Report to Congress | September 2015
`
`Study and Report on the
`
`Implementation of the
`
`Leahy-Smith
`
`America lnvents Act
`
`PAGE 1 OF 66
`
`TRADESTATION v TRADING TECH
`
`CBM2015-00161
`
`TRADING TECH EXHIBIT 2041
`
`

`
`LEAHY-SMITH AMERICA INVENTS Act (Pub. L. 112-29)
`
`SEC. 26. STUDY ON IMPLEMENTATION.
`(a) PTO STUDY.—The Director shall conduct a study on the manner in which this Act
`and the amendments made by this Act are being implemented by the Office, and on
`such other aspects of the patent policies and practices of the Federal Government
`with respect to patent rights, innovation in the United States, competitiveness of
`United States markets, access by small businesses to capital for investment, and
`such other issues, as the Director considers appropriate.
`
`(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—The Director shall, not later than the date that is 4
`years after the date of the enactment of this Act, submit to the Committees on the
`Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate a report on the results
`of the study conducted under subsection (a), including recommendations for any
`changes to laws and regulations that the Director considers appropriate.
`
`PAGE 2 OF 66
`
`

`
`Report to Congress | Study and Report on the Implementation of the Leahy-Smith America lnvents Act
`
`Report to Congress | September 2015
`
`Study and Report on the
`
`Implementation of the
`
`Leahy-Smith
`
`America lnvents Act
`
`A publication of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`For more information visit uspto.gov
`
`
`
`PAGE 3 OF 66
`
`

`
`Table of Content
`
`Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`Introduction
`The Leahy-Smith
`America Invents Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`
`Implementation of the AIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
`
`Implementation Framework and Transparency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
`
`Statutory Provision Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
`
`AIA Mandated Studies and Report Completion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
`
`AIA Mandated Patent Programs Establishment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`
`Technical Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`
`Background
`Appointing a Patent Reform Coordinator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
`
`The AIA Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
`
`Rulemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
`
`Preparing the Workforce for AIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
`
`Preparing the Public for AIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
`
`Bargaining Unit Negotiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`Development of the AIA Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`4
`
`Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
`Statutory Provisions - Patent Examination
`Section 6:
`Inter Partes Reexamination Transition Threshold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
`
`Section 14:
`Tax Strategies Deemed Within the Prior Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
`
`Section 15:
`Best Mode Requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
`
`Section 33(a):
`Human Organism Prohibition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
`
`Section 11(h):
`Prioritized Examination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PAGE 4 OF 66
`
`

`
`Section 8:
`Preissuance Submissions – Third Party Submission of Prior Art in a Patent
`Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
`
`Section 12:
`Supplemental Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
`
`Section 4:
`Inventor’s Oath or Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
`
`Section 6(g):
`Citation of Prior Art in a Patent File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`
`Section 3(k)(1):
`Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) Statute of Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
`
`Section 3:
`First Inventor to File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
`
`Section 3(e):
`Repeal of Statutory Invention Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
`
`Statutory Provisions - Inter Partes Disputes
`Section 6:
`Inter Partes Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
`
`Section 6:
`Post-Grant Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
`
`Section 18:
`Covered Business Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
`
`Section 6:
`Derivation Proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
`
`Statutory Provisions - Fees and Budgetary Issues
`Section 10:
`Fee Setting Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
`
`5
`
`Section 22:
`Patent and Trademark Office Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
`
`Section 10(h):
`Electronic Filing Incentive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
`
`Section 10(g):
`Micro-Entity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
`
`Programs
`Section 28:
`Patent Ombudsman for Small Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
`
`Report to Congress | Study and Report on the Implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`
`PAGE 5 OF 66
`
`

`
`Section 32:
`Pro Bono Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
`
`Section 29:
`Diversity of Applicants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
`
`Section 23:
`Open Regional (Satellite) Offices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
`
`Studies and Reports
`Section 31:
`International Protection for Small Businesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
`
`Section 3(m):
`Prior User Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
`
`Section 3(k):
`OED Reports – Report on Misconduct Before the Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
`
`Section 16:
`Virtual Marking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
`
`Section 23(d):
`Regional (Satellite) Offices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
`
`Section 27:
`Genetic Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
`
`APPENDICES
`APPENDIX I – Summary of Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
`
`APPENDIX II - Public Outreach – Events/Venues and Speakers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
`
`APPENDIX III – Press Releases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
`
`APPENDIX IV – Roadshows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
`
`APPENDIX V – Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviation List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
`
`6
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PAGE 6 OF 66
`
`

