Revisiting RCE Statistics

In a prior post, I wrote about the rising number of requests for continued examination (RCEs) based on preliminary 2009–2010 numbers.  The charts below provides updated figures through June 2010 and is based on data provided by the USPTO.  The primary difference between these figures and those presented in my prior post is that the prior post under-estimated FY2009 figures.  Although the number of RCE filings continues to rise, this new data indicates that the growth-rate has slowed.

Patent Commissioner Bob Stoll’s recent comments prompted this revisit of the data. I briefly discuss those comments below.

PatentlyO070

The first chart (above) shows Requests for Continued Examination filings (and earlier forms of CPA and R129 filings) as a percentage of the total number of non-provisional patent applications filed each year.  The denominator here does not include RCE filings but does include continuations and CIP filings. Thus, the calculation is: (Number of RCEs)/(Number of Non-Provisional Filing). The denominator does include plant & reissue applications, but those numbers are negligible.  You may note that my calculations differ from those offered by the USPTO because the USPTO counts an RCE filings as a new application.

The second chart (below) provides raw numbers for the number of non-provisional applications and RCE filings for each year. Again, the non-provisional number does not include RCEs.  A second caveat is that the figures for FY2010 are estimated by extrapolating from current data that goes through June 2010.

PatentLawPic1045

The USPTO under Director Kappos and Commissioner Stoll have been focusing some attention on ways to reduce RCE filings. Specifically, the office believes that a good percentage of RCE filings are classifiable as “unnecessary” because they involve issues that should have been resolved beforehand.  In a recent guest post on the Kappos-Blog, Commissioner Stoll pointed to several initiatives that are designed – in part – to reduce the number of unnecessary RCE’s filed:

  • Redesign of the examiner count system that reduces an examiner’s reward when an applicant files an RCE.
  • Redesign of SPE performance plan to focus on “actions per disposal.”
  • Focus on interviews (projected to be up 60% over last year) as a way to understand important issues early-on.
  • Slowing examiner response to RCEs (because of this “RCE inventory has gone from 17,209 as of July 1, 2009, to 35,569 as of July 1, 2010”).

The USPTO appears to continue to be very open to ideas and suggestions that can help the PTO improve their process in ways are sensitive to applicant costs and rights. On that point, I am still working through the 230+ reader comments on my recent query asking Why do Applicants File So Many Requests for Continued Examination?

68 thoughts on “Revisiting RCE Statistics

  1. 67

    6, I think I’ve got one of those infinite prosecution cases you mention. 9 non-final office actions, including two after re-opening of prosecution after appeal.

  2. 66

    It’s handwaving, ping, not handwaiving. Like magicians do to distract you. Otherwise, keep up the good work. Next to IANAE (and maybe Malcolm) you’re my biggest hero.

  3. 65

    That be some serious whining and crying 6. Did you miss your nap yesterday?

    Nice red herring about “automatic allowance“, since nobody nowhere said any such thing. Iza keep telling ya – a good rejection is one the client can understand that doesn’t have any of that hand-waivy stuff. When me clients smell a crrp job, they will continue to pursue their rights. Weza don’t want bad patents. But we also do want a good examination.

    Nice stop whining and focus on your job.

    an examiner,

    I LOL ya. Your answer is for the applicant to give up his rights to RCE’s? If ya did a quality examination upfront, the applicant would not have a reason to pursue his rights and both RCE’s and appeals would drop – I guess you forgot my earlier observation about appeals and how they not be the answer you want them to be.

  4. 64

    Indeed an examiner, stated another way, what Hal and Ping really want is for the office to end prosecution on their side at Final and allow them infinite prosecution.

  5. 63

    “Here’s a reminder: do a good job and that be sway enough. A quality examination leaves no doubt.”

    You say that like the tard you are. Ain’t no such thing as a “quality examination” that would meet your standards. Even if the examiner spent an entire week on your app, found every piece of art that could ever be applied against it, and applied every single one of them in every possible way to reject everything in the spec (rather than the claims) you still would btch.

