oaths”)

        2. 1.1.1.2

          David – will you be submitting a public comment for this latest attempt to implement unconstitutional taxes?

          Also, regarding the proposed madatory fee for non-DOCX submission (such as PDF submissions): I’m wondering if your citation on page 8 of 33 (from your prior submission) could be referenced to show that the agency is attempting to encourage or discourage a particular activity beyond its constitutional limit. The PTO admitting in the proposed fee change that:

          “The PPAC supports the surcharge on non-DOCX filings. The report expressed that “the USPTO should have the flexibility to incentivize applicants to use filing formats that maximize efficiency for both the USPTO and its stakeholders” PPAC, at 3.” link to federalregister.gov

          This seems to be in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court and DC circuit court case you cited:

          “Such policy decisions, whereby an agency could, for example, adjust assessments to encourage or discourage a particular activity, would, according to the [Supreme] Court, ‘carr[y] an agency far from its customary orbit’ and infringe on Congress’s exclusive power to levy taxes.5”

          “The Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit have interpreted the IOAA to impose several constraints:
          1. Congress may lay taxes to “encourage” or “discourage,” as discussed in § I.B, but not agencies.8”

      2. 1.1.2

        “Nicely done (admittedly a vast understatement).”

        Now we get back into full toady mode. Why is that?

        1. 1.1.2.1

          Lol – oh, look, Shifty is back – just in time for another beat down.

          1. 1.1.2.1.1

            didn’t answer the question [thinks nobody notices]

            1. 1.1.2.1.1.1

              Your “question” presupposes a condition not existent, thus is not a question to be answered.

              That is also something to be noticed.

              Come on Shifty, your gameplaying is just too obvious.

              David’s work is par excellence, and if you merely want to label my recognition of that excellent work as “toady,” then you miss the point of David’s writing. Why don’t you try reading what David put together instead of trying to take a dig at me.

              1. 1.1.2.1.1.1.1

                “David’s work is par excellence. . . .”

                Still doesn’t answer question [everybody notices].

                No, toady snowflake, I was reminding you about the beat down where your designated expert embraced my hypothetical (which hypothetical you will never understand).

                1. Your “judgment” is (once again, not altogether unsurprising) vastly askew, as the “beatdown” on the thread you reference was a beat down OF YOU (as Mr. Boundy addressed the fact of your gamesmanship ini finally coming close to reality with a hypothetical that contradicted your beginning position.

                  Remind all you like: the plain black and white shows just how much you are in error.

                  (you really need to find some other enjoyment for yourself – you are really bad at this)

                2. … as to your “apology,” meh – I am sorry for all the readers who have to watch you self-flagellate.

                  Again.

                3. Malcolm’s Accuse Others gambit does not work for him — why in the world would you think that it would work for you?

                  Black and White, baby – it’s all there.

                4. Yet more of that Accuse Others attempted meme…

                  By the way, that in Black and White is not only NOT a “race card,” but is also your own attempted game being shoved right back into your face.

                  Or have you forgotten already your very own MISplay with that meme?

                  Shifty’s self-flagellation continues…

                5. Panics [eats own foot; thinks nobody will notice].

                  Who is this “Malcolm” character you’re obsessed with?

                6. Lol – it’s you with the panic and the plain fact that your gamey tactics are an abject
                  F
                  A
                  I
                  L

                  But hey, just keep in self-flagellating there.

                  At least that is something that you can accomplish, my highly INconsequentional shifty friend.

                7. Does not answer question [everybody notices].

                  {But will answer some made-up question he makes up or will it be . . . another tired insult from the script?}

                  And . . . Action !!!

                8. Wheeeee!

                  Shifty keeps trying to play his lame game.

                  psssst: what is being noticed is that you are just being an arse (mind you, not many people at this point, just make sure that you clean up after you are done self-flagellating).

                9. Here’s an idea Shifty:

                  Spend all that time and energy of yours that you divert to your attempted “gotcha” games and focus on the underlying patent topics.

                  You are just not going to succeed at your “gotcha” game, and you have zero chance of relevance in such pursuits.

                10. You mistake what is tired (and what is from a script)….

                  (not altogether unsurprising, given your subscription to the vapid Accuse Others meme)

                  Maybe instead you actually pay attention and take the (rather helpful) advice….

                11. “You mistake what is tired (and what is from a script)….”

