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 3.7 year delay in Fuel Cell and Battery Technology (TC 1795) means that the applications receiving first office actions from that TC during the past three months were filed 3.7 years ago on average — taking us back to early 2005. 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.).
Technology Center |
Description |
Months |
Years |
1795 |
Fuel cells batteries solar |
44.8 |
3.7 |
1791 |
Tires, adhesive bonding, glass |
43.8 |
3.7 |
1797 |
Separation, purification |
43.8 |
3.7 |
1610 |
Pharmaceutical formulations |
42.9 |
3.6 |
3680-B |
Business Methods |
42.3 |
3.5 |
3620 |
Electronic Commerce |
40.7 |
3.4 |
1792 |
Coating etching cleaning |
40.4 |
3.4 |
1794 |
Food stock materials |
39.4 |
3.3 |
2130 |
Cryptography security |
39.2 |
3.3 |
2140 |
Computer networks |
38.8 |
3.2 |
2190 |
Interprocess communications |
38.5 |
3.2 |
2620 |
Television and TV Recording |
37.2 |
3.1 |
1796 |
Organic chemistry and polymers |
35.4 |
3.0 |
1793 |
Metallurgy metal working |
34.9 |
2.9 |
2610 |
Digital Communications General |
34.8 |
2.9 |
1620 |
Organic chemistry |
34.1 |
2.8 |
3640 |
Aeronautics |
34.1 |
2.8 |
3680-A |
Business Methods – Finance |
33.9 |
2.8 |
3630 |
Static structures |
30.5 |
2.5 |
3650 |
Material handling |
29.3 |
2.4 |
2110 |
Computer architecture |
29.2 |
2.4 |
3610 |
Surface transportation |
29.1 |
2.4 |
2120 |
Miscellaneous computer |
28.3 |
2.4 |
3780 |
Package and Article Carriers |
26.9 |
2.2 |
2160 |
Database and file management |
26.9 |
2.2 |
3670 |
Wells earth boring |
26.7 |
2.2 |
3680-A |
Machine elements |
26.7 |
2.2 |
1630 |
Molecular biology |
25.9 |
2.2 |
1650 |
Fermentation microbiology |
25.6 |
2.1 |
2180 |
Computer architecture |
24.9 |
2.1 |
3750 |
Fluid handling and |
24.9 |
2.1 |
1640 |
Immunology receptor ligands |
24.2 |
2.0 |
2811+ |
Semiconductors and |
23.9 |
2.0 |
2871+ |
Liquid crystals optical |
23.7 |
2.0 |
3730 |
Medical instruments |
23.4 |
2.0 |
3710 |
Amusement |
22.9 |
1.9 |
2816+ |
Electronic circuits static |
22.6 |
1.9 |
3660 |
Computerized vehicle |
22.4 |
1.9 |
3770 |
Respirators Therapeutic |
21.9 |
1.8 |
2831+ |
Electronic conductors |
21.9 |
1.8 |
3760 |
Body treatment |
21.4 |
1.8 |
1660 |
Plants |
21.3 |
1.8 |
3720 |
Manufacturing devices |
20.4 |
1.7 |
I’ve got a handful of 09/ applications still in prosecution, filed back in…. 2000.
The regular stuff I’m writing FAOM for (non special, pct, AccEx, etc) is late 2004/early 2005, so… 4 years. If you counted special and accelerated exam cases I could see pulling it down to 3.2 years.
2140s
Our system is lame and its going to prevent us from being competitive in global market place while China India and Germany run laps around us.
While patent attorney conduct is governed by meeting the needs of our clients, no such check on Examiner behavior exists (IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LOSE YOUR JOB AS AN EXAMINER). Putting a 31 year veteran in place as a policy maker will only re-enforce broken principles that are prevalent.
Would love to see more statistics, such as the variance of the wait time beside its average, or even better the shape of the wait time distribution.
Does this data include reissue examinations? If not, is there any similar analysis for reissues?
the statistics are very very sad and inexecusable
Re: “These numbers reflect an average [“until a first office action is mailed”] for each technology center as it operates today.”
