en proprlttt intellectuelle von … without requiring travel and a difficult coordination of...

FICPI- US

President: Barry W. Graham

Finnegan Henderson Farahow Garrell & Dunner

YOI New York Avenue, NW Washington, D.e. 20001-4413 barry.graham(q~ finnegan. com

Past President: John B. Hardaway, III

Nexsen Pruet, LLC 55 East Camperdown Way, Suite 400

Greenville, South Carolina 2960 1 jhardawa y (~) ncxscnpruet.com

President-elect: Andrew D. Meikle

Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP 81 10 Gatehouse Road, Suite 100E

Falls C hurch, Virginia 22042 admCs!bskb.com

Secretary: Robert S. Katz

Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. 1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20005 [email protected]

Treasurer: Douglas T. Johnson

Miller & Martin PLLC X32 Georgia Avenue

Chattan()()ga. Tennessee 37402 djohnson (g) mi Ilcrmartin.co01

Council Members: Joanna M. Esty

Majesty Law Group PLC 1723 Valley Park A venue

Hermosa Beach, California 90254-2958 jrncsty<!J) majesty law .com

C. Gregory Gramcnopoulos Hnncgan f Icnderson Farabow

Garrett & Dunner 901 New York Avenue, NW

Washington, D.e. 20001-4413 c.grcgofy.gramcnopoulosCg)finncgan.com

Steven Hash Vinson & Elkins, LLP

2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78746

shash(g)velaw.com

Lawrence A. Maxham The Maxham Firm

9330 Scranton Road, Suite 350 San Diego, Cali Fornia 92121

I maxham(Q) maxhamfirm.com

P. Branko Pej ic Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.e.

1950 Roland Clarke Place Reston, VA20191

[email protected]

Stephen S. Wentsler Pearne & Gordon LLP

180 I East 9th Street, Suite 1200 Cleveland, Ohio 44114· 3108

swentslcr(q)pcarnc.com

H.DtRA TION INTERNA TIONALE DES CONSEILS EN PROPRltTt INTELLECTUELLE

INTERNA TlONAL FEDERA TION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS

INTERNA TlONALE FODERA TION VON PATENTANWALTEN

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

Via email only: strategicplan @uspto.gov

December 3, 2013

Subject: U.S. Section of FICPI Written Comments on Draft USPTO 2014-2018 Strategic Plan

Dear Deputy Under Secretary:

Thank you for taking the time to consider the following

comments to the draft USPTO 2014-2018 Strategic Plan. We

appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and would like

to thank you in advance for your careful consideration of them. The

comments are submitted on behalf of the U.S. Section of the

International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI) with

input from the Study and Work Commission of FICPI. FICPI is a non

political, worldwide organization of intellectual property professionals

(attorneys and agents) in private practice. FICPI has approximately

5,000 members from more than 80 countries and regions. Members'

qualifications, reliability, and professional standing are well

established. Clients of FICPI members span all types and sizes of

corporations, multinational companies, small and medium-sized

enterprises, and individual inventors. (For more on FICPI, please visit

www.ficpi.org and www.ficpi.us.)

of 8

FICPI - us P resident:

Barry W. Graham Finnegan Henderson Farabow

Garrell & Dunner 90 I New York A venue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20001-44 13 oarry.graha m(aifi nncgan.com


Nexsen Pruet, LLC 55 East Camperdown Way, Su ite 4(X)

Greenvi lle, South Carolina 29601 jhardaway@ ncxscnpruct.com

President-elect : Andrew D. Meik le

Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP H I 10 Gatehouse Road, Suite 100E

l'al1s Church, Virginia 22042 adm(qlbskb.com

Secreta ry: Robert S. Katz

Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. 1100 131h Street, NW, Suite 1200


Treasurer: Douglas 1'. Johnson

Mi l1er & Martin PLLC 832 Georgia A venue

Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 djohnsonVl)millermartin.com