                  So, in your mind, which is tired, and which is from the script?

                  [Queeg ponders the strawberries; fails to answer question]

                12. Your games are scripted AND tired.

                  You spend WAY too much energy on meaningless attempts at “gotcha.”

              2. 1.1.2.1.1.1.2

                Your vapid Accuse Others memes are getting tired.

                Gotcha.

                1. You think way too highly of yourself there Shifty, as there is no “gamery” of mine for you to “call out.”

                  As was noted in the very first reply to YOUR “gamery” here.

                  Maybe you should just pay better attention.

                2. Retreading your comments?

                  Come now boy, at least try.

                  Shall I just retread my response to you?

                  Wheeeeeee!

                3. “Wheeeeeee!”

                  I do understand that, in your mind, that’s an answer. But I don’t know what your secret code is supposed to mean. Nor do I want to.

                4. Your attempt at misdirection is noted — one need not venture to any such “imaginary” settings, as the clear black and white text here on the blog more than suffices, my bu tt-hurting shifty friend.

                5. Are you still here trying to play your inane “gotcha” games?

                  There is a fresh Doctrine of Equivalents thread awaiting your insights…

                6. Again, your gaminess is on display, as the reference is your own doing — taken from you to rub your face in your own nonsense.

                  But at this point, your self-flagellation is beyond pointless.

                  Hmmm, come to think of it, it was always beyond pointless, so at least you have that consistency going for you.

                7. Hey Gamery, you kind of missed the last bolded word in that set — and no one notices your irrelevance (kind of goes with that word).

                  This must be a “high” for you that I even pick on you.

                8. Your la Z i ness is showing.

                  With the same propensity for self-flagellation.

                  Maybe you should try that “awareness” thing on yourself first, Shifty.

                9. This is like what, the fourth thread in the last few months that you attempted to have a last (and utterly inconsequential) word in an exchange with me?

                  How did those other attempts work for you?

                10. You should not use Flagyl if you are allergic to metronidazole, or if you have taken disulfiram (Antabuse) within the past 2 weeks.

                11. More self-flagellating from you, given that YOUR doing the judging is immediately suspect.

                  But hey, at least today you did manage one slightly humorous post, so you have that going for you.

                12. Fungi-Nail® Ointment is a unique product formulated with tolnaftate, an active ingredient clinically proven to cure and prevent fungal infections. Depending on the severity of your fungus, you may begin to see results within four weeks. It’s important to keep applying the ointment on the skin around all toenails and in between the toes!

                13. More interesting edits, and 0h, for Mr. Irrelevance, see non September 6, 2019 at 11:38 pm for your yawning gamery.

                14. I embrace sexuality as a universal, positive, and healthy component of human development. I promote positive sexuality in culture, policy, and practice. But I rarely approve of the macabre.

                15. I’m baffled about how the first thing white people say is, ‘That’s not racist!’ when they can’t even experience racism.

                16. As a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and a party to the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual-Property Rights (TRIPS), the United States is obligated to provide trade secret protection.

                17. As to “I’m baffled about how the first thing white people say is, ‘That’s not racist!’ when they can’t even experience racism.” but you are certainly — and objectively — wrong.

                  As a matter of basic definitions.

                18. Please Pardon Potential repeat…

                  As to: “I’m baffled about how the first thing white people say is, ‘That’s not ray c ist!’ when they can’t even experience ray c ism.

                  Not sure just who it is that you are addressing, but you are certainly — and objectively — wrong (as a matter of definition).

                19. That’s a nice strawman — where did ANYONE, ever, say that the WTO is a racy ist organization?

                  Exactly who are you “disagreeing” with?

                  It’s actually hilarious that you are so willing to continue your gamery on a thread so far below the fold, in a comment chain so long ago beyond the numerical limits of nesting.

                  Whatever it is that you think that you are accomplishing, what you are actually accomplishing in the negative is FAR more pronounced.

                20. Wrong again. In the September 2018 PPAC public hearing, the Office proposed adjusting the issue fees by 20 percent and first stage maintenance fees by 25 percent.

                21. That’s a nice strawman. Other countries have their own patent laws, and an entity desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for patent in that country, in accordance with the applicable law.

                22. Your post is non-responsive, with accusations that you yourself are engaging in.

                  That’s a nice strawman.

