Parsing USPTO Petitions Data

01 September 2015 PharmaPatents Blog

The USPTO has launched a Petitions Timeline that provides information on the types of petitions that can be filed at each stage of prosecution, the average time to decision and grant rate, and the deciding office. While some of the most interesting petitions may fall under the catch-all categories of “questions not specifically provided for” (petitions under 37 CFR 1.181) and  “invoking the supervisory authority of the Director” (petitions under 37 CFR 1.182), the USPTO petitions data do reveal some interesting points.

Petitions Relating To Advancing Prosecution

The USPTO provides the following data on petitions to advance prosecution:

  • the average decision time on petitions for prioritized examination (Track 1) is 35 days, with a 94% grant rate.
  • the average decision time on petitions for Accelerated Examination under MPEP 708.02(a) is 84 days, with a 37% grant rate.
  • the average decision time on petitions to enter the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) is 128 days, with a 77% grant rate

These numbers indicate that while a Track 1 petition has the highest fee, it also has the shortest grant time and highest grant rate. The longer grant times for Accelerated Examination and PPH petitions likely reflect the need to review the petitions more substantively for compliance with the requirements of those programs.

Petitions Challenging Examiner Decisions

The USPTO provides the following data on petitions challenging examiner decisions:

  • the average decision time on petitions challenging a final Restriction Requirement is 91 days, with a 47% grant rate.
  • the average decision time on petitions challenging the finality of a rejection is 46 days, with a 39% grant rate.

When considering these average grant times, it is important to keep in mind that filing a petition does not stop the response period clock from running. Thus, petitions need to be filed promptly upon receipt of the offending Office Action, in order to increase the likelihood that a decision will be received before a response has to be filed.

Petitions For Retroactive Foreign Filing License

According to the USPTO, petitions for retroactive foreign filing license have an average decision time of 170 days and a grant rate of 36%. Hopefully that low grant rate is for initial petition decisions, since the failure to comply with foreign filing license requirements can prevent the grant of a patent.

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

RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Upcoming Webinar: Maximizing Solar Tax Credits - Navigating the Start of Construction Rules (Part 1)
17 September 2019
Renewable Energy Outlook
When Birds Finally Find a Nest
17 September 2019
Dashboard Insights
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.