Council M embers: Joanna M. Esty

Majesty Law Group PLC 1723 Val1ey Park A venue

Hermosa Beach, California 90254-2958 j [email protected]

C. Gregory Gramenopou los Finnegan Henderson Farabow

Garrell & Dunner 901 New York Avenue, NW

Washington. D.e. 2000 1-44 13 ramcnopoulosCE.)finncgan.com


2HOI Via rortuna, Suite I(X) Austin, Texas 78746

shash@velaw .com

Lawrence A. Maxham The Maxham I'irm

9330 Scranton Road, Sui te 350 San Diego, Californ ia 92121

ImaxhamC!!.)maxhamtirm.com

P. Branko Pejic Greenblum & Bernste in, P.L.e.

1950 Roland Clarke Place Reston, VA 20 19 1

bpcjic@gbpatcnLcom

Stephen S. Wents ler Pearne & Gordon LLP

180 I East 91h Street, Sui te 1200 C leveland, Ohio 44 11 4-3 108

swcnts lcr@ pearnc.com

.gregory.gc

I. Introduction

We applaud the mission-focused strategic goals and many of

the objectives associated with each of the strategiC goals. Our

comments are focused on Goal I (i.e. , Optimize Patent Quality and

Timeliness) and the Management Goal (i.e_ , Achieve Organizational

Excellence), although our comments may also apply to other

organizational goals.

II. Goal I: Optimize Patent Quality and Timeliness

A. Objective 1: Refine Optimal Patent Pendency

We agree with the proposal of the Office to refine optimal

patent pendency and congratulate the Office in reducing the average

time applications are pending before the Office before obtaining a first

Office Action on the merits. We recommend careful consideration of

any reduction in patent examiner workforce as the Office approaches

desired initial Office Action pendency targets. For example, as a

steady state is reached for first Office Action pendency targets, we

suggest redirecting the examiner workforce to further address the

overall pendency of applications before the Office_ For instance, prior

to reducing the examiner workforce, we suggest moving RCE

application filings back on the "regular amended" docket to expedite

disposal of the patent application. Returning the RCE application

filings to the regular amended docket will reduce the average total

pendency of applications before the Office while providing applicants

with prompt issuance of worthy applications.

of 8

F£D£AA TION INTERNA TIONALE DES CONSEILS EN PROPRIH£ INTELLECTUELLE

INTERNA TIONAL FEDEAA TlON OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS

INTERNA TIONALE FODERA TlON VON PATENTANWALTEN

FIePI -us President:

Barry W. Graham I:inncgan Henderson Farabow

(Jarrell & Dunner 90 1 Ncw York Avcnuc, NW

Washington, D.e. 20001 -4413 barry.graham@)finncgan.com


Nexsen Pruct, LLC 55 East Camperdown Way, Suite 400

Grccnville, South Caro lina 2960 1 jhardawa y (q) ncxscnpruct.com

President-elect: Andrcw D. Meikle

Birch, Stcwart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP 8 110 Gatchousc Road, Suite J(XlE

Falls Church, Virginia 22042 adm(qlbskb.com


Banncr & Witcoff, Ltd. 1100 13th Street, NW, Suite 1200



Miller & Martin PLLC 832 Georgia Avenue

Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 djohnson(q) millcrmartin.com


Majesty Law Group PLC 1723 Valley Park Avenue

Hermosa Bcach, California 90254-2958 jmestyf!!l majestylaw.com

C. Gregory Gramcnopoulos Finnegan Henderson Farabow

(Jarrett & Dunner 901 New York Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 2000 1-4413 c.grcgocy.gramcnopoulos(g) finncgan.com

Stcvcn Hash Vi nson & Elkins, LLP

28(H Via Fortuna, Suitc 100 Austin, Texas 78746

shashCq)velaw.com


9330 Scranton Road, Suite 350 San Dicgo, California 92 12 1

Imaxham(q)maxhamtirm.com

P. Branko Pcj ic Greenhlum & Bcrnstcin, P.L.e.

1950 Roland Clarkc Place Reston, V A 20 19 1

bpcj ic (q) gbpatcnt.com

Stcphc n S. Wentsler Pcarne & Gordon LLP

180 I East 9th Strcct, Suite 1200 Clcvcland, Ohio 44114-3108

swcntsler (q)pearnc.com

B. Objective 2: Increase Efficiencies and Patent

Examination Capacity to Align with Optimal Patent

Pendency

We agree with the initiative of the Office to address patent

pendency issues by hiring additional examiners to strengthen the

examiner workforce. In our opinion, the hoteling program is an

effective way to reach talented individuals in all geographic regions of

the country. Currently, hoteling examiners are required to periodically

visit the Office to work on-site. Periodic visits may have the

advantage of increasing face-to-face time with fellow examiners to

increase the cohesiveness of the examiner art units. However,

requiring periodic visits may eliminate access to hiring otherwise

talented individuals that cannot economically visit the USPTO on a

periodic basis. We suggest reviewing the periodic-visit requirement to

determine whether the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Current

video-conferencing technology can be examined to determine whether

typical benefits of periodic visits can be achieved remotely without the

burden of traveling to or from a remote Office location. Establishing

each hoteling examiner with current video-conferencing technology

should reduce the need for on-site visits and consequently increase

the attractiveness and feasibility of working for the Office - particularly

from remote locations of the country. Moreover, video-conference

communication should increase effective communication between

hoteling examiners and applicants, thereby permitting personal

of 8

Ff.D~RAlION INlERNAllONALE DES CONSEI LS EN PROPRIH~ INTHLEClUELLE

INTERNA llONAL FEDERA liON OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS

INTERNA llONALE FODERA liON VON PAlENTANWALTEN

FICPI· us President:

Barry W. Graham Finnegan Henderson Farahow


Washington, D.C. 20001·4413 harry.grahamCq) finncgan.com

Past I'resident: John B. Hardaway, III


Greenville, South Carolina 29601 jhardawa y (q) ncxscnpruct.com

President·elect: Andrew D. Meikle

Birch, StewlUt, Kolasch & Birch, LLP 8110 Gatehouse Road, Suite I(X)E

Falls Church, Virginia 22042 admCa.l bskb.eom


Banner & Witeoff, Ltd. 1100 13'h Street, NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20005 rkatz@ bannerwitcoff.co m


Miller & MlUtin PLLC 832 Georgia Avenue

Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 [email protected]


Majesty Law Group PLC 1723 Valley Park A venue

Hermosa Beach, California 90254·2958 jmcsty (g) majcstylaw .com

C. Gregory Gramcnopoulos Finnegan Henderson Farabow

Garrett & Dunner 90 I New York A venue, NW

Washington, D.e. 2(XX))·4413 [email protected]


280 I Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78746

[email protected]

L,wrence A. Maxham The Maxham Firm

9330 Scranton Road, Suite 350 San Diego, California 92121

ImaxhamCq)maxhamfirm.com

P. Branko Pej ie Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.e.

1950 Roland Clarke Place Reston, VA 20191

bpej ic (q) ghpatent.com

Stephen S. Wentsle .. Pearnc & Gordon LLP

1801 East 9'h Street, Suite 1200 Cleveland, Ohio 44114·3108

s wents ler (a) pearnc. com

H.D£RA TION INTERNA TIONAlE DES CONSEllS EN PROPRI£T£ INTELlECTUEllE

INTERNAT IONAL FEDERA liON OF INTEllECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS

INTERNA TIONAlE FODERATION VON PATENTANWAlTEN

interviews without requiring travel and a difficult coordination of

schedules.

We also agree that efficiencies in patent prosecution can be

realized by enhancing compact prosecution. Many successful

initiatives have been supported and proven effective, such as the Pre

Appeal Brief Conference Pilot Program. We support this program as

an effective way to avoid instances of reopening prosecution of an

application after an Appeal Brief is filed. As such, we recommend

permanent adoption of the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Pilot

Program.