    Be honest, you would, wouldn’t you?

  6. 62

    “Sides, if you ever amp up your ability to understand “nuances”, what my pal Hal is noting is that to really have the desired effect, ya gonna have to give RCE’s a count of zero, else the lazy examiner will continue to be only partially disinclined to stop riding the RCE gravy train.”

    So, in order “have the desired effect”, one has to make it such that the applicant only needs get to that point and then they get an automatic allowance over any art not already found (and likely any art already found but not applied)?

    I think we know what you and your pal Hal are really after. And it has nothing to do with the work ethic of examiners, it has to do with obtaining bad patents for less $$$ and time.

    There are easier ways to implement that policy Ping. It just so happens that the office doesn’t like that policy.

  7. 61

    have no sway

    Here’s a reminder: do a good job and that be sway enough. A quality examination leaves no doubt.

  8. 60

    “what my pal Hal is noting is that to really have the desired effect, ya gonna have to give RCE’s a count of zero, else the lazy examiner will continue to be only partially disinclined to stop riding the RCE gravy train.”

    Ping, here’s a reminder, it is the applicant that decides whether to file an RCE. Examiners have no sway or responsibility for the number of RCEs being filed. I’d be fine with getting zero counts on RCEs as long as there was a procedure that allowed the examiner to end prosecution and force applicants to appeal.

  9. 59

    6 – aint my canard, oh ever so observant one (Hint: my pal Hal…)

    Sides, if you ever amp up your ability to understand “nuances”, what my pal Hal is noting is that to really have the desired effect, ya gonna have to give RCE’s a count of zero, else the lazy examiner will continue to be only partially disinclined to stop riding the RCE gravy train.

  10. 58

    “Quite simply, what every experienced practicioner understood is that the grant of a “count” to an Examiner for an RCE was the driving force behind the filing of RCE’s. ”

    Still holding on to your canard even after it is shown to be blatantly false?

    It takes a real hard head to keep banging it against the wall even after blood and gore is starting to show.

  11. 57

    To quote my pal Hal Wegner:

    “What happened?

    Quite simply, what every experienced practicioner understood is that the grant of a “count” to an Examiner for an RCE was the driving force behind the filing of RCE’s. The only way to cut back on RCE’s would have been to eliminate RCE “count” credit.

    Yet, in the negotiation with the Union, count credits were maintained for RCE’s, albeit at a discount to give 75% count credit.”

  12. 56

    “Can you give us an idea of the size of your “New” docket? ”

    My “New” tab right now is like 22 cases. I could have more or less depending on the week.

    “If you only do act on one case from that docket every bi-week, how long would it take for you to “have” to work on an RCE filed now?”

    My progress on the cases on the “New” tab doesn’t affect the “Special New” tab due dates. They are different tabs. I don’t think you’re understanding how the system is set up.

    Just fyi, on my “special new” tab I only have 3 cases atm. I usually try to keep them low, and I do RCE’s fairly quickly anyway.

    “I have about 40 cases on my Special New docket, about 15 of which are RCEs.”

    Lol jebus, I hope you’re a primary that’s been here for like 10 years and is getting a lot of CONS n DIVS. I have heard that if we had a special new tab that large there might be other workflow rules that might kick into effect and give you points you might not expect.

    “, how is it that “submarine” patents can issue after so many years of total pendancy? ”

    More RCE’s? People that will take the workflow hit to not issue an action because they don’t like you? People issuing 5 non-finals per final disposal? Take your pick.

    “Are the “workflow points” punishments so light that some examiners think are better off taking up more much newer and easier cases and just floggin off really old ones with long file histories?”

    I would not say they are “light”. They’re not impossible to meet, if you stay on top of them, though things can slip by. If you get any workflow points on a Bi-week taken away then you are ineligible to get the “bonus” .2 points per case you can make for having done an amended case within the first month it was sent to you. Also, workflow can be excused by the SPE for various reasons, though I doubt there are any that would excuse the case just because the examiner didn’t want to issue an action.

