網路城邦
上一篇 回創作列表 下一篇   字體:
Timing of the First Office Action on the Merits
2012/11/08 14:08:31瀏覽138|回應0|推薦1

« Map of US Patent Practitioner Locations | Main | »

Nov 07, 2012

Comments

anon said...

... so basically the USPTO is breaking its promise of a first action on the merits within 14 months to 75% of all applications?

Does this include counting RCE's and Continuations (wherein substantive searching has already been completed) in the calculation of timely response?

Dennis Crouch said in reply to anon...

The chart comes from PTO data found in the Official Gazette. My understanding is that the data does include continuations but does not include RCEs. Thus, the first action on a continuation application would be counted here but the first action on an application following the filing of an RCE would not be counted here.

anon said in reply to Dennis Crouch...

Thanks Prof. Crouch. One reason for my question was to see if the timeliness was biased low based on such items which generally will have much quicker first actions.

I note too (as an companion to an earlier post), that it is likely - given the possible bias and the time buckets in the graph - quite easy to push the three year guarantee to be in effect prior to a Request for Continued Examination would be logged, and such action spans many of the art units (including non software-patent art units).

Dennis Crouch said in reply to anon...

Right - Historically the PTO issued a first action much more quickly on continuation applications and also following anRCE than it did on original filings.  Although there is still some difference between these categories it is currently much less than it used to be. 

A plurality of thresholding units said in reply to Dennis Crouch...

This really requires a more in-depth discussion of how docketing occurs at PTO for different kinds of cases and responses. For instance, when RCEs were moved from requiring an office action four biweeks from the forward-to-examiner date to joining the same queue as continuations (where the case with the oldest effective filing date must be moved every two biweeks), it dramatically increased the wait time for actions after RCE for most examiners (i.e., those who have stockpiled continuing cases because they're worth fewer counts than regular new cases).

Most of the performance metrics for examiners have changed over the past three or so years, and attorneys might do well to take those changes into consideration when dealing with examiners. As a related example to the one given above, if your RCE takes an examiner up on an indication of allowable subject matter, a voice mail to the examiner to let them know about your case can prove helpful to them in terms of finding easy counts while getting the examiner to take your case up out-of-turn.

AAA JJ said...

"As a related example to the one given above, if your RCE takes an examiner up on an indication of allowable subject matter..."

Why would anybody file an RCE just to accept allowable subject matter?

A plurality of thresholding units said in reply to AAA JJ...

Beats me, but they do.

AAA JJ said in reply to A plurality of thresholding units...

The examining corps' addiction to RCE's is never going to be broken if incompetent practitioners keep that up.

A plurality of thresholding units said in reply to AAA JJ...

That aside, there are other more common situations where applications can end up marooned for months or years in the CON/RCE pile even though they're just a couple hours' worth of refreshed search and paperwork, such as an IDS after allowance where a truthful 1.97(e) statement isn't possible. I probably should have mentioned that one first.

anon said in reply to A plurality of thresholding units...

The pharma boys are going to love this.

powered by TypePad摘自網路
 
( 創作另類創作 )
回應 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
上一篇 回創作列表 下一篇

引用
引用網址:https://classic-blog.udn.com/article/trackback.jsp?uid=g9546204&aid=7025837