We also support the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 program

to promote compact prosecution. The program is effective to

encourage productive communication between the applicant and

examiner while avoiding unnecessary RCE filings. In order to improve

the program, we suggest requiring the examiner to determine whether

the amendment is effective to overcome the outstanding rejection in

the final Office Action. If the examiner determines that the current

rejection in the final Office Action still applies, we suggest requiring

any Advisory Action from the examiner to indicate that the amendment

after final will be entered upon filing a Notice of Appeal. Compact

prosecution will be achieved by eliminating an unnecessary RCE to

enter an amendment already considered by the examiner as

insufficient to overcome the current rejection in the final Office Action.

Rather, the applicant will be given the opportunity to directly appeal

of 8

FICPI- US


rinncgan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner

90 1 Ne w York Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 -4413

barry. graha III (q~ finnegan .com

Past President: John B. Hardaway, 111

Nexsen Pruet, LLC 55 East Camperdow n Way, Suite 400

Greenville, South Carolina 2960 I jhardaway@\nexsenpruel.com


Birc h, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP 8 II 0 Gatehouse Road, Suite lOOE

ralls Church, Virginia 22042 [email protected]


Banner & Witeoff, Ltd. 1100 13 'h Street, NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20005 rkatz@ bannerwitco fl.com


Miller & Martin PLLC 832 Georgia Avenue

Chattanooga. Tennessee 37402 djohnson(cPmillcrmartin.com


Majesty L,w Group PLC 1723 Valley Park Avenue

Hermosa Beach, Calif{lrnia 90254-2958 jlllCsty~) majeslylaw.com

C. Gregory Gramcnopoulos Finnegan Henderson Farahow


Washington, D.C. 20001-441 3 [email protected]


2801 Via f'orlUna, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78746

slmshCq)vclaw.com


9330 Scranton Road, Suite 350 Sa n Diego, California 9212 1

[email protected] m

P. Branko Pejic Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C .

1950 Roland C larke Place Reston, VA 20 191

bpcj [email protected]


180 I East 9'h Street, Suite 1200 Cleveland, Ohio 44 114-3108

swents lcr(a:')pcarnc.com

F8lE:RA TION INTERNA TIONALE DES CONSEILS EN PROPRIHE: INTELLECTUELLE

INTERNA lIONAL FEDERA liON OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS

INTERNA lIONALE FODERATION VON PATENTANWALTEN

the rejection to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PT AB) without

delay.

C. Objective 4: Continue to Enhance Patent Quality

Patent quality is often focused on improper issuance of patents.

More particularly, metrics are often tracked to determine whether there

was an error in allowing an application. We further suggest

considering the quality of final rejections in applications. While there

is a desire to discourage improper allowance of applications, there

should likewise be a desire to discourage improper refusal to allow

applications that meet the statutory requirements of novelty and

nonobviousness. We recommend particular attention to be focused

on improper issuance of final rejections.

D. Objective 5: Ensure Optimal Information

Technology (IT) Service Delivery to All Users

Currently, the public search room at the Alexandria Office

includes search terminals that are equivalent to terminals used by

examiners. The search terminals provide powerful search engines

while allowing quick and efficient electronic review of located patents

and publications. Cost-free technology currently available to the

public does not provide equivalent search or electronic review of

patents and publications. We strongly recommend extending

equivalent public search room facilities to the Detroit Office and the

other Satellite Offices, once established. Still further, we also strongly

suggest extending such search facilities to selected public libraries in

of 8

FICPI - us President:

Barry W. Graham Finnegan Henderson Farabow

Garrell & Dunner 901 New York Avenue, NW

Washington, D.e. 20001-4413 [email protected]


Nexsen Pruet, LLC 55 East Campcrdown Way, Suite 400

Gree nville, South Carolina 29601 [email protected]


Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP X II 0 Gatehouse Road, Suite 100E

f'a lls Church, Virginia 22042 adm(l!)bskb.com


Banner & Witeoff, Ltd. 1100 13 'h Street, NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20005 rkatz(@banncrwitcoff.com


