Holding The USPTO Accountable For The RCE Backlog

22 May 2012 PharmaPatents Blog

As I was cleaning up my office a few weeks ago, I came across a December 2009 article I wrote with my colleague Steve Reid for BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, entitled “New Patent Office Examination Procedures: Bane or Boon?” The article discusses the then-new changes to the USPTO’s internal procedures for examining applications after a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) has been filed. We predicted that the changes “could introduce significant delays in prosecution,” and the statistics recently reported on Patently-O confirm that we were right. The problem is growing and reaching a crisis—I have RCE applications that have been waiting over a year for examination. How do we hold the USPTO accountable for the growing RCE backlog?

The Application Shell Game

While the USPTO has been focusing its efforts—and touting its successes— on reducing the backlog of new patent applications awaiting examination, the number of RCE applications awaiting continued examination has ballooned. Indeed, the data reported on Patently-O show that while the new application backlog decreased by 64,000 from March 2011 to March 2012, the RCE backlog increased by 22,144 and the appeal backlog increased by 5,280. Issuing more first Office Actions without completing examination of pending applications is nothing but a shell game—shifting the stack of in-process applications from one category to another.

USPTO Policies Discourage Examination Of RCEs

The rise in the RCE backlog is not just the result of the increased attention given to new applications. USPTO policies actually discourage examiners from working on RCEs. Specifically, the USPTO’s current docketing procedures and count system treat RCEs worse than both brand new applications and new continuation and divisional applications. 

As explained in our Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal article, RCEs, continuation applications and divisional applications are placed on an examiner’s “special new” docket.  An examiner must examine just one application from this docket—usually the one with the oldest priority date—every other biweek, i.e., about one per month. Moreover, an examiner gets less credit towards his or her production goals for issuing an Office Action in an RCE than for issuing an Office Action in a continuation or divisional application. This system gives examiners no incentive to work on an RCE. Indeed, one examiner suggested that we file a continuation application instead of an RCE, to make it more likely that examination would proceed in a more timely manner.  

Shirking Its Statutory Obligation

The USPTO’s current policies and procedures shirk its statutory obligation “to provide for the continued examination of applications . . . at the request of the applicant,” as 35 USC § 132(b) requires.  Making an RCE wait longer for an Office Action than a new continuation application is not “continuing” examination. Putting an application on hold for months or years is not “continuing” examination. Permitting an examiner to delay examination of an RCE application until he or she has forgotten the invention, the prior art, the rejections and the applicants’ explanations is not “continuing” examination.

Impeding Innovation

By focusing on the front-end of the examination process without considering the process as a whole, the USPTO may have lost sight of the fact that applicants do not want an Office Action, they want a patent.  Indeed, applicants need granted patents in order to enforce their rights, secure investments, and improve their value. As I wrote previously, permitting applications to languish midstream in prosecution is inefficient, and drags down innovation, investment and commercialization just as much as delaying examination of new applications. It is time for stakeholders to hold the USPTO accountable for the RCE backlog and demand that RCEs be examined in a timely manner.

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

Text Messages, EDiscovery, and the New Threat to Privacy
21 November 2019
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
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