Patent Office Extends AFCP 2.0 to December 2013

21 October 2013 Dashboard Insights Blog

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) just announced that the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0) has been extended to December 14, 2013. The AFCP 2.0 was previously scheduled to expire on September 30, 2013.

This is good news because, in some circumstances, the AFCP 2.0 program may benefit automotive companies and other next generation manufacturing patent applicants by reducing the time and expense of obtaining an issued patent.

For utility applications, when a patent applicant receives a Final Office Action, the applicant will often amend the claims to better differentiate from the prior art. Typically, however, the patent examiner will indicate in an Advisory Action that further searching and consideration will be required to evaluate the amended claims. Simply put, for most companies this equates to a $1,200 Request for Continued Examination (RCE) fee (for the first RCE, plus any relevant extension fees) and the patent application will take longer to issue as a valid patent.

Under the AFCP 2.0, automotive companies and other patent Applicants can avoid these costs if the Patent Examiner determines that the additional searching and consideration may be completed in under three hours.

Participation in the AFCP 2.0 does not require any fees, but the Applicant must satisfy a handful of other simple requirements, which include:

(1)    Amending, but not broadening in any manner, at least one independent claim;

(2)    Completing the required form PTO/SB/434; and

(3)    The applicant, or legal representative, being available for an interview with the Examiner if needed.

Additional information can be found on the USPTO website at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/afcp.jsp

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

CMS Proposes Enhanced Scrutiny over Medicaid Supplemental Payments
20 November 2019
Health Care Law Today
The Purpose of a Corporation
November 2019
Legal News: Business Law
Should This Be a "Mobility" Industry Blog?
19 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
Data Processing Patent Eligibility: Federal Circuit Finds Claims Eligible in KPN v. Gemalto
19 November 2019
IP Litigation Current
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
HFMA MA-RI Annual Compliance Update
12 December 2019
Boston, MA