`
`List of Tables
`
`Table I – Implementation and Completion Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
`
`Table II – AIA Provisions by Implementation Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
`
`Table III – AIA Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`
`Table IV – AIA Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`
`Table V – Inter Partes Reexamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
`
`Table VI – Prioritized Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
`
`Table VII - Third Party Submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
`
`Table VIII: Supplemental Examination (SE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
`
`Table IX – Oath and Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`
`Table X: Applications Filed Since 16 March 2013. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
`
`Table XI: Inter Partes Reviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
`
`Table XII – Post-Grant Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
`
`Table XIII – Business Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
`
`Table XIV: Derivation Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
`
`Table XV(a) – Non-Electronic Patent Application Filings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
`
`Table XV(b) – Percent of Patent Applications Filed Electronically . . . . . . . . .45
`
`Table XVI - Micro Entity Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
`
`Table XVII – Ombudsman Program Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
`
`Table XVIII: Pro Bono Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
`
`7
`
`Report to Congress | Study and Report on the Implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`
`PAGE 7 OF 66
`
`

`
`8
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PAGE 8 OF 66
`
`

`
`EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
`
`• Regional (Satellite) Offices - Section 23
`required the USPTO to open three or more
`regional offices within three years of the AIA
`enactment. Budgetary uncertainties disrupted
`the USPTO’s schedule to open these regional
`offices by September 2014. Despite these
`delays, the last two of four permanent offices
`will be open in 2015.
`
`• Genetic Testing - Section 27 of the AIA called
`for the study of a number of issues related
`to confirmatory genetic diagnostic testing
`and a report to the Congress on the findings,
`including recommendations. The USPTO
`began the study, collected written comments
`from the public, and held public hearings.
`However, these efforts were reoriented in
`light of two Supreme Court decisions issued
`during the study period. The USPTO notified
`Congress of the need for further study
`and collected more input. The report was
`submitted to Congress on September 29,
`2015.
`
`As part of the study and reporting process,
`the USPTO identified recommendations for
`further enhancement to the patent law. These
`recommendations address needs in the areas
`of the statute of limitations for disciplinary
`proceedings, inventor’s oath or declaration,
`inter partes disputes, fee setting authority, and
`USPTO funding, and are documented in the
`relevant AIA section in the Implementation
`Status part of the report, and summarized in
`Appendix I.
`
`9
`
`On September 16, 2011, President Barack
`Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents
`Act (AIA), the most significant reform to the
`U.S. patent system in 60 years.
`
`Over the past four years, the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) acted
`to implement the AIA provisions that were
`designed to spur innovation and economic
`growth by streamlining the patent application
`process and enhancing patent quality. This
`report documents the manner in which
`the USPTO implemented the AIA and its
`amendments.
`
`Overall, the USPTO has successfully
`implemented the AIA provisions, established
`the required programs, and carried out the
`required studies. These were done with
`transparency and significant stakeholder and
`public involvement, and as demonstrated, for
`example, through the successful:
`
`• Transition to First Inventor To File in the
`United States;
`
`• Establishment of a new process for a third-
`party to challenge the patentability of granted
`patents outside the federal court system;
`
`• Creation of a prioritized examination
`mechanism for inventors to have their patent
`applications examined in one-third the
`average time; and
`
`• Setting of a new patent fee schedule.
`
`In general, the USPTO was able to overcome
`many obstacles associated with implementing
`the AIA provisions, studies, and programs.
`However, as noted in each section narrative,
`there were some challenges that impeded the
`USPTO’s initial implementation plans in the
`following areas:
`
`Report to Congress | Study and Report on the Implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`
`PAGE 9 OF 66
`
`

`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Table I - Implementation and Completion Schedule
`
`Provision
`
`Memorandum Issued
`
`Proposed Rule Published
`
`Final Rule Published
`
`09-20-2011
`
`09-20-2011
`
`09-20-2011
`
`lrter Panes Reexamination Thrahold
`
`Tax Strategies in Prior Art
`
`Best Mode
`
`Human Orgarism Prolibltion
`
`Electronic 1-"ling lnaentive
`
`Prioritized Examhation
`
`Preissuanoe Submission - Third Party Submission of
`Prior M h a Pate“ Application
`Supplemental Examination
`
`Micro-entity (lrnplemenlatiorvfee)
`
`|nvenhor's Oath or Declaration
`
`Citation of Prior Art in a Patent file
`
`R9P93l 01 5131111301)’ l“V°"ll'0II Registration
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`09-23-2011
`
`11-15-2011
`
`12-19-2011
`
`0712 2012
`08-14-2012
`
`12-19-2012
`
`08-14-2102
`
`08-06-2012
`
`02-14-2013
`
`o7_3‘_2Ol2
`
`09-23-2011‘
`
`02-04-2011
`
`01 05 2012
`01-25-2012
`
`05-30-2012
`
`01-06-2012
`
`01-05-2012
`
`07-26-2012
`
`m_05_2m2
`
`lmpleme.nlall°n/
`Completion Date
`09-16-2011
`
`09-16-2011
`
`09-16-2011
`
`09-16-2011
`
`11-15-2011
`
`09-16-2011
`
`09 16 2012
`09-16-2012
`
`03-19-2013
`
`09-16-2012
`
`09-16-2012
`
`03-16-2013
`
`owmmz
`
`OfficeofEnro||ma1tand Disa'p|'ne(0ED)Statuteof
`Limitations
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Irter Partes Review
`
`Post-Grant Review
`
`Covered Business ll/ethod Review - Transitional
`Pmgmm fof Coveted Blfims Method Patents
`Daivaion Proceedings
`
`First Inventor To file
`
`Reserve Fund
`
`20
`
`Fee Setting Authority
`
`N/A
`
`02-10-2012
`
`02-10-2012
`
`02-10-2012
`02-10-2012
`
`07-26-2012’
`
`N/A
`
`0906-2012
`
`08-14-2012’
`
`08-14-2012
`
`08-14-2012
`09-11-2012
`
`02-14-2013‘
`
`N/A
`
`01-18-2013‘
`
`09-16-2012
`
`09-16-2012
`
`09-16-2012
`03-16-2013
`
`03-16-2013
`
`N/A
`
`03-19-2013
`
`————‘
`21
`Patent Ombudsmn for Small Businesses
`09-16-2011
`
`10
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Pro Bono
`
`Divers'tyofApplicants
`
`09-16-2011
`
`6-24-2015
`
`24
`Open Regional (Satellite) Offices
`2015
`————‘
`25
`lrtematioml Protection for Small Businesses -- Report
`January 2012
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`Prior User Rights - Report
`
`OED Reports - Report on Misconduct Before the Office
`
`Genetic Testing
`
`Virtual Marking - Report
`
`Regional (Satellite) Oftios - Report
`
`Implementation of the America invents Act
`
`1 To notify the public of the fee requirement in the AIA.
`2 Changes to implement technical corrections 03-25-2013
`3 Extended public comment period to 11-05-2012
`4 Correction issued 03-14-2013
`5 Correction published O3-20-13
`
`PAGE 10 OF 66
`
`January 2012
`
`first Biennial Report
`submitted September 30.
`2013
`
`September 2015
`
`September 2014
`
`September 2014
`
`September 2015
`
`

`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Leahy-Smith
`America Invents Act
`
`On September 16, 2011, President Barack
`Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America
`Invents Act (AIA) into law (P.L. 112-29). The
`new law represented more than eight years
`of considerable efforts by Congress, the
`Administration, and stakeholders to modernize
`the U.S. patent system - the most significant
`reform in 60 years.
`
`“I am pleased to sign the
`America Invents Act.  This
`much-needed reform will speed
`up the patent process so that
`innovators and entrepreneurs
`can turn a new invention into a
`business as quickly as possible.”
`—President Obama.
`
`The U.S. patent system originates in the
`Constitution, where the Founding Fathers
`recognized the need to promote the progress of
`science and the useful arts by granting inventors
`the exclusive rights to their discoveries for
`limited periods of time.
`
`This constitutional imperative created a bargain
`between innovators and society whereby
`inventors are encouraged and rewarded through
`exclusive, but limited, rights to their inventions
`in exchange for the disclosure of the knowledge
`behind the invention for others to build upon.
`
`Congress subsequently enacted the U. S. Patent
`Act in 1790 and established the U.S. Patent
`Office in the State Department in 1836. Since
`
`that time, the American economy has grown
`and become more globalized, and technology
`has revolutionized all aspects of American
`life. At the same time, litigation practices have
`changed, and court decisions have highlighted
`the need for modifying the patent law.
`
`Congress responded to these trends by
`considering patent reform while remaining true
`to the original constitutional objectives. In doing
`so, Congress heard from all participants in the
`patent community – researchers, technologists,
`visionaries, patent prosecutors, patent litigators,
`inventors, small businesses, and corporations
`– many with different and often conflicting
`perspectives on the patent system.
`
`With the AIA, Congress aimed to balance
`competing interests, and modernize the United
`States patent system. The AIA contained
`17 provisions of law requiring the USPTO to
`promulgate new regulations, conduct and
`report on studies into various aspects of the
`intellectual property (IP) system, and establish
`new programs to aid certain segments of the
`patent community in filing patent applications.
`
`Out of the many changes to the patent system
`that are discussed in this report, several are
`historically notable:
`
`11
`
`First Inventor to File (FITF)
`The AIA promotes a system of clearer and more
`enforceable patent rights by adopting a FITF
`standard for determining rights to a patent.
`By transitioning to a simpler, more objective,
`and more transparent system for determining
`rights to a patent, the AIA helps ensure that
`independent inventors and small entities are
`able to navigate the patent system on a more
`equitable footing with larger enterprises.
`
`Report to Congress | Study and Report on the Implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`
`PAGE 11 OF 66
`
`