  13. 55

    “While workflow requires that you do one RCE each month (every two biweeks), an examiner is probably going to have a more difficult time making production if they do the bare minimum. Also, the RCE queue is sorted by original filing date, not the RCE filing date. An RCE filed today might be put at the top of the queue and become oldest new next biweek if its got an old filing date, regardless of how long other RCEs have been waiting.”

    To clarify this, you have to do the oldest case (by effective filing date) every two bi-weeks. It *might* be an RCE, but it also might be a continuation or a divisional. As R notes, if your case has an old effective filing date, it might go to the top of the queue right away, whereas if it has a recent filing date, it will not only go to the back of the line but later-filed RCEs, CONs, and DIVs will jump ahead of it.

    I have about 40 cases on my Special New docket, about 15 of which are RCEs. You can do the math.

  14. 54

    (presuming)

    Ya mean ASSuming, doncha Fish?

    Pretty Particular with the shtty “submarine” stuff today “Throwback”

    Cepts you don’t know my practice particulars and you surely don’t get my rants about what “submarine” really means

    Hint: the change in effective dates kills submarines – the RCE dance don’t make submarines cause even the PTA guarantees are shelved with the request for RCE, and it be the applicant’s clock ticking from that point.

    pgPub wasn’t supposed to cure anything (if only pursuing the invention stateside, there be that request for nonpub)- it was supposed to be us emulating ROW (some bonehead move that be) and actually was a ploy plainly steal from applicants (grab the quid, keep the quo). For the conspiracy fans out there – ever notice that the Reject-Reject-Reject and the pgPub started about the same time?

  15. 53

    Also, the RCE queue is sorted by original filing date,

    How about if an application is made special, such as by inventor age. Does it go to the head of the line?

  16. 52

    Paul,

    The “submarine” patents were due to Applicant’s like ping filing RCE’s and not giving substantive arguments or amendments to bring the case to patent. (presuming) However, isn’t that what pgPub was supposed to cure?

    Trust me ping, Accountability is simple when the take the points away.

  17. 50

    While workflow requires that you do one RCE each month (every two biweeks), an examiner is probably going to have a more difficult time making production if they do the bare minimum. Also, the RCE queue is sorted by original filing date, not the RCE filing date. An RCE filed today might be put at the top of the queue and become oldest new next biweek if its got an old filing date, regardless of how long other RCEs have been waiting.

    Regarding the data in the original post, I think comparing RCE’s filed with non-provisionals filed each year makes for a poor comparison. For example, the examiner corp has grown significantly in recent years which should lead to an increase in the numbers of FAOM, Finals, RCEs, etc across the board. I think a more interesting comparison would be to look at the RCE filings as percentage of processed applications (FAOM or disposals). It is hard to draw conclusions from the presented data without an an appropriate basis for comparison.

  18. 49

    Thanks 6!
    P.S. If the “oldest” case on the “New” and “Special New” dockets really must be dealt with every 2 bi-weeks, and responses to amendments within 4 months of their filing, how is it that “submarine” patents can issue after so many years of total pendancy? Are the “workflow points” punishments so light that some examiners think are better off taking up more much newer and easier cases and just floggin off really old ones with long file histories? Or perhaps planning to bail out of the PTO before any PTO managers do anything about it?

  19. 48

    “Also, be sure to get your patent application spayed or neutered.”

    Isn’t that what KSR and eBay did?

  20. 47

    “Can you give us an idea of the size of your “New” docket? If you only do act on one case from that docket every bi-week, how long would it take for you to “have” to work on an RCE filed now?”

    I’m in a computer art unit, and it would take about 1.5 years to get to a newly filed RCE if I worked on 1 RCE per bi-week. Others at my gs level seem to have similar RCE docket level.

  21. 46

    Uhhh if the purpose of these changes were a reduction in pending cases… It would seem that RCE’s are still pending to me. I guess they only care about reducing what Locke seems to think is the problem. Not getting an action with 10 months of filing. What a dreamer. Sounds just like the “I want it now” generation is driving patent policy. Harder, bigger, faster, stronger…. ha ha

  22. 45

    6, thanks for your explanations. Can you give us an idea of the size of your “New” docket? If you only do act on one case from that docket every bi-week, how long would it take for you to “have” to work on an RCE filed now?

  23. 44

    “Please clarify: Does the new slower queue for RCE’s actually PREVENT any examiner for taking an RCE up as fast as before, especially after an interview, if the examiner wants to?”

    It could force the examiner’s priorities to change by a smidgen, but that would be hardly noticable and barely change anything.

    Look, here’s the deal.

    When you file a case it comes into my “New” docket eventually. It then proceeds to be acted upon, restriction or FOAM. The “oldest” case on this list must be dealt with every 2 biweeks. You reply, it comes back and goes on my “Amended” tab. I have 2 mo from the date of the LIE’s forwarding that case to me to act on it (else workflow points). (as a side note they also want us to get those out within 4 mo of your actual response). I send out a Final. You then file a response, either an AF (which goes on another tab called “special amended”), an appeal (which goes on the “amended” tab discussed previously) or an RCE. The RCE used to go to the “amended” tab where I had 2 mo to act on it. Now it goes to another tab called “Special New”. This tab used to only contain DIV’s and CON’s etc. On that tab I have to also complete the oldest case on that tab every 2 biweeks.

    Those are pretty much the only rules in place. The “special amended” tab has different things that go there occasionally and they all have different response due dates.

    Any case I “want” to do, I can do immediately. However, time doest only allow me to do things I need to do according to those rules listed for you so that I don’t get workflow.

    Like right now I’m going to do my oldest “New” case so I don’t get workflow points. Hopefully anyway. There are a few more workflow rules that I didn’t get into and they can be quite complicated and surprise you with huge workflow hits sometimes. I call it management by “surprise”.

  24. 43

    “Previously, the examiner would then allow it. But if the RCEs are placed in a “slower queue”, then everyone has a chance to forget what they talked about and agreed to”

    Serious applicants would also know that there’s this thing called an interview summary where everyone writes down their feelings on the issue.

  25. 42

    “What limit would that be, exactly?”

    The percentage of cases that get a FOAM allowance or are allowed after the first final/AF?

  26. 41

    “Are the RCE inventory statistics published? How often?”

    Mine is at 2 atm. I have published this once.

  27. 39

    Brilliant, fun technique. In my delicious tags, and someday in a post. I’m so glad you posted this… I wondered how to do those and do I ever have a surplus of those necklaces! Awesome, thanks!

  28. 38

    The backlog at the Board is 2 yrs and growing. If we think we can make any progress with the Examiner we will file an RCE. We often get finals that make new rejections (because our claim amendments overcame the first ones) or new rationales for maintaining rejections that we think we can work through so an RCE makes sense and is effective.

    I wrote about our post-RCE inventory on PharmaPatentsBlog.com.

  29. 37

    mathematically it is impossible for growth rate to continue unimpeded when asymptotically approaching a limit.

    What limit would that be, exactly?

    We’re at 45% of the new filing rate, which is hardly approaching a limit. There’s no reason why you couldn’t have an RCE in every single one of those applications.

    And even that’s not the limit. Who’s to say you couldn’t file two or more RCEs in a single application in the same year? Or file two RCEs in a single application filed in a previous year?

    You might possibly be able to argue that we’ve hit an inflection point in a logistic growth-type model, if you had more data, but “asymptotically approaching a limit” is a bit far-fetched.

  30. 36

    It is noted that the rate of growth for RCE’s is slowing. Shouldn’t take much solice from this fact since mathematically it is impossible for growth rate to continue unimpeded when asymptotically approaching a limit.

  31. 35

    What’s up,

    Hey you might think that Ima ignoring you (and I am), but that’s not because your thinking about appeals has any merit – it don’t.

    RCE’s and appeals both are through the roof. Ya see, each avenue comes with its own pros and cons and each may be desired for different underlying reasons. The fact that both are seeing such huge traffic (and with appeals ya gotta take into account all of the hidden churn that don’t show up on Office stats (you can google Ron Katznelson and get a better view) – ya gotta include the hidden mountains of low examination quality aps that are stuck in limbo somewheres in the process and the mountain that simply gets kickback(ed) and reopened by the examiner.

    I think it was that Boundy guy that pointed out the Office trick of floating the illegal Claims and Continuations Hijacking and the coveted Appeals rules changes (that also suffered from Office procedural hijinks) were separate prongs of a single attack on the lawful rights of applicants in order to make the Office not look like such a cluster foxtrot.

  32. 34

    Please clarify: Does the new slower queue for RCE’s actually PREVENT any examiner for taking an RCE up as fast as before, especially after an interview, if the examiner wants to?

  33. 33

    “RCE Inventory: RCEs that have been filed but that have not yet received a first post-RCE action on the merits.
    The RCE Inventory is dramatically increasing because the PTO moved RCE’d cases to a slower queue.”

    I believe that moving RCEs to a slower queue was short sighted. The PTO should have reduced the RCE count first, let that play out for a year to clear out the serious applicants who filed RCEs in the belief that they could get better examination. THEN move RCEs to a slower queue to encourage applicants to work harder with the examiner in the beginning. Doing both at the same time just causes the cases to become stale in the examiners’ (and applicants’) minds just when they’re getting to resolve issues.

    Comments on this board notwithstanding, in my experience most serious applicants* see the following sequence of events:

    1. File App
    2. 1st OA: mostly off-base
    3. Response: Some amendments that (a) take into account the art cited, and (b) take a wild guess at what the examiner might have been trying to say
    4. 2nd OA: either (a) amendments necessitate additional search, therefore final, or (b) even further afield than 1st OA
    5. Interview, during which the invention is explained, the art is discussed, issues are hashed out, and applicant agrees to make certain amendments and filed them with an RCE.

    Previously, the examiner would then allow it. But if the RCEs are placed in a “slower queue”, then everyone has a chance to forget what they talked about and agreed to.

    * “Serious applicants” are defined herein as applicants for patent who wish to obtain claim coverage enforceable in court and therefore commensurate in scope to what was actually invented.

  34. 32

    Revisiting me quoting me:

    A few observations:

    RCE’s are an applicant’s legal right. The fact that they are viewed as “bad” indicate a latent anti-applicant stance.

    The primary reason why an applicant chooses to use the RCE tool is that the applicant feels that she has not received an adequate examination on the merits. Period. There can be (and evidently has been – see above) lots of hurling vectives from both sides of the process. It Dont Matta. As long as the customer is not happy, the service provider will be on the hook.

    In order to try to be constructive, the service provider needs to ask better questions and be willing to listen. I don’t see that – I see defensive posturing and “it’s-actually-your-fault” rhetoric.

    Here’s a quarter. Buy a clue.

    Posted by: ping | Jun 30, 2010 at 03:20 PM

  35. 31

    If you want to know what is actually going on I’ll tell you in three words. Deck chairs Titanic.

    It seems to me that to if the Office (and applicants and administration and public…) really want to make a step change reduction in RCE rate, they should consider evaluating new tools to help make examiner –applicant negotiations more efficient. A good place to start might be to look at patents/applications on improved technologies for bilateral negotiations. There seems to be a lot of activity in this area link to google.com

  36. 30

    Which of the following makes more sense?

    A. Applicants file an rce instead of an appeal because “they are not getting a quality examination.”

    Or…

    B. Applicants file an rce instead of an appeal because they did get a quality examination and will lose on appeal.

    Question 2, which of the following makes sense?

    A. “But when the Office Action is simply not believable, clients will pay to continue the fight” by filing an rce.

    Or…

    B. When the Office Action is believable, clients will pay to avoid a fight at the board of appeals by filing an rce.

  37. 29

    “The underlying reason why is still that applicants feel that they are not getting a quality examination.”

    If this is true, the only logical solution is to appeal. Filing endless rce’s and expecting the next round of examination to be better than the last makes no sense. Doing the exact same thing over and over again, but expecting the result to be different, is ….

  38. 28

    “Looks from here that the crying is from you Sunshine – I just be tellin it like it is.”

    Just like you and yours were “just be tellin it like it is” when you guys would say examiners were extorting counts on some noticable scale through RCE’s. Yeah, telling it like “it is”, ahem, “it isn’t”. You lawlyers, always forgetting your “n’t”‘s.

  39. 27

    “Correct?”

    That’s the basic jist, in theory. The theory is of course probably false. In practice, examiners are still going to do RCE’s rather quickly, even though they now have the ability to let them go for longer. The effect on wait times for processing of an RCE due to this change will ultimately be minimal, if even noticable.

    If you want to know what is actually going on I’ll tell you in three words. Deck chairs Titanic.

  40. 25

    “When an examination is dead on and the applicant knows it, losers are flushed and winners get their just desserts. But when the Office Action is simply not believable, clients will pay to continue the fight.”

    In that case, why don’t you simply cry to congress to allow you to pay to have the job done right the first time every time. If you spend a few nights outside the capital steps I’m sure you could get ahold of a few people’s attention if you cry the entire time.

    Be a professional about it though, in case you can’t cry the whole time reliably, bring a water spray bottle to give you some outide assistance with the crying.

    “It be a telling story.”

    What does it tell? Regardless, it can’t be as telling of a story as you crying on congress’s front door step would be.

    “Oh my, I’m in agreement with 6.”

    That sht just about put me in the floor, literally.

  41. 24

    The underlying reason why is still that applicants feel that they are not getting a quality examination.

    When an examination is dead on and the applicant knows it, losers are flushed and winners get their just desserts. But when the Office Action is simply not believable, clients will pay to continue the fight.

    Go back and look at the Crouchster’s thread on number of patents issued that had final rejections. It be a telling story.

  42. 21

    Also, be sure to get your patent application spayed or neutered.

  43. 20

    Truthfully, if you don’t want an issued patent, you shouldn’t be filing patent applications.

    Supposing I want a patent application. What course of action do you recommend?

    Adopt.

  44. 19

    Thanks 6, Dennis and Arthur for the clarification.

    If I understand it correctly then, roughly 140,000 RCE’s are processed each year by 6000 examiners. That’s two RCE’s per two biweeks when examiners only have to take up one RCE per two biweeks. So right now, Examiners are taking up RCEs (and continuing applications) at roughly twice the minimum rate they have to.

    Am I correct so far?

    That tells me that examiners anticipate spending less time getting a disposal on an RCE than on an original application since under the point system that was in place until recently, they got the same amount of points for disposal of either.

    Under the new point system, however, they only get 1.75 points for disposal of a first RCE compared to 2 points for disposal of an original application. The Office hopes this will encourage examiners to negotiate more effectively with applicants in order to reach agreement on allowable claims (if any) and reduce the need for an RCE.

    Am I still on the right track?

    Another anticipated consequence of the change in point system is that examiners may shift their attention from RCEs to original applications since they get more points for those. This will lead to longer delays in getting a FAOM after an RCE. This, in turn, will increase the incentive for applicants to negotiate more effectively with examiners to reach agreement on allowable claims (if any) to avoid the additional delays related to the examination of RCEs (assuming, on average, that applicants want patents to issue as soon as possible without sacrificing desired claim scope).

    Correct?

  45. 18

    Re: “this data seems to indicate that at least some of the patent bar wants to prolong prosecution.” [By using RCE’s]
    [Dave Kappos latest blog suggests that also, and surprisingly does not seem to criticise it?]

    Multiple serial RCE’s seem to me to be an expensive and dumb option to prolong application prosecution opportunities. [Not even to mention risking raising prosecution laches and/or sanctions for filing papers for purposes of delay by overdoing it.]
    Due to the [inexcusable] slowness with which the PTO sets up old-fashioned continuations, and then ignores their true (original) filing dates in examining them, old-fashioned continuations [or divisionals] are much more effective for extending prosecution opportunities than RCE’s.

  46. 17

    Truthfully, if you don’t want an issued patent, you shouldn’t be filing patent applications.

    Supposing I want a patent application. What course of action do you recommend?

  47. 16

    If some attorneys or companies want a pending application instead of an issued patent, then examiners shouldn’t be spending time examining these applications.

    Truthfully, if you don’t want an issued patent, you shouldn’t be filing patent applications.

  48. 15

    this data seems to indicate that at least some of the patent bar wants to prolong prosecution.

    Which everybody already knows.

  49. 14

    Rather, this data seems to indicate that at least some of the patent bar wants to prolong prosecution.

    How many of them are requesting suspension of action with their RCEs?

  50. 13

    The revised count system presumably removed the examiner’s incentive of making a bad final rejection in hopes of getting an rce, yet the rce’s are increasing.

    This seems to confirm 6’s point that examiners are not making final rejections just for the sake of getting an rce. Rather, this data seems to indicate that at least some of the patent bar wants to prolong prosecution.

    If some attorneys or companies want a pending application instead of an issued patent, then examiners shouldn’t be spending time examining these applications. Their time would be better spent working with attorneys and inventors that want to actually understand the scope and content of the prior art, then write a claim that defines the invention over the prior art.

  51. 12

    How about a graph comparing the time to get a decision from the Board versus the number of RCE’s filed.

  52. 11

    Sorry, I’m a bit slow today. “special new”?
    Jul 29, 2010 at 01:45 PM

    An examiner’s “special new” docket contains only RCE’s, CON’s, CIP’s and DIV’s assigned to that examiner.

    According to the examiner PAP (performance appraisal plan), examiners must complete the oldest new case in the special new docket once every two bi-weeks. E.g. if the examiner is getting 2-3 RCE’s a biweek (on her special new docket), she only needs to complete the oldest of those RCE’s once every second biweek, thus accumulating a significant “RCE inventory” over time. Not surprisingly, the year-over-year RCE inventory has nearly doubled, as Dennis notes above.

  53. 10

    “Although the number of RCE filings continues to rise, this new data indicates that the growth-rate has slowed”

    it is the economy

  54. 9

    RCE Inventory: RCEs that have been filed but that have not yet received a first post-RCE action on the merits.

    The RCE Inventory is dramatically increasing because the PTO moved RCE’d cases to a slower queue.

  55. 7

    why would one expect rce filings to increase? I would expect rce filings to decrease, if the rce’s were in fact caused by bad rejections.

  56. 6

    “Redesign of the examiner count system that reduces an examiner’s reward when an applicant files an RCE. ”

    The perfect way to control someone’s actions is to control someone else’s actions… Wait, wait, no, hmmmm, I think that’s the other way around.

    The only thing that move did was expose the liars that insist that examiners are all the time somehow forcing applicants to file an RCE. As if such a thing were possible in the first place.

  57. 4

    “Although the number of RCE filings continues to rise, this new data indicates that the growth-rate has slowed. ”

    well D, you know, the “growth rate” can only grow so much.

  58. 3

    I think Gold Plated raises an interesting point. It would be interesting to see an aggregate chart that shows abandonments (with and without continuations), appeals, and RCE filings to see how applicants are acting in response to final office actions.

  59. 1

    Isn’t the important comparison between appeal filings and RCE filings? Appeals increased when applicants got fed up with examiners rejecting their applications. Now that the PTO is back on track, one would expect new appeal filings to have fallen off and more RCE’s to have been filed.

Comments are closed.