Attachment 26 - DCB 2020-16.docx

D a t a C a p t u r e B u l l e t i n

Number 2020-16 July 14, 2020

HAGUE DESIGNS:

RULE 22 CORRECTIONS TO CLAIM, DESCRIPTION, AND DRAWINGS

The information in this bulletin will be included in the 2021 revision of

DATA ENTRY MANUAL FOR NON-UTILITY PATENT DOCUMENTS,

OTHER THAN PATENT APPLICATION PUBLICATIONS.

***This bulletin is effective immediately.***

See DATA ENTRY MANUAL FOR NON-UTILITY PATENT DOCUMENTS, OTHER THAN PATENT APPLICATION PUBLICATIONS.

In Section I. DESIGN PATENT, Columns, Claim, the first paragraph (“The following guidelines …”) is superseded by the paragraph shown below.

The following guidelines with respect to the design claim—except for the guidelines in the Data Source information under Hague Rule 22 corrections to design claim—apply both to regular U.S. design applications (series code 29) and to international design applications (series code 35).

In Section I. DESIGN PATENT, Columns, Claim, the Data Source information is revised as shown below.

Data Source is the latest CLM document and any relevant amendment (such as an examiner’s amendment to the claim that may be attached to the Notice of Allowability).

Hague Rule 22 corrections to design claim. In an international (Hague) design application (series code 35), corrections to the design claim may be made by the International Bureau pursuant to Hague Rule 22. When such a correction is made, the application file will contain a HAGUE.R.22 document that shows the corrected claim. The HAGUE.R.22 document will be annotated* by the USPTO’s International Patent Legal Administration (IPLA). When the IPLA annotation says that the claim correction has been entered, there should be a CLM document with the same date as the HAGUE.R.22 document. If such a same-dated CLM document is not present, the PaDaCap contractor will use the HAGUE.R.22 document itself as the source for the claim, unless there’s a later-dated CLM document (or examiner’s amendment attached to the Notice of Allowability) that supersedes the HAGUE.R.22 document. See the example below.

--- The 01-24-2020 CLM—if there is no later-dated CLM and no later-dated examiner’s amendment to the claim—would serve as the data source for what’s printed on the patent front page under CLAIM:

In Section I. DESIGN PATENT, Columns, Description – International Design Application (Series Code 35), the following information is added.

Hague Rule 22 corrections to design description/specification. In an international (Hague) design application (series code 35), corrections to the design description may be made by the International Bureau pursuant to Hague Rule 22.

· When such a correction is made, the application file will contain a HAGUE.R.22 document that shows the corrected description/specification. The HAGUE.R.22 document will be annotated* by the USPTO’s International Patent Legal Administration (IPLA). When the IPLA annotation says that the correction to the description/specification has been entered, there should be a SPEC document with the same date as the HAGUE.R.22 document. If such a same-dated SPEC document is not present, the PaDaCap contractor will use the HAGUE.R.22 document itself as the source for the design description/specification, unless there’s a later-dated SPEC document (or examiner’s amendment attached to the Notice of Allowability) that supersedes the HAGUE.R.22 document.

* When the PaDaCap contractor encounters a HAGUE.R.22 document that has not been annotated, the PaDaCap contractor will send an e-mail to the ODM Publication Branch (as of this writing, hung.vuong@uspto.gov). The ODM Publication Branch will obtain guidance by contacting IPLA (as of this writing, boris.milef@uspto.gov).

· Sometimes the HAGUE.R.22 document’s correction involves only one of the two sections of the design description/specification—that is, it involves either the “product information” section or the “figure description” section—resulting in a SPEC document pertaining only to that one section. In that situation, the SPEC document should be considered to replace only that section. See the example below, where the HAGUE.R.22 document concerns only the “figure description” section, which means the same-dated SPEC document shows the “figure description” section but does not show the “product information” section. In such a case, the data-source document for the “product information” section will be different from the data-source document for the “figure description” section.

--- The 01-24-2020 HAGUE.R.22 with the IPLA annotation indicates the entry of the correction. The HAGUE.R.22 shows a correction to a portion of the “figure description” section of the design description/specification:

--- There are two SPEC documents in the file and no examiner’s amendment to the design description/specification. The original 08/02/2019 SPEC would be the source for the “product information” section of what’s printed on the patent front page under DESCRIPTION:

--- The 01-24-2020 SPEC—with the same date as the IPLA-entered HAGUE.R.22—would be the source for the “figure description” section of what’s printed on the patent front page under DESCRIPTION:

In Section I. DESIGN PATENT, Drawing(s) – International Design Application (Series Code 35), the first paragraph is superseded by what is shown below.

See Drawings – Design Application (Series Code 29). In an international design application (series code 35), corrections to the drawings may be made by the International Bureau pursuant to Hague Rule 22.

· When such a correction is made, the application file will contain a HAGUE.R.22 document and DRW, DRW.SUPP, and SCORE documents with the same date as the HAGUE.R.22 document. Neither the HAGUE.R.22 document nor the DRW/DRW.SUPP/SCORE documents expressly indicate that drawings are being corrected under Rule 22. The HAGUE.R.22 document may identify other corrections, such as to the description, or it may not identify any correction. The HAGUE.R.22 document will be annotated* by the USPTO’s International Patent Legal Administration (IPLA) to reflect entry or non-entry of the drawings.

* When the PaDaCap contractor encounters a HAGUE.R.22 document that has not been annotated, the PaDaCap contractor will send an e-mail to the ODM Publication Branch (as of this writing, hung.vuong@uspto.gov). The ODM Publication Branch will obtain guidance by contacting IPLA (as of this writing, boris.milef@uspto.gov).

EXAMPLE: The 02-07-2020 HAGUE.R.22 with the IPLA annotation indicates the entry of the drawings. The HAGUE.R.22 itself does not identify any correction. The DRW/DRW.SUPP/SCORE documents have the same date as the 02-07-2020 HAGUE.R.22 document.

· As in any design application, the PaDaCap contractor will normally capture and print the drawings that the examiner identifies on Form PTOL-37D, Notice of Allowability for a Design Application, as the acceptable drawings. However, if the HAGUE.R.22 document indicates entry of the drawings, and the drawings identified on Form PTOL-37D are drawings filed prior to the date of the drawings corrected under Rule 22, then a PRINTER RUSH should be initiated to resolve the discrepancy. If the Form PTOL-37D identifies the drawings corrected under Rule 22 as the acceptable drawings, and the HAGUE.R.22 document was annotated to indicate non-entry of those drawings, then the PaDaCap contractor will send an e-mail to the ODM Publication Branch (as of this writing, hung.vuong@uspto.gov). The ODM Publication Branch will obtain guidance by contacting IPLA (as of this writing, boris.milef@uspto.gov).

DCB No. 2020-16 Office of Data Management Page 1 of 8 image2.png image3.png image4.png image5.png image6.png image7.png image8.png image9.png image1.png