Miller & Martin PLLC X32 Georgia Avenue

Chauanooga, Tennessee 37402 djohnson(q)millcrmartin.com



Hermosa Beach, California 90254· 2958 j mcsty @majestylaw.com

C. Gregory Gramcnopoulos Fi nncgan Henderson Farabow


WaShington, D.e. 2000 1-441 3 c.gregory.gramcnopoulos(g)finnegan.com

Steven Has h Vinson & Elkins, LLP

280 I Via fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78746

shash (q) vclaw .com

I.awrence A. Maxham The Maxham Firm

9330 Scranton Road, Suite 350 San Diego, California 92121

lmaxham @maxhamfirm.com

P. Branko Pejie Greenhlum & Bernste in, P.L.e.

1950 Roland Clarke Place Reston. VA 20191

bpcj ic (~) ghpatenlocom

Stephen S. Wents1cr Pearne & Gordon LLP

180 I East 9'h Street, Suite 1200 C leveland, Ohio 441 14··3108

swcnts)cr(g)pcarnc.com

H .DEAATION INTERNATIONAlE DES CONSEllS EN PROPRIHE INTEllECTUEllE

INTERNA TlONAl FEDEAA TlON OF INTEllECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS

INTERNA TIONAlE FODERA nON VON PATENTANWAlTEN

major cities of every state. Providing widespread access to these

powerful search tools will reduce patent pendency by allowing the

most relevant prior art to be quickly and inexpensively located and

subsequently cited to the Office. Indeed, armed with the most

relevant prior art, a significant amount of invention disclosures will

never be filed as patent applications. Moreover, with the knowledge of

the most relevant prior art, applicants will be able to produce high

quality applications with initially filed claims that are already

distinguished over the most relevant prior art.

E. Objective 7: Maintain the Patent Trial and Appeal

Board's Ability to Provide Timely and High Quality

Decisions

We suggest carefully considering the production requirements

of the PTAB Judges to make sure well-reasoned decisions are issued

that are fully supported by case law. We suggest implementing quality

review(s) to ensure high-quality decisions.

III. Management Goal: Achieve Organizational Excellence

A. Objective 4: Secure Sustainable Funding to Deliver

Value to Fee-Paying Customers and the Public

We understand the desire of the Office to ensure that fee

setting is made permanent. We believe the fees set by the Office

should be directly related to the cost of the services provided to the

applicant. Noted recently, the fee for filing an RCE has dramatically

of 8

FICPI - os

President: Rarry W. Graham

Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrell & Dunner

90 1 New York Avenue, NW Washington, D.e. 2000 1-44 13

barry.graham(q)finncgan.com

Past I'resident: John B. Hardaway, III

Nexsen Pruet, LLC 55 East Campcrdown Way, Suite 400

Greenville, South Carolina 2960 1 jhardaway(<!)ncxscnpruct.col11


Rirch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP X II 0 Gatchouse Road, Suite I(XIE

ralls Church, Virginia 22042 adm(qlhskh.com


Banner & Witcoff, Ltd . 1100 13,h Street, NW, Suite 1200



Miller & Martin PLLC R32 Georgia Avenue

Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402 djohnsonCq)mi llcrmartin.com



Hermosa Beach, Calit(,rnia 90254-295X [email protected]

C. Gregory Gramenopoulos Finnegan Henderson Farabow

Garrett & Dunner 90 1 New York Avenue, NW

Washington, D.e. 2000 1-44 13 c.grcgofy.gramcnopou los@ finncgan.com


280 I Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78746

[email protected]

I.awrcncc A. Maxham The Maxham Hrm

9330 Scranton Road, Suite 350 San Diego, California 9212 1

I maxharn (~) maxha mfirm.co m

P. Branko Pejic Greenb lulll & Bernstein, P.L.e.

1950 Roland Clarke Place Reston, VA 20 191

opcj ic@gbpatcnLcorn


1801 East 9'" Street, Suite 1200 Cleveland,Ohio44 114-3 108

swcnts lcr@ pcarnc.com

FtDI:RA liON INlERNA llONALE DES CONS ElLS EN PROPRII:TI: INTELLECTUELLE

INTERNA TlONAL FED ERA nON OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS

INTERNA llONALE FODERA nON VON PATENTANWALTEN

increased without a clear understanding of how the fee increase

relates to actual RCE processing expenses at the Office. While we

recognize the desire of the Office to reduce patent pendency,

increasing fees should not be used as a means to discourage

applicants from pursuing patent coverage for worthy inventions. We

recommend conSidering other options to allow applicants to obtain a

complete review of the application without requiring an RCE. For

example, we suggest further encouraging a complete search from the

examiner in the first Office Action. This may be achieved, for

example, by further reducing the counts available to the examiner for

processing RCE applications.

IV. Conclusion

We are grateful to have the opportunity to comment on the draft

USPTO 2014-2018 Strategic Plan_ As the Office approaches initial

Office Action pendency targets, we suggest redirecting the examiner

workforce to further address overall application pendency. We also

support the examiner hoteling program, Pre-Appeal Brief Conference

Pilot Program and After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 program as

effective ways to increase efficiencies and increase examiner

capacity_ As discussed above, we suggest further modifying this

program to avoid the unnecessary filing of an RCE to have an

amendment entered that would not require further search or

consideration by the examiner. We also suggest reviewing the quality

of final Office Actions in patent applications to reduce unnecessary

of 8

Fl ePI· us


Finnegan I lcndcrson Farahow Garrett & Dunner

90 1 New York Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 2{)(Xl l·4413

barry. graham (q) fi nncgan.colll



Greenville, South Carolina 29601 jhardaway(q)ncxscnpructcom

President·elect : Andrew D. Meikle

Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP 8 II 0 Gatehouse Road, Suite 100E

Falls Church, Virginia 22042 [email protected]

Secretary : Robert S. Katz

Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. 1100 13'" Street, NW, Suite 1200



Mi ller & Martin PLLC 832 Georgia A venue

Chattanooga, Te nnessee 37402 djohnson@?mil lcrmartin.com

Council Mem bers: Joanna M. Esty

Majesty Law Group PLC 1723 Va lley Park Avenue

I lermosa Beach, California 90254·2958 jmesty(q) majcstylaw.colll

C. Gregory Gramcnopoulos Finnegan He nderson Farabow

Garrett & Dunner 90 1 New York Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20(X)\·44 13 c.gregory.gramcnopoulosCq)fi nncgan.com


280 1 Via Portuna, Su ite 100 Austin, Texas 78746

[email protected]


9330 Scranton Road, Suite 350 San Diego. California 9212 1 Imaxham Cs!)maxhamfi rm.co m

P. Branko Pej ic Greenb lum & Bernstein, P.L.e.

1950 Ro land Clarkc Place Reston, VA 20 19 1

hpcjic(q)ghpatcnLcom

Stephen S. Wentsle r Pearne & Gordon LLP

180 I East 9'" Street, Suite 1200 Cleveland, Ohio 44 1 14·3108

swcnls lcr(g)pcarnc.c()m

F~D£RA TION INTERNA TIONALE DES CONSEILS EN PROPRIH£ INTElLECTUELLE

INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ATTORNEYS

INTERNA TIONALE FODERA TION VON PATENTANWALTEN

filing of appeals with the PTAB. We further suggest leveraging the

technology currently enjoyed in the public search room to other public

locations to further enhance patent quality and reduce unnecessary

patent application filings. In addition, we suggest carefully aligning

fees with the associated costs for the services provided by the Office.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss any of the provisions of this

paper at any time. We again thank you for this opportunity.

Respectfully submitted,

B~a~~ President, U.S. Section of FlePI

of 8

en proprlttt intellectuelle von … without requiring travel and a difficult coordination of...

Documents