`
`conduct seven studies about various aspects of
`IP law and report results to Congress over a four
`year window after enactment. Lastly, the AIA
`required the USPTO to establish four programs,
`also by specified due dates. The USPTO was
`not charged with implementing any of the
`provisions relevant to the court system.
`
`The USPTO committed to implementing
`the AIA with maximum transparency and
`stakeholder and public participation. The
`USPTO used its public outreach activities to
`gather input from its broad spectrum of users,
`including major corporations, small and medium
`enterprises, universities, individual inventors
`and IP practitioners. The USPTO believed that
`implementation decisions that were informed
`by maximum public participation result in a
`stronger, more effective patent system.
`
`Statutory Provision Implementation
`
`The statutory provisions contained in the AIA
`were designed to improve the transparency
`of the patent system, harmonize or simplify
`application filing procedures and/or information
`requirements, expedite examination, and
`provide an alternative forum for challenging
`patentability over the district courts. The 20
`statutory provisions became effective at three
`distinct times. Some went into effect within
`60-days of enactment (Group 1), others became
`effective one-year from enactment (Group 2),
`and the final ones took effect 18 months after
`enactment (Group 3). The table below shows
`the provisions captured in each group.
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and
`Post-Grant Trial Proceedings
`The AIA established a new process before
`the PTAB for a third-party to challenge the
`patentability of granted patents outside
`the federal court system. These post-grant
`proceedings were designed to be a faster and
`less expensive alternative to district court
`litigation for resolving patentability.
`
`Fee Setting Authority and Fee Reserve Fund
`For the first time, the AIA provided the USPTO
`with the authority to set all its fees to recover
`the aggregate costs of the services it provides,
`and to access all the fees it collects.
`
`The purpose of the “America Invents
`Act,” as reported by the Committee
`on the Judiciary, is to ensure that the
`patent system in the 21st century
`reflects its constitutional imperative.
`
`Third Party Submissions of Prior Art
`The AIA permits third parties to submit prior art
`into the record of another’s application. Prior art
`is a term used in the IP community to reference
`information already known to the public. In
`an era with crowdsourcing tools, allowing the
`USPTO to harness the knowledge of the crowd
`helps patent examiners widen the scope of
`their review and offers applicants heightened
`confidence in their patents once issued.
`
`Implementation of the AIA
`
`Implementation Framework and Transparency
`
`The AIA contained provisions that impacted
`both the USPTO and the court system.
`Particular to the USPTO, the AIA contained 20
`provisions of law for the USPTO to implement
`through rulemaking within 18 months of
`enactment. The AIA also required the USPTO to
`
`12
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`PAGE 12 OF 66
`
`

`
`Report to Congress | Study and Report on the Implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
`
`post-grant proceeding provisions for inter partes
`review (IPR), covered business method (CBM)
`
`review, and post-grant review (PG R) established
`new patenta bility trials to be adjudicated by the
`PTAB.
`
`To implement the va rious statutory provisions,
`the USPTO either issued directional memora nda
`
`or notices of proposed rulemaking followed by
`final rules. The USPTO employed directional
`memoranda when a statutory provision did not
`require any new rules, but instead either codified
`existing practice or made a straightforward
`change to existing practice or procedure.
`Directional memoranda were distributed to
`
`examiners via email as well as published on
`the AIA section of the USPTO website for
`
`the public. The USPTO employed rulemaking
`when a statutory provision required either the
`establishment of a new procedure or significant
`modification to existing procedures. The USPTO
`handled rulemaking through a formalized
`process detailed in the Rulemaking section
`below and educated examiners about new rules
`
`and rule changes through a comprehensive
`training plan detailed in the Preparing the
`Workforce section below.
`
`In total, the USPTO successfully implemented
`all 20 statutory provisions on time. For details
`about the scope, operation, and usage thus
`far for these various provisions, please see
`Statutory Provisions below.
`
`AIA Mandated Studies and Report Completion
`
`13
`
`The AIA required the USPTO to study select IP
`related topics for purposes of either assessing
`the impact of certain AIA provisions on the
`
`patent system or exploring areas for possible
`future legislative change. The table below lists
`the topics for study, along with report due dates.
`
`Table II - AIA Provisions by Implementation
`
`G rou p
`
`Group I
`
`Group 2
`
`Group 3
`
`
`
`(60 Day Post-Enactment
`Effective Date)
`
`(September I6, 2012
`Effective Date)
`
`(March I6, 2013
`Effective Date)
`
`I
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Inter Palm Reexamination
`ll'lB§ldd Trans'tion
`
`|nveri:or’s Oath or
`Declaration
`
`.
`Fm Imam" to me
`
`Tax Strategies Deemed
`withinttie PriorArt
`
`.
`.
`.
`P'°'”'”"°° S"b"“"°"’
`
`Reped of Statutory
`Imention Registration
`
`ad "ode
`
`Human Otganism
`Pmhbmon
`
`Prioritized Exarniration
`
`Elechoric Filing; Patent
`and Trademark Office
`Fundirg
`
`Citation of Patert Owner
`Cfim Scope Statement
`
`Fee Setting Micro-Entity
`Fee
`
`.
`.
`Supplemental Exaninatlon
`
`Post-grart Proceedngs
`Ge. Inter Pats Review,
`Covered Business Method
`Review, aid Post-Grart
`Review, Derivations)
`
`OED Statute of Limitations
`
`The AIA statutory provisions impacted
`USPTO examinations to varying degrees.
`Some required the USPTO to make only slight
`modifications to its existing procedures, while
`others required it to establish new procedures
`governed by rules to be established through
`rulemaking. For example, the human organism
`prohibition provision merely codified existing
`USPTO practice of precluding a patent directed
`to or encompassing a human organism. By
`contrast, the preissuance submission provision
`
`established a new procedure through which
`a third party could submit prior art into the
`record of another’s patent application to aid
`the examiner in determining the patentability
`of the other's claimed invention. The FITF
`
`provision impacted examinations the most as it
`altered the framework under which examiners
`
`determine the novelty of an invention and
`thereby its patentability. The USPTO addressed
`the different impacts of the various AIA
`
`provisions on examinations in terms of the
`extent of training given to examiners, which
`is discussed below in detail. Also, some AIA
`
`provisions did not impact examiners at all, but
`instead affected the PTAB. For instance, the
`
`PAGE 13 OF 66
`
`

`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Table III - AIA Studies
`
`For the implementation of the AIA study,
`the USPTO submitted its report to Congress
`together with the Genetic Testing Report.
`
`AIA Mandated Patent Programs Establishment
`
`The AIA mandated the USPTO to establish
`
`four programs to enhance transparency and
`stakeholder interaction. The table below shows
`
`the program topics and dates for establishment.
`
`Table IV - AIA Programs
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`ProBono
`
`Diversityomppliczit
`
`Septe11ber16.20ll
`
`March is, 2012
`
`Patertombudsrrm for Small Business
`
`Seplunber16.2011
`
`Sateliteoffiom
`
`Septsnber16,2014
`
`Two of the programs codified existing USPTO
`initiatives—Pro Bono and Patent Ombudsman
`
`for Small Business. The other two programs
`necessitated the USPTO to take new
`
`actions—Diversity of App|icant—or expand
`existing efforts— Regional (Satellite) Offices.
`
`Through collaborations with other government
`agencies, the USPTO successfully stood up
`all new programs by the statutory due dates,
`except for the regional (satellite) offices. The
`delay in opening all regional (satellite) offices
`was due to budgetary constraints.
`
`Technical Amendments
`
`Pub. L. 112-274 was enacted on January 14,
`2013 to correct and improve certain provisions
`
`of the AIA and title 35, United States Code.
`
`Technical corrections, for example, applied
`
`to the transitional program for covered
`business methods and derivation proceedings.
`Amendments, unless otherwise noted, became
`
`effective immediately and were pa rt of the
`overall implementation of the AIA.
`
`Study Topic
`lnlenational Protection for Sndl
`1 Bush
`
`Prior Use’ Rights
`
`Genetic Testing
`
`Report Due Date
`
`January 14, 2012
`
`January 16, 2012
`
`June 16, 2012
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Misconduct before the Office
`
`Every two years
`
`Saidlite Olfiaes
`
`lfirtual Marking
`
`Inplemeriaion oftheAlA
`
`September 30. 2014
`
`September 16, 2014
`
`September 16, 2015
`
`The AIA also required two additional IP related
`studies—(1) Effects of First Inventor to File on
`
`Small Business and (2) Patent Litigation—but
`assigned those studies to other agencies for
`completion.
`
`To conduct most studies, the USPTO followed
`
`a consistent protocol. The USPTO published
`
`at least one notice in the Federal Register
`seeking public input via written comments and
`announcing public hearings. The USPTO held
`at least one public hearing to receive witness
`testimony. It then assembled its independent
`research, coupled with the public input it
`
`received through written comments and hearing
`testimony, into a draft report. Finally, the
`USPTO circulated its draft report through the
`inter-agency clearance process to the Office
`of Management and Budget (OMB) and other
`federal agencies before submitting to Congress.
`
`The USPTO successfully completed all of its
`studies on time, except the Genetic Testing
`Study and the Implementation of the AIA Study.
`
`For the Genetic Testing Study, the USPTO
`submitted its report to Congress late due to
`the Supreme Court's issuance of two decisions
`
`during the study conduct period that impacted
`the subject matter of the study and required the
`report to be reconsidered and re-drafted. The
`
`report was submitted to Congress on September
`29,2015. Details about each study, such as the
`number of written comments received and the
`
`number of testifying witnesses, are explained in
`the Studies and Reports section below.
`
`PAGE 14 OF 66
`
`14
`
`

`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Appointing a Patent Reform Coordinator
`
`To effectively implement the AIA, the USPTO
`appointed a Patent Reform Coordinator to
`manage its implementation activities. The
`Patent Reform Coordinator reported to the
`USPTO Director and was based out of the
`office of the Under Secretary and Director. The
`Coordinator had responsibility to oversee all
`aspects of AIA implementation from rulemaking
`to study execution to program development.
`
`Internal to the USPTO, the Coordinator devised
`an implementation plan and schedule to
`ensure all statutory provisions were timely
`implemented so that the public would be kept
`informed of all implementation steps and could
`participate in the process. The Coordinator
`likewise formed teams and divided the
`implementation activities to be accomplished
`based upon the skill sets of the teams. The
`Coordinator supervised the teams’ work and
`regularly updated the USPTO Director and
`Secretary of Commerce about the progress.
`
`The Coordinator met extensively
`with stakeholder groups
`across the country to explain
`the provisions of the new
`patent law and the USPTO’s
`implementation plan.
`
`External to the USPTO, the Coordinator
`interfaced with the public on all AIA
`implementation activity. As an essential
`vehicle for communication with the public,
`
`the Coordinator established a dedicated
`section on the USPTO website to house all AIA
`implementation information. The Coordinator
`also met with stakeholder groups across the
`country to explain the provisions of the new
`patent law and the USPTO’s implementation
`plan. For example, the Coordinator led three
`multi-city roadshows to educate the public
`about the AIA.
`
`The AIA Online
`
`On September 16, 2011, the “America Invents
`Act: Your Guide to the Law” was launched on
`the USPTO website. The guide features all of
`the USPTO’s implementation documents, such
`as Federal Register Notices and directional
`memoranda to examiners. It also contains
`a blog, Frequently Asked Questions, press
`releases, legislative history documents, and
`a timeline for implementation activities. The
`USPTO updated the guide weekly and used
`it to communicate with the public about the
`implementation efforts on an ongoing basis.
`To follow is a more detailed breakdown of the
`contents of the AIA section of the USPTO
`website:
`
`• Implementation Information. This section
`addressed the specific AIA provisions
`under the main categories of: (1) Patent
`examination, (2) Inter partes disputes, (3)
`Fees and budgetary issues, (4) AIA studies
`and reports, (5) Programs, and
`(6) Implementation status. Specific
`information about