                  What exactly is the strawman that you think that I have presented?

                  Other countries have their own patent laws, and an entity desiring a patent in a particular country must make an application for patent in that country, in accordance with the applicable law.

                  Great. Neither on point to the current “discussion,” nor anything that I have EVER disagreed with. Quite in fact, this is one of MY positions (and shared in dialogues that are pertinent to that concept.

                  Your gamery is evident. Are you going to at least try to hide it?

                23. Try to focus. The Office forecasts the number of projected patent applications (i.e., workload) for the next five years using a combination of historical data, economic analysis, and subject matter expertise.

                24. Not sure what you want me to focus on there, my Examiner friend.

                  Maybe you should try to make a point with these ‘observations’ of yours — that way there may be something to focus ON.

      3. 1.1.3

        We see Babble also known as Richard Litman that you are remarking on his answer, but it is directed to you. Who do you think you are kidding?

        1. 1.1.3.1

          This appears to be in reply to my post at 1.1., but whatever point that you think that you are making…

          you have not made it.

          I would say “try again,” but perhaps the more accurate admonition would be to try for the first time.

          1. 1.1.3.1.1

            Why do you say that?

            1. 1.1.3.1.1.1

              Why not?

              1. 1.1.3.1.1.1.1

                Never: “We see Babble also known as Richard Litman that you are remarking on his answer, but it is directed to you.”

                Toady Snowflake: “This appears to be in reply to my post at 1.1.”

                That’s why not. More of your total nonsense.

                1. That’s why not. More of your total nonsense.

                  No nonsense from me, let alone ‘total nonsense.’

                  You do recognize how the comment nesting system works, eh Shifty?

                  For example, a comment numbered 1.1.3 is the third comment in reply to the parent comment 1.1

                  Yet again, I have to wonder, is this mere laziness on your part, or is this a sign of your penchant for self-flagellation…?

                  Further, as there is NO “Babble” OR “Richard Litman” present in the entirety of the discussion, the person posting a response in a comment chain, IS apparently responding to someone.

                  For if there were to have been an initial post (at the time), it would have most likely have been post 8 – indicating its own “parent” of a comment chain.

                2. See that! Snowflake _can_ answer a question! [provided that it’s not about patent law, or, law]. It just takes toady a lot of effort, a lot of words, and extra filler from the tired-old-insults script.

                  “exemplary instance of you having your arse handed to you”

                  Your Accuse Others games are getting tired. You’ve already established that you’re effing insane. No need to persuade anybody further.

                3. LOL – I “get” that your answer is “No, Shifty does not realize that he has contradicted himself.”

                  Again – maybe pay better attention.

                4. …and let’s give this sub-thread another shot for you to answer:

                  You do recognize how the comment nesting system works, eh Shifty?

                5. Anyone with any legal training at all would have attempted to specify where I contradicted myself. You should pay better attrition.

                  I understand the comment nesting system to the extent that learning by inductive logic may be valid. Would you like they system explained to you?

                6. Maybe YOU can take my explanation of the comment nesting system into account for YOUR reply (in the first instance).

                  As to any sense of “what an attorney would do,” we both know that you are NOT an attorney, and your opining on such a topic is suspect at best.

                  (or maybe your “version” of legal training is something else…? )

                7. It’s a “pay attention to what I have already stated so that you don’t have to ask such inane questions.”

                  As if you really did not already know that, 0h Shifty Gamey one.

                8. Yep, I’m busted. I hardly ever try to parse your word salad so I have no idea what you have “already stated.”

                  So, in your mind, is that a yes or a no?

                9. Your lack of understanding (and la Z iness) does not make my posts to be “word salad,” so your game of mischaracterization remains just that: a game.

                10. Your stop point has dropped to two words in your last point.

                  At least you can aim for efficiency in your irrelevance.

                11. So…

                  You reach for an adage that applies to you…

                  Your self-flagellation continues.

                  Clean up after yourself when you have finished.

                12. Ever wanted to be a Doctor of Equivalence? Now comes the online course from University of Phoenix. In six short weeks you can be a Doctor of Equivalence! (Major credit card required for Certificate Suitable for Framing).

                13. Now that is actually humorous (and worth the wait), even as it both ignores the point that a blog post had a much lower standard of “correct English” (hence my indicator of what Prof Crouch even posted on that point), and that the jest would have been more pertinent on the newer thread (as opposed to being an attempt to have the last word here).

