USPTO Director David Kappos delivered opening remarks at the IPO Annual meeting on Monday, September 14, 2009. For the full text version of the speech, see the USPTO website. In the speech, Director Kappos outlines a number of initiatives that he will be spearheading within the office. Included in the prioritized enterprises were incentivizing compact prosecution and cutting pendency across the board.
After pondering the importance of Director Kappos’ initiatives, I was perusing various patents that had issued yesterday, September 15, 2009. I noticed an application that was filed on January 7, 2003. Six years and nine months later—the patent issued. I was intrigued. While browsing the patent prosecution history, I came upon a response dated March 1, 2007, wherein the Applicants state, “The prosecution of the present claims has now reached six substantive office actions, including two since the Examiner withdrew a final office action as a result of a Pre-Appeal Brief conference. As the only pending rejections have now returned to references considered and withdrawn by the Examiner over two years ago, Applicants respectfully submit that it is now clear that no supportable rejection remains in the application. In view of the extended prosecution, Applicants respectfully request that a notice of allowance be expeditiously issued”. Following an additional Final Rejection, a Notice of Appeal, an Appeal Brief, an Examiner’s Answer to Appeal Brief, and the BPAI Decision wherein the Examiner was affirmed-in-part, spanning an additional two plus years, the patent issued. (U.S. 7,588,908 entitled, “Novel compositions and methods for inhibiting light-induced inactivation of biological reagents”). It is noteworthy that no RCE was filed in this case.
We wish Director Kappos all the best.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
Hear, hear!
These horror stories abound. Here’s one from a blog posting a couple of year’s ago.