• Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
  • Home
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Digital Edition
    • CIAdvanced Digital Edition
    • Archives
  • News
  • New Products
  • Topics
    • Advanced Ceramics
    • Refractories
    • Glass
    • Whitewares
    • Brick and Structural Clay
    • Raw and Processed Materials
    • Firing and Drying
    • Batching and Materials Handling
    • Forming and Finishing
    • Instrumentation & Lab Equipment
    • Decorating
  • Columns
    • IP in Depth
    • Glass Works
    • Ceramic Decorating
    • The Big Picture
  • More
    • CIAdvanced Microsite
    • CI Top 12
    • Raw & Manufactured Materials Overview
    • eNewsletters
    • Classifieds & Services Marketplace
    • Virtual Supplier Brochures
    • Market Trends
    • Blogs
    • Material Properties Charts
    • CI Store
    • CI Supplier of the Year Award
  • Multimedia
    • Videos
    • Podcasts
    • Photo Galleries
    • Mobile App
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Ceramics Expo 2017
  • Directories
    • Data Book & Buyers' Guide
    • Ceramic Components Directory
    • Materials Handbook
    • Equipment Digest
    • R&D Lab Equipment & Instrumentation
    • Services Directory
    • Take a Tour
  • Contact
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
    • Print & Digital Edition Subscriptions
    • eNewsletters
    • Online Registration
    • Customer Service
Home » IP in Depth: Expediting Patent Application Examinations
IP in DepthColumnsResource Management

IP in Depth: Expediting Patent Application Examinations

The USPTO developed four programs designed to speed up the examination of patent applications.

Patent application examinations
Patent application examinations
Patent application examinations
Patent application examinations
December 2, 2013
Michael Gzybowski
KEYWORDS general business / innovation / intellectual property
Reprints
No Comments

In August 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reported a backlog of 591,665 patent applications waiting to be examined and an average total pendency (time from filing to end of examination) of 29.4 months. In order to reduce these statistics, the USPTO developed four programs designed to speed up the examination of patent applications. These programs are Track One Prioritized Examination, Accelerated Examination (AE), Petitions to Make Special and the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH).

 

Program Definitions

Track One Prioritized Examination allows applicants to pay an additional fee of $4,000 ($2,000 for small entities) to move to the head of the queue. Once granted priority status, an applicant can expect to have an examination completed within 12 months, which is significantly shorter than the current 29.4 month waiting time other applicants can expect.

Accelerated Examination has the same goal of completing the examination within 12 months. Unlike Track One, an applicant pays only a nominal petition fee of $130; however, applicants must conduct a prior art search and submit an Accelerated Examination Support Document in which each claim limitation found in each of the references is identified, both in the prior art and application specification, together with a explanation pointing out how each claim is allowable over the prior art. The petition fee for Accelerated Examination can be waived for inventions directed to environmental quality, energy or countering terrorism.

Petition to Make Special can be filed based on an applicant’s age or health, but applies only to those applicants older than 65 or in very poor health. In such cases, the applicant is not required to submit an Accelerated Examination Support Document.

The Patent Prosecution Highway is only available to applicants who have received an allowance or favorable search report issued in conjunction with a corresponding foreign or Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application. In such situations, applicants can submit the same claim(s) and examination history for consideration and approval to the USPTO. According to the USPTO, examination of a PPH case should begin about two to three months after the PPH request is granted; however, the prosecution is not accelerated beyond being advanced in the queue for starting examination.

 

Analyzing Application Programs

In his December 27, 2012, Patently O blog entry, University of Missouri School of Law Associate Professor Dennis Crouch presents the results of an analysis of approximately 350 applications filed in these programs since 2006 to determine which of the above programs was the best. His analysis found that the Track One applications were allowed, on average, six months after the application’s effective filing date, compared to 10.4 months for Accelerated Examination, 18.5 months for the Patent Prosecution Highway, and 26.4 months for applications made special based on an applicant’s age. Over the same timeframe, pendency for non-expedited applications was about 40.7 months. Clearly, Track One was the fastest.

Based on a cost analysis, Crouch concludes that, “Surprisingly, prosecuting a Track One application may cost less than prosecuting an AE application, even accounting for the large fee for participating in the Track One program.”