                14. For rapid cooling relief, choose PREPARATION H® Cooling Gel with vitamin E and aloe. It provides prompt, temporary relief from painful burning, itching and discomfort of hemorrhoids. PREPARATION H® Cooling Gel is non-greasy, non-staining and has no unpleasant scent. PREPARATION H® Cooling Gel. Ask for it by name.

                15. some rather peculiar selective editing has removed the comment noting that our pal Shifty is playing out his usual gaming….

                16. Senokot-S® Dual Action combines the natural vegetable laxative ingredient of Senokot, senna, with a stool softener for dependable, overnight relief of occasional constipation which may be associated with certain prescriptions and over-the-counter medications. Senokot-S® Dual Action. Ask for it by name!

                17. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) ranked the United States in second place for Patents, Related Rights, and Limitations in its 2019 International IP Index.

                18. That’s nice.

                  Totally irrelevant to BOTH the subject of this particular blog post and to the ongoing thread between thee and me.

                  But irrelevance seems to be what you are aiming for, so kudos (I guess).

                19. Actual Utility, Plant, and Reissue (UPR) application filings in FYs 2017 and 2018 were less robust than expected.

                20. …and yet another:

                  That’s nice.

                  Totally irrelevant to BOTH the subject of this particular blog post and to the ongoing thread between thee and me.

                  But irrelevance seems to be what you are aiming for, so kudos (I guess).

                21. “Totally irrelevant to . . . the subject of this particular blog post”

                  The quote is from the Federal Register notice about the new fees. You did not read the notice? But you commented anyway?

                22. Lots of things in a Federal Register that are not on topic here (AND that do not belong in a REPLY string — or maybe your gamery didn’t bother with noticing THAT)

                23. The topic is your absolute nonsense. See 1.1.3.1.1.1.1. So, tell us more about how the Federal Register notice concerning the new fees is “totally irrelevant” to the new fees.

                24. Correction: your gamery is your attempt at “gotcha” and merely wanting my posts to be considered “absolute nonsense.”

                  As is typical, your game falls apart given how obvious it is.

                  Also note here that IF you actually wanted to branch off on a new topic, the proper commenting technique would be to do so as I have done at the top of the thread (and not to try to bury it so deep in a discussion now “below the fold,” and having used up all of the numeral designators.

                  But you’ve never really been about having an actual dialogue, have you Shifty?

                25. The USPTO has a responsibility to stakeholders to pursue strategic opportunities for improvement in an efficient, cost-conscious manner.

                26. That’s nice.

                  Of course, the caveat of “as applicable under the law” applies (See Tafas).

                  But is this something as well that you are disagreeing with phantom in your head about…?

                27. Try to keep up. Elasticity measures how sensitive demand for services by patent applicants and patentees is to fee changes. If elasticity is low enough (demand is inelastic), then fee increases will not reduce patenting activity enough to negatively impact overall revenues. If elasticity is high enough (demand is elastic), then increasing fees will decrease patenting activity enough to decrease revenue.

                28. No. In the past, allotment of examination time for a particular application was determined by the most comprehensive claim, and could not account for multi-disciplinary inventions.

                29. … and what point are you trying to make with the insertion of your “Examiner nugget” here?

                  That you are not an attorney?

                  That’s already been established.

    2. 1.2

      These are all good points David. I think the big problem here is that the USPTO is still acting like the US patent system is a functioning system.

      My guess is that in the next recession we are going to see a 20-60 percent drop in US filings from inventions made in the USA. There is a masking going on where vast numbers of patents are being filed by other countries in first filings when the invention was not made in the USA.

      The other thing is the squeeze. The reality is that every dollar increase for the PTO squeezes the patent attorneys and corporations that then file fewer applications.

      It is just taking a long time for all this to work though the system. There are many VPs at big tech companies that figured that this would all be worked out so they would keep up their patent budgets. As it appears more and more like the new norm is that no patent is enforceable (or almost no patent), the number of filings is dropping from the big tech companies who are the most savvy.

      It is going to get real bad over the next 5 years.

    3. 1.3

      Thanks again for your efforts against the “Final Rules” and thanks for the first time for these comments. Regarding DOCX there are also concerns that included meta data could be used to recreate earlier drafts and used to manufacture some controversy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture