Based on the USPTO’s most recent numbers on examination, I created an updated table of the average delay until a first office action is mailed from the PTO. These numbers reflect an average for each technology center as it operates today. The 3.8 year delay in Electronic Commerce (TC 3620) means that the applications receiving first office actions during the past three months were filed 3.8 years ago on average — taking us back to early 2003. The numbers do not necessarily reflect how long it would take for an application filed today to make it through. (Although it is perhaps one of the better estimates that we have on hand.).
Average Time After Filing Before First Office Action | ||||||
Tech Center | Description | Mths | Yrs | |||
3620 | Electronic Commerce | 45.4 | 3.8 | |||
2140 | Computer networks | 40.0 | 3.3 | |||
2130 | Cryptography security | 36.4 | 3.0 | |||
2190 | Interprocess communications | 35.9 | 3.0 | |||
2160 | Database and file management/ | 35.0 | 2.9 | |||
2620 | Television and TV Recording | 33.5 | 2.8 | |||
2610 | Digital Communications General | 32.7 | 2.7 | |||
1740 | Metallurgy | 30.2 | 2.5 | |||
1610 | Pharmaceutical formulations | 29.9 | 2.5 | |||
1760 | Food technology | 28.9 | 2.4 | |||
2120 | Miscellaneous computer | 28.5 | 2.4 | |||
3730 | Medical instruments | 28.5 | 2.4 | |||
1640 | Immunology receptor/ligands | 27.5 | 2.3 | |||
2180 | Computer architecture | 26.9 | 2.2 | |||
2110 | Computer architecture | 26.6 | 2.2 | |||
1630 | Molecular biology | 25.9 | 2.2 | |||
3760 | Body treatment | 24.8 | 2.1 | |||
1620 | Organic chemistry | 24.1 | 2.0 | |||
3680 | Machine elements | 24.0 | 2.0 | |||
1710 | Synthetic resins | 23.5 | 2.0 | |||
3710 | Amusement and | 23.5 | 2.0 | |||
1750 | Chemical products and | 23.1 | 1.9 | |||
3630 | Static structures | 22.8 | 1.9 | |||
1650 | Fermentation microbiology | 22.8 | 1.9 | |||
1770 | Stock materials and | 22.2 | 1.8 | |||
3650 | Material handling and | 22.2 | 1.8 | |||
3750 | Fluid handling and | 22.0 | 1.8 | |||
1720 | Fluid separation and | 21.9 | 1.8 | |||
2890 | Semiconductor Electrical | 20.4 | 1.7 | |||
3660 | Computerized vehicle | 20.4 | 1.7 | |||
3720 | Manufacturing devices | 20.0 | 1.7 | |||
3610 | Surface transportation | 19.9 | 1.7 | |||
2820 | Semiconductors and | 19.7 | 1.6 | |||
3740 | Thermal and | 19.6 | 1.6 | |||
2830 | Power generation and | 19.4 | 1.6 | |||
2810 | Semiconductors and | 19.2 | 1.6 | |||
3670 | Wells earth boring/ | 19.2 | 1.6 | |||
2870 | Liquid crystals | 19.1 | 1.6 | |||
2950 | Photocopying | 18.8 | 1.6 | |||
3640 | Aeronautics | 17.8 | 1.5 | |||
1660 | Plants | 16.8 | 1.4 | |||
1730 | Glass and paper making | 16.0 | 1.3 | |||
2900 | Designs | 15.0 | 1.2 | |||
I know this is an old posting, but where on the USPTO web site can such data (“most recent numbers on examination”) be obtained?
Maybe the USPTO should simply defer all software patents, which are already much slower on average than others, until after they’ve handled all pending legitimate patents. ๐
Sorry grant M, that last comment was directed to anonomous (execellent speller as well).
Stepback, a case is what it is. You can’t call a divisional a continuation or vice versa. Of course, if you did call your divisional a continuation, a wise examiner would give you the fastest office action you’ve ever received. He/she would open that case, realise it’s a “continuation” that is claiming a different invention than the parent, issue an election by original presentation, withdraw all the claims for not reading on the elected invention and give you your office action.
Grant M, I doubt anyone who reads this blog wants to read your nutty liberal rants.
Isn’t is obvious, no pun intended, that the entrenched big players don’t want to be bothered with pesky innovation, start ups and patents? The Bush admin just views this as good constituent services. BTW, this admin proves the old saw about republicans – they run on a platform that big government does not work, get elected , then prove it. See,
link to theregister.co.uk
Dennis,
Where exactly did you locate this info within the USPTO. If on their website, can you provide a link to this data and any other pertinent information you have on the topic. Thanks…
*** These numbers are derived directly from those REPORTED by the PTO. *** Thus, it is entirely possible (as CaveMan suggests) that the numbers have some ‘optimism.’
Dennis, did you get these numbers based on actual data for cases in which first actions have been received, or based on, for example, estimates provided by the Tech Centers? I ask because often times the TC estimates for time to first action are quite optimistic. Individual cases may vary widely.
Stepback:
I can’t speak for everyone and how they handle their cases, but CONS and DIVS are lumped together on our dockets. In theory, the oldest effective should be moved first. Personally, i don’t care whether it is a CON or a DIV. I look at the claims and if they are ready for search and examination, i do it. If they need restriction, I do that.
While I described the method of docketing and getting cases into the pipeline above, of course CONS and DIVS usually require less consideration and search by the examiner, *if* that examiner also handled the parent case. I am not saying we give child cases less consideration, merely that an examiner who has done one case is likely to be familiar with the subject matter and closest prior art
One examiner revealed to me that CONs move faster than DIVs. The assumption is that DIVs need a whole new search whereas a CON is a continuation of a case for which it is assumed that an intial search has been done. So if you want your case to move faster, label it a CON. If you want it to move slower, call it a DIV.
With respect to the assertion/statement that CONs and DIVs might be acted on more quickly:
Examiners’ dockets are split into “New” (i.e. first time case is filed) and “Special” sections. “Special” does not mean petition-to-make-special, but rather includes CONs and DIVs. Examiners work on 2-week (pay-period) chunks of time. Every 2 pay periods (i.e. 4 weeks, about a month) we are supposed to move:
– our oldest NEW case (i.e. oldest actual US filing date, whether under 111, 120, or 371; provisionals don’t count)
– our case with the oldest EFFECTIVE filing date.
What this comes to is that once a month we have to move our oldest new and, usually, the oldest CON or DIV. Note that “moving a case” does not mean writing a full office action. If restriction is required, it means writing a restriction. But either way it gets the oldest-new and oldest-effective into the pipeline.
Kevin & Blaise — These are good questions — Unfortunately I don’t have the answers at this point.
I would be interested in the standard deviation as well since the “averages” may come from a large range of values and be very different depending on different art units and/or Examiners.
Dennis:
Do you have any way of looking at the differences, if any, between new filings and continuations/divisionals in terms of time-to-first-action? It might address the idea that continuations are clogging up the PTO, since I expect that these are handled more expeditiously than new filings.
Comments are closed.