 

Allowance Rates

In addition to the cost and speed of the examination process, it is important to consider allowance rates. The allowance rate for Track One applications is reported to be about 50%, which is similar to the allowance rate for non-accelerated applications. This finding is consistent with the comment made by the Chief Policy Officer and Director for International Affairs, Shira Perlmutter:

For those applicants or practitioners concerned about whether Track One applications will be treated differently from others in terms of grant/denial rate, our examiners are being given exactly the same training, credits and incentives to accurately examine Track One cases as for all other cases, and no training, credits or incentives are being given to bias examiner decisions in any way. And as for the data, given the statistics provided above, so far there is no basis to believe there is any difference in result for Track One versus non-Track One processing, other than the significantly faster responsiveness.1

The allowance rate for applications examined in the Accelerated Examination program is about 67%. This high allowance rate seems reasonable considering that, in theory, these applications are allowed over the prior art submitted in the applicants’ Accelerated Examination Support Documents.

The allowance rate of PPH applications is greater than 90%. This high allowance rate is reasonable considering that the allowed claims were previously allowed in a corresponding foreign application or were the subject matter of a favorable PCT search report. This prior determination was accorded full faith and credit by the U.S. examiners.

Crouch was correct in concluding that prosecuting a Track One application may cost less than prosecuting an Accelerated Examination application, even accounting for the large fee for the Track One program. However, the higher allowance rate associated with Accelerated Examination applications might be compelling enough to offset the cost and pendency differences.


References:

  1. Director’s Forum blog, www.uspto.gov/blog/director/.

 Any views or opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not represent those of Ceramic Industry, its staff, Editorial Advisory Board or BNP Media. 

Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to Ceramic Industry Magazine.

Recent Articles by Michael Gzybowski

IP Makes America Great

Track One Prioritized Examination

Taking Advantage of the Post-Prosecution Pilot Program

Using Examiner Interviews to Advance Patent Applications

Post-Issuance Challenges to Patent Validity

Michael-gzybowski-107px

Michael Gzybowski, counsel at Brinks Gilson & Lione, concentrates his practice on patent prosecution, providing support for patent litigation and counseling clients on patentability, infringement and validity issues, and licensing agreements. Gzybowski has more than 30 years of experience, including his work as a patent examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He can be reached at (734) 302-6046 or mgzybowski@usebrinks.com.

Related Articles

IP in Depth: Avoiding Unnecessary Disclosures in Patent Applications

IP in Depth: What Happens to Abandoned Patent Applications?

IP in Depth: Fixing the Application Backlog

IP in Depth: Understanding the USPTO's Compact Prosecution Process

Related Products

Ceramics for Environmental and Energy Applications: Ceramic Transactions, Volume 217

Handbook of Advanced Ceramics Machining

Ceramic Components Directory

Ceramic Materials for Electronics, Third Edition

Related Events

13th Annual Lithium Battery Materials & Chemistries

glasstec 2018

Deco '19

Deco '18

Related Directories

Prince Minerals LLC

PEMCO Inc.

FRITSCH Milling & Sizing Inc.

Fritsch Milling & Sizing Inc.

You must login or register in order to post a comment.

Report Abusive Comment

Subscribe For Free!
  • Print & Digital Edition Subscriptions
  • eNewsletters
  • Online Registration
  • Customer Service

More Videos

CI directories

Products

Handbook of Advanced Ceramics Machining

Handbook of Advanced Ceramics Machining

Ceramics, with their unique properties and diverse applications, hold the potential to revolutionize many industries, including automotive and semiconductors.

See More Products

CI raw and manufactured materials

Ceramic Industry Magazine

CI August 2017 Cover

2017 August

The summer's heating up in our August issue! Check out articles on Industry 4.0 projects, drying considerations, physical vapor deposition coatings, and more.
View More Subscribe
  • Resources
    • Advertiser Index
    • List Rental
    • Custom Content & Marketing Services
    • Manufacturing Group
    • Partners
    • Want More?
    • Connect
    • Privacy Policy

Copyright ©2017. All Rights Reserved BNP Media.

Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing