The AFCP 2.0 program was established in 2012 to provide applicants with an alternative to RCEs. The purpose of the program is threefold:
- To cut down on the number of RCEs filed, and thus help to reduce the RCE backlog
- To increase communication between examiners and applicants
- To increase the speed of patent prosecution
Although AFCPs are not a suitable response for all final rejections, they generally have a positive influence on applications that take advantage of them. As we noted in our recent webinar “AFCP 2.0: Everything You Need to Know,” applications in which the applicant chose to respond to a final rejection with an AFCP request have higher average allowance rates, and successful AFCPs reduce an application’s prosecution timeline by about three to five months. There are, however, several art units where AFCPs significantly raise the average allowance rate for applications that include them compared to those that don’t.
Below are the ten art units or art unit groups in which an AFCP 2.0 request has the most positive impact on allowance rates.
As we said above, AFCPs are not suitable for every final rejection. The choice of how to respond to a final rejection on your particular application will involve weighing many competing interests and require a hefty dose of strategic decision making. That’s where Juristat Examiner Reports can help—by helping prosecutors figure out the best way to respond to every final rejection, as well as guiding them through prosecution with data-backed insights. To see how big data could revolutionize your patent practice, sign up for free today.