When it comes to office actions and your patent prosecution strategy, less is definitely more. Less time, less work, more profit, and more satisfied clients. Based on Juristat’s recent ranking though, some USPTO examiners might be thinking more is more. 

Knowing which examiners issue the most OAs per application on average can help you find the most efficient path to approval for your client.

The USPTO has an official term for examiner procrastination - end-loading. An interesting metric to be sure, but how can you use examiner procrastination to your advantage in patent prosecution?

An ideal patent prosecution is quick, cost-efficient, and ultimately successful. The more office actions an application receives, the longer, more expensive, and less viable an application becomes.

How do interviews impact your chance at an allowance? Our analysis found that 92% of examiners are more likely to allow an application when an interview is part of the prosecution.

To find success, law firms need to live in a constant state of self-assessment. The world of patent prosecution is always changing, and IP attorneys need to re-evaluate ineffective and slow routines to stay competitive.

For years, Alice has been a source of frustration for many patent practitioners. New guidance released by the USPTO in 2019 promised to provide some consistency. It’s now been two years — has anything changed?

To succeed in any industry, a certain amount of foresight and planning is key. For patent attorneys, identifying and taking action on high-cost prosecution can lessen the usual timeline and save money in the long term.

Patent prosecution is expensive and complex. And often, each individual practitioner has their own unique approach to reach that all-important NOA. But inconsistent practices and reliance solely on past experience can lead to inflated costs.

Procrastination. We all do it. In-house counsel do it, OCs do it, and USPTO examiners do it. In fact, some examiners procrastinate a lot.

Contemplating an interview at the USPTO? Our analysis found that nearly 95% of examiners are more likely to allow an application when an interview is part of the prosecution.