—-
Even if I had spin-free-faith in how the PTO calculates these “averages,”* an “average” ought not be be nearly as concerning as how many backlogged applications are really “submarine” applications way up on the high side of the average, including serial continuations.
*In spite of their already being caught counting RCE’s as new applications.
I’m on my knees!
President-elect Obama, please please please!
“Ms. Focarino has been with the agency for more than 31 years …”
Nasty! Brain rot!
Dudas, I am here to remind you, of the mess you will have left when you went away! I am mad, very mad!
“I believe becuase of Bilski, the time of waiting the fist OA in group 3620, which most of the applications are business model applications, will be greatly cut short because many of the applications will be invalid for 101.”
Doubtful for two reasons:
1) Regardless of whether or not claims are rejected under 101, an examiner must still examine the claims for 102/103.
2) Unless the attorney drafting the specification was hiding under a rock the last 10 years, there should be some disclosure in the specification which enables applicant to amend the claims to recite statutory subject matter.
patent leather,
Doll has not been demoted. In his new Deputy role of the USP”T”O, he has added “Trademark” to his resume. Also, he can add “Under Secetary of Commerce.”
This is definitely a promotion for him, and after retirement, he can command even bigger bucks when he adds these positions on his CV as an expert witness in patent litigation cases.
patent leather makes excellent points.
…for 1796 and above (oops)
…so for every single technology center above, the average application has maxed out the “A” term of the Patent Term Adjustment due to the overlap created from the start of the “B” term (3 years to complete processing – 14 months to first office action).
Kind of puts a dent in the argument of all those claiming that the business and computer arts applications are clogging up the system.
We’ll need a new villian to find.
Hey folks, look at the notice on the USPTO page:
Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced two temporary reassignments of responsibilities among its senior management, effective immediately.
With the departure of Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO Margaret J.A. Peterlin from the agency this month, Commissioner for Patents John Doll will now serve as Acting Deputy Under Secretary and Deputy Director, performing the duties and functions of that position.
During this interim period, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations Margaret (“Peggy”) Focarino will assume the responsibilities of the Commissioner for Patents.
“With John’s and Peggy’s leadership, we will ensure that the important work of the Deputy Under Secretary and Deputy Director, as well as that of the Commissioner for Patents, continues in an uninterrupted fashion, which is good for our employees, the agency and the intellectual property system,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO Jon Dudas.
Mr. Doll has been with the USPTO for more than 34 years, serving in a variety of capacities, including patent examiner, supervisory patent examiner and technology center director. He has been a driving force behind hiring record numbers of new examiners, and in aggressively expanding USPTO’s e-government programs, including EFS-Web—which now accounts for more than 70 percent of patent application filings.
Ms. Focarino has been with the agency for more than 31 years, and has significant experience as a patent examiner, supervisory patent examiner and technology center director. During her tenure as Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations, Ms. Focarino implemented a new approach to training examiners, and supported telework programs for patent examiners and technical support staff, all while maintaining record levels of performance in patent operations.
————–
Has Doll been demoted?? Is this a ploy to make the case for Obama to appoint Focarino to Commissioner? What is going on here?
It looks like I got my wish!
It’s all been said before, but one major reason for the large backlog is that the PTO rarely allows things anymore. If the examiner rejects a patentable application, all that happens is the examiner gets to examine a subsequent RCE and gets an easy count. If the examiner allows an unpatentable application, he and his art unit get in trouble. But an examiner who is not a primary does not even have authority to allow any claims, and he has to first seek approval from his primary or SPE (which from what I hear, makes the examiner look bad). You’ve heard of a Kangaroo court, well what we have now is a Kangaroo Patent Office (not as catchy without the alliteration).
There is a mechanism for addressing bad patents, and that is reexamination.
Hopefully, the Obama administration will put in new leaders at the PTO who can fix up all the damage by Doll & associates.
I believe becuase of Bilski, the time of waiting the fist OA in group 3620, which most of the applications are business model applications, will be greatly cut short because many of the applications will be invalid for 101.
Comments are closed.