The following table is based on the file histories of 20,000 published patent applications that have been disposed-of.
|
Technology Center |
Non-Final Rejection |
Final Rejection |
Request for Continued Examination |
Restriction Requirement |
|
1600 – Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry |
80% |
35% |
16% |
54% |
|
1700 – Chemical and Materials Engineering |
87% |
38% |
17% |
21% |
|
2100 – Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security |
91% |
46% |
27% |
6% |
|
2400 – Computer Networks, Multiplex, Video Distribution, and Security |
93% |
47% |
28% |
6% |
|
2600 – Communications |
85% |
33% |
18% |
7% |
|
2800 – Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components |
77% |
27% |
15% |
18% |
|
3600 – Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture |
88% |
36% |
14% |
19% |
|
3700 – Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, Products |
86% |
34% |
15% |
18% |
The following two tables provide the same information but are limited to applications that have issued and that have been abandoned respectively.
|
PATENTED: Technology Center |
Non-Final Rejection |
Final Rejection |
Request for Continued Examination |
Restriction Requirement |
|
1600 – Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry |
84% |
34% |
21% |
44% |
|
1700 – Chemical and Materials Engineering |
83% |
34% |
20% |
19% |
|
2100 – Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security |
88% |
42% |
31% |
7% |
|
2400 – Computer Networks, Multiplex, Video Distribution, and Security |
89% |
46% |
36% |
6% |
|
2600 – Communications |
81% |
32% |
20% |
7% |
|
2800 – Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components |
73% |
23% |
15% |
17% |
|
3600 – Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture |
84% |
32% |
17% |
19% |
|
3700 – Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, Products |
82% |
31% |
17% |
18% |
|
ABANDONED: Technology Center |
Non-Final Rejection |
Final Rejection |
Request for Continued Examination |
Restriction Requirement |
|
1600 – Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry |
77% |
35% |
12% |
62% |
|
1700 – Chemical and Materials Engineering |
91% |
44% |
14% |
24% |
|
2100 – Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security |
98% |
52% |
20% |
6% |
|
2400 – Computer Networks, Multiplex, Video Distribution, and Security |
96% |
49% |
21% |
6% |
|
2600 – Communications |
93% |
37% |
15% |
7% |
|
2800 – Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components |
90% |
41% |
12% |
23% |
|
3600 – Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture |
93% |
40% |
10% |
19% |
|
3700 – Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, Products |
93% |
38% |
11% |
19% |
Different art units are different.
Can we move on please?
Well, whoever it was (or wasn’t), that AU still has a restriction level far higher than what is reasonable for a competent, non-greedy bunch of practicioners.
Why would you not say the same thing about the rejection level for any other art unit? Why aren’t the rejection levels for the 2100 and 2400 AUs unacceptable? With a non-final rejection rate of 91% and 93% respectively, a final rejection rate of 46% and 47% respectively, and a RCE filing rate of 27% and 28% respectively, all of which being well above the mean across all art units, are practitioners in these AUs not also being either incompetent or greedy? Why do you save your criticism for the 1600 AU regarding restrictions?
In case you didn’t understand the conclusions I was hoping one would draw from my earlier posts, I’ll spell it out for you. Based on what I’ve seen in my firm regarding biotech and electrical/computer applications, the high rejection levels in the 2100 and 2400 AUs vs. the high restriction level in the 1600 AU evinces what happens regularly in all technology centers at the USPTO: practitioners are filing claims that are overbroad. If the conclusion you draw based on the information above is that the 1600 practitioners are being incompetent or greedy, then so is everyone else that practices before the USPTO.
“give you an answer to your satisfaction.”
That be cool Wilton – cepts your answer would be to no one’s satisfaction as it is not an answer a’tall, and tis but a shoddy observation (my observation is much better).
As for the “disdain“, I think you protest too much (which description are you laying claim to – the incomptent or the greedy?). My observation was merely a friendly jibe at my pal Malcolm. Oh wait, I forgot, you are Malcolm. Or was that IANAE? Or were you me?
I need a scorecard.
Well, whoever it was (or wasn’t), that AU still has a restriction level far higher than what is reasonable for a competent, non-greedy bunch of practicioners.
Come on now… every one knows Wilton is related to cakes, and baking. And you can not bake a cake in the rain. Cause it takes to long to bake it, and it took to long to make it. And I’ll never have that recipe again. oh nooo…. oh nooo.
Remember back when 6 was trying to reverse frost a Cake.. I will remember that fondly even in my distant rocking chair days.. That was a HOOT 6!
Ping, considering that “homey don’t do answers,” I feel no compulsion to give you an answer to your satisfaction. Needless to say, I find your disdain for those who practice in the 1600 AU to be without merit because you lack any semblance of experience in prosecuting such applications.
Gee, Wilton,
That’s another non-answer.
Thanks.
And your point Wilton is what?
That practicioners in this art field don’t understand the scope of the independent claims that they are drafting? (du_mb)
That they don’t understand that an application is supposed to be for one invention? (greedy)
You haven’t said anything that refutes what I’ve said.
From my limited experience, I’ve noticed that when an applicant submits an overly broad independent claim in a mechanical case (which I imagine happens a lot), it tends to get bounced by the examiner under a prior art rejection. However, in biotech applications, claims that attempt to claim genuses (genii?) tend to get restricted instead of rejected because they cover separate pieces of subject matter that are distinctly different from each other. Why they are distinctly different is something I cannot answer, but from what I’ve seen from the Ph.D’s that work in my office, it tends to happen a lot.
“7, I am surprised by your assertion that EPO opinions are trashy on novelty. What they invariably do is to recite the verbatim text of claim 1, but interspersed with reference numbers drawn from the drawing figures of the D1 prior art reference. So you immediately know what the novelty attack is and what you have to do to defeat it. What more do you want?
Or are you in an art where there are no drawings?”
I deal with a wide variety of art, some of which don’t really have drawings beyond block diagrams and flowcharts. In these cases more than the others, the examiner will cite to a portion of D1 and say it discloses Claim Limitation X, when it absolutely, positively, does not.
That right there is rubbish, trash, whatever you call it. I’ll give the EPO examiners credit in that, once I point out why that portion of D1 does not disclose X, they will withdraw that novelty rejection.
“it would be just as unsupported by the data on this page.”
INSANE, I bet you are as much of a joy to be around as Mooney… um, wait a minute…
“everything to do with the scope of one’s independent claim or claims.”
And your point Wilton is what?
That practicioners in this art field don’t understand the scope of the independent claims that they are drafting? (du_mb)
That they don’t understand that an application is supposed to be for one invention? (greedy)
You haven’t said anything that refutes what I’ve said.
Ping, if you had any experience in drafting biotech patent applications, you would not be making this criticism. While I don’t draft biotech applications (EE here), I know enough about biotech applications to know that restriction requirements have nothing to do with filing excess claims or being greedy and has everything to do with the scope of one’s independent claim or claims.
“Do you really feel the need to justify your practice of paying a princely sum in excess claim fees, filing multiple divisionals (with fees) upon restriction, or keeping claims together in the absence of restriction, in terms of burden on the PTO?”
IANAE is the man! Only he can get away with calling my posts “trolling” and then point out the meaning of my posts and nail Malcolm with it. The Dude is awesome!
Malcolm, the point in the data still stands – more than half of all apps in that art unit require restriction, a number far exceeding anything reasonable. Can’t you guys learn how to write apps correctly? Don’t you get what the requirements are for a single application? Either you be du_mb, or you are trying to get too much and more than you deserve (hence greedy) for the price of a single application and you get called on it by the Office repeatedly (this of course being the royal you, as I know you have a 95% success rate in your apps, so you not be one of the slackers in that art unit).
IANAE Do you really feel the need to justify your practice of paying a princely sum in excess claim fees, filing multiple divisionals (with fees) upon restriction, or keeping claims together in the absence of restriction, in terms of burden on the PTO?
The restriction requirements in chem/bio have little to do with the number of claims (I explained the primary reason for the RRs above). I can’t remember the last time I paid for than a couple hundred for excess claim fees.
Just to be clear, ping: are you asserting
He’s trolling you. He’ll assert whatever it takes to provoke a reply.
Do you really feel the need to justify your practice of paying a princely sum in excess claim fees, filing multiple divisionals (with fees) upon restriction, or keeping claims together in the absence of restriction, in terms of burden on the PTO? Doesn’t seem like you really need to.
ping ” Filing a claim set that is subject to a restriction requirement is “greedy”? Since when?”
Let’s see.
Wasting client resources with the rewriting and additional billing to follow through on the restriction when ya know it should be done right off…
Wasting Office time and resources for the same thing…
Just to be clear, ping: are you asserting that there is never a reason for wanting to receive a restriction requirement?
All I’m doing is trying to extrapolate that to a single application, e.g. my application – the only one I care about, the only one that has meaning from a “likelihood” standpoint.
But you’re doing it improperly, and thus coming to an illogical (not necessarily incorrect) conclusion. Assuming your applications resemble the sample that Dennis used, the data tells you the likelihood that your application will receive at least one non-final rejection, and it also tells you the likelihood that your application will receive at least one final rejection.
Assuming Dennis’ data is accurate, if you have a statistically significant number of applications and if your results are different (mine certainly are), then there is something systematically different about your applications or your prosecution approach. The fact that your results may differ from the data, however, does NOT tell you that the data is wrong.
Since there is no indication that only one action is sampled from each application, and the actions are not mutually exclusive, Steve’s “two applications” for non-final and “one application” for final could, in fact, all be one in the same application.
He’s not sampling actions, he’s sampling applications. There’s your problem.
Steve’s “two applications” can’t be the same as his “one application.” C’mon, you can do better than that. Yes, they overlap. We can tell that from the data (as well as from common sense) – if you add the percentage that get a final to the percentage that get a non-final, you get more than 100%.
7, I am surprised by your assertion that EPO opinions are trashy on novelty. What they invariably do is to recite the verbatim text of claim 1, but interspersed with reference numbers drawn from the drawing figures of the D1 prior art reference. So you immediately know what the novelty attack is and what you have to do to defeat it. What more do you want?
Or are you in an art where there are no drawings?
Ergo, my original observation is plausible
Your original observation is highly plausible.
Your observation that the sky is blue would also be highly plausible, and it would be just as unsupported by the data on this page.
Steve’s assertion supports the idea that the numbers do say (to him anyway and I don’t disagree) that there are twice as many non-finals as finals.
Steve gave you a very easy-to-understand numerical counterexample of why the numbers don’t say anything of the kind. He also said flat out that “Your original statement is incorrect”. If you’re going to cite his post as an authority, you could do both him and me the courtesy of reading his post first.
INSANE says:
“No statistic on this page supports your assertion that there are twice as many non-finals as finals”
SteveW says:
“What the final vs. non-final numbers say is that on average, for every two applications that see a non-final, one application sees a final”
First and foremost, Steve’s assertion supports the idea that the numbers do say (to him anyway and I don’t disagree) that there are twice as many non-finals as finals.
All I’m doing is trying to extrapolate that to a single application, e.g. my application – the only one I care about, the only one that has meaning from a “likelihood” standpoint. Since there is no indication that only one action is sampled from each application, and the actions are not mutually exclusive, Steve’s “two applications” for non-final and “one application” for final could, in fact, all be one in the same application.
Ergo, my original observation is plausible and INSANE’s comment reveals how severely limited his thinking is.
“ Filing a claim set that is subject to a restriction requirement is “greedy”? Since when?”
Let’s see.
Wasting client resources with the rewriting and additional billing to follow through on the restriction when ya know it should be done right off…
Wasting Office time and resources for the same thing…
Either ya know ya shouldn’t be doing it (thus you are doing it for a reason, hence greedy), or ya be too stu_pid not to learn that ya shouldn’t be doing it.
Take your pick and let me know which one applies.
There are many patentably distinct inventions disclosed in a typical biotech application, mainly distinct compositions but also different methods of using same.
I wonder if “patentably distinct” corresponds to “allowable on first office action”. There seems to be relationship between the two in the above data. (assuming 1 – non-final rejection rate = allowance on first FOAM)
So why can’t practicioners in that art field ever learn how to properly write an application? Must those practicioners be so greedy to “overclaim”?
I have no idea what you are talking about. Filing a claim set that is subject to a restriction requirement is “greedy”? Since when?
RWA,
When you say, “What the final vs. non-final numbers say is that on average there are two non-finals for every final”, this is where you are falling off.
If you replaced that with, “What the final vs. non-final numbers say is that on average, for every two applications that see a non-final, one application sees a final,” then you would be OK.
For example, if an art unit A included a single application that recieved three non-finals and one final, A would be listed as 100% non-final and 100% final on the chart. You can see how it would be erroneous to state that A receives, on average, one non-final for each final, as we know that A received a total of three non-finals and one final.
Your original statement is incorrect to the extent that any application is capable of receiving multiple non-finals or multiple finals before disposition, because these actions are not measured in the data used to create the table.
“There are many patentably distinct inventions disclosed in a typical biotech application, mainly distinct compositions but also different methods of using same.”
So why can’t practicioners in that art field ever learn how to properly write an application? Must those practicioners be so greedy to “overclaim”? Or must they be so cheap as to continuously try to cheat the system and not pay for separate applications?
Just about every where in the world I’ve ever been the phrase “twice as much” is about the same as “a ratio of 2:1.”
If that’s so self-evident (and nobody has even said it wasn’t true), why do you keep hammering on it?
Of course twice as much is 2:1. But it’s not 2 and 1 of the same thing you think it is. No statistic on this page supports your assertion that there are twice as many non-finals as finals issued by the PTO, no matter how many numbers you can find that are twice as big as other numbers you can find.
What I find interesting in these numbers is the tremendous range in restriction percentages. Biotech has a 54% restriction rate and Networks has a 6% restriction rate.
Can anyone shed some light on why the biotech restriction rates are so high or why the network restriction rate is so low?
There are many patentably distinct inventions disclosed in a typical biotech application, mainly distinct compositions but also different methods of using same.
INSANE,
The only dead horse around here is you and you’re starting to smell. If my observation was so self-evidently wrong, why do you keep hammering on it. Answer: because you’re wrong and embarrassed about it.
Just about every where in the world I’ve ever been the phrase “twice as much” is about the same as “a ratio of 2:1.”
But you keep trying…
“Hi 7. Your “trash” comment is interesting. Whether analysis is good or bad depends on what is being analysed. Fitness for purpose: what purpose.
I dare say they are trash when it comes to analysing obviousness US-style. But for treating obviousness EPO-style, the analysis is as good as the hit count, namely, spot on (provided, of course, you give the EPO a clear definition ie claim, to work with).
If the hit accuracy is so good, isn’t it a bit odd that the analysis is so trashy? Occam: it ain’t trashy.”
Max, when I say trash, I mean the examiner spent 99% of his available time finding the best art, .9% of his time taking a smoke break, and .1% of his time actually writing the opinion. I’m not even talking about obviousness — I’m talking about novelty. Countless recent ESR’s I have seen have the examiner asserting that D1 discloses element X, when it absolutely, positively, does not. If the examiner had spent a few more minutes actually reading the claims again once he had found the art, he would’ve understood.
With respect to US vs. EPO obviousness, it’s not much different, Max. About the only real difference is that in the EPO, you have to argue it the same way (PSA). A good obviousness analysis is a good obviousness analysis, even if you write it slightly differently depending upon where you are.
JPO isn’t caught anywhere. JPO just doesn’t care. They do a search as quickly as humanly possible to find all the claim elements, don’t care how many references it takes, slap together an OA in 10 minutes, and then go eat some sushi.
Hi 7. Your “trash” comment is interesting. Whether analysis is good or bad depends on what is being analysed. Fitness for purpose: what purpose.
I dare say they are trash when it comes to analysing obviousness US-style. But for treating obviousness EPO-style, the analysis is as good as the hit count, namely, spot on (provided, of course, you give the EPO a clear definition ie claim, to work with).
If the hit accuracy is so good, isn’t it a bit odd that the analysis is so trashy? Occam: it ain’t trashy.
By the way, I am not disagreeing with your assessment of the JPO. But pity it, caught as it is between two poles (EPO and USPTO). Its compass needle spins aimlessly.
Will you say something now?
“such as when both the EPO or JPO already destroyed the claims with prior art in the foreign equivalent apps.”
JPO? Really? Are we still pretending that the JPO actually does a real job?
JPO = make a rejection, any rejection, even if you have to string together 9 references from completely disparate technology areas, and stick to it no matter what.
I put zero stock in what the JPO produces. Their work product is utter trash.
Now, the EPO… yeah, they can kill an app. I once had an experience where I had done a pretty decent search on my own, filed a pct app, chose the EPO as the searching authority (as anyone who is serious does), and … received a search report with a dead on, killer piece of NPL.
I think the analysis in the EPO’s search reports is trash, but their searches are still top notch.
“INSANE probably says “dattuh” instead of “daytuh”
That’s how you identify the innumerate.”
More like how you identify the Trekkies. Nerd much?
I wonder how the numbers would change for 3600 if you separated out the art units for electronic commerce from the other art units in 3600?
I recently looked at a random sample of about 230 insurance and finance patent applications published over the past 10 years. Only two applications were allowed on the first office action. That puts the nonfinal rejection rate at about 99%.
I didn’t specifically look at RCE rate, but 86 out of 230 had 3 or more rejections. That gives an approximate RCE rate of 37%.
RWA: I highly doubt that.
That’s exactly why people compile statistics in the first place. Sometimes they’re not what you’d expect.
Just FYI, that is pretty much the same as saying the ratio of non-finals to finals in any given case on average is 2:1.
You keep beating that horse, but it still won’t get you anywhere. Even if we ignore your insistent reliance on the 2:1 ratio to justify your preconception while equally insistently questioning the accuracy of the 46% figure (also about a 2:1 ratio) that challenges your other preconception.
OT
Incidentally, I’ve got a Q/A posted on Linked in looking for the art unit that has the highest allowance rate. The more specific in terms of class/subclass the better.
Any suggestions?
What I find interesting in these numbers is the tremendous range in restriction percentages. Biotech has a 54% restriction rate and Networks has a 6% restriction rate.
Can anyone shed some light on why the biotech restriction rates are so high or why the network restriction rate is so low?
Without blowing apart your entire post, I’ll just pick one part of it.
The 2nd column is the likelihood that a random application will ultimately be subject to at least one final action.
OK, you’re trying to tell me that in a PATENTED case (group 2400), there is/was only a 46% chance that that case ever got a final action?
I highly doubt that.
You say:
the proportion of those that receive at least one non-final action is twice as high as the proportion that receive at least one final action
Just FYI, that is pretty much the same as saying the ratio of non-finals to finals in any given case on average is 2:1.
Here endeth the lesson.
You still haven’t managed to tell us what you think these numbers are supposed to mean.
Actually, I did: “Instead, the numbers tell you (roughly), that of all applications, the proportion of those that receive at least one non-final action is twice as high as the proportion that receive at least one final action. ”
So did IANAE: “What it says is that roughly half of the applications that got a non-final rejection didn’t get a final rejection.”
I ask – likelihoods of what? Likelihoods that you will receive one of the stated actions as your next action? Your first action?
Since you asked politely, the answers are no, and no. (Although the first column is probably not too far off as a predictor of the likelihood that the first action is a non-final action.) The 1st column is the likelihood that a random application will ultimately be subject to at least one non-final action. The 2nd column is the likelihood that a random application will ultimately be subject to at least one final action. Your error lies in your attempt to apply these numbers to an individual action, rather than to an application. I repeat, you can’t get the ratio of non-finals to finals from this data.
That’s the end of my innumeracy tantrum.
That’s how you identify the innumerate.
You identify them by how they pronounce things on the internet?
I prefer to identify them by their thorough and persistent misunderstanding of simple statistics concepts.
INSANE probably says “dattuh” instead of “daytuh”
That’s how you identify the innumerate.
“Data” — plural.
Learn to accept semantic shift. You can’t fight it.
FOAM — First Office Action on Merits. Great mnemonic. East to spell. Easy to remember. A word.
“Data” — plural.
“Lies, dam lies, and lawyers.”
MaxDrei, I present for your approval the American “mind willing to misunderstand”.
Yes, Indeed Cy. You still haven’t managed to tell us what you think these numbers are supposed to mean.
Despite your little attacks, I maintain that these numbers are silly and misleading.
They purport to be “likelihoods.” I ask – likelihoods of what? Likelihoods that you will receive one of the stated actions as your next action? Your first action?
The numbers are meaningless – if you don’t like that, go ahead and have your little innumeracy tantrum.
Be my guest. Why take the time to think, when it’s so much easier to declare victory?
Beware, statistics is not a game for the slow witted.
Indeed.
INSANE, I’ll take your disagreeable agreement with me as an admission that I am actually correct here.
If these percentages are meant to say something else such as “the percentages of cases that received a final action vs. the percentages of cases that received a non-final action” then my original observation holds, that the numbers with respect to F vs NF say that, on average, there are roughly two non-finals for every final. That’s what the numbers say to grown ups.
Grown-ups who didn’t study math or logic, perhaps.
What it says is that roughly half of the applications that got a non-final rejection didn’t get a final rejection. It doesn’t say, for example, how many non-final rejections those applications got, or how many of the applications receiving final actions went through multiple RCE cycles with alternating non-finals and finals.
Sure, if you compare two of the numbers they coincidentally give you about a 2:1 ratio, but not everything in the world with a 2:1 ratio is related.
On the other hand Cy, since you’ve chosen to attack me, I’ll say that maybe you are just one of the extremely vocal but dense individuals that litter the profession. Unfortunately, there are too many like you around these days. Beware, statistics is not a game for the slow witted.
Sorry Cy,
You have an innumeracy problem (it’s like illiteracy, but with numbers). I’d say, using the Patented chart for, say Group 2400, that 89% non-finals vs. 46% finals is darned near EXACTLY 2:1.
Professor Crouch’s numbers say you are wrong
I’d say these numbers don’t say I’m wrong, they say that “likelihood” is a poor choice of words vis a vis final vs. non-final.
Now, nobody has actually said that “there is a 35% chance of getting a final action” in any ony one of your cases.
Sorry again, Cy, but in the grown-up world that I live in, when someone talks about “likelihoods” that means the likelihood of me getting a whatever in my case. That’s what grown-ups understand likelihood to mean.
If these percentages are meant to say something else such as “the percentages of cases that received a final action vs. the percentages of cases that received a non-final action” then my original observation holds, that the numbers with respect to F vs NF say that, on average, there are roughly two non-finals for every final. That’s what the numbers say to grown ups.
That would be silly, as your cases might not be a representative sample of the entire set. But that’s how statistics work. If you don’t know how to interpret them, that’s your fault, not Professor Crouch’s
Why are you doing so much apologizing for Professor Crouch? I don’t really think he needs it. Is that your job?
Two sets of numbers jump out at me.
1) The inordinate number of restrictions for 1600 (for both patented and abandoned) – Malcolm, the data still shows a problem for practicioners of that group.
2) The inordinate number of RCE’s in the patented section of 2400. Really – 36% of patented items had to endure an RCE?(Kurtz – you need to understand the data better as this speaks directly against what you say).
I’m with IANAE here: Where are all these apps coming from that go abandoned without a FAOM?
Again, that is not what the chart says. It only says there is no non-final rejection for some applications that go abandoned, not that there is no FAOM.
But to answer your question, I can think of 4 situations off the top of my head that each account for the discrepancy. If the examiner maintains the rejections on a continuation or RCE then it’s a final rejection FAOM. Or it could be an allowance or Quayle on the FAOM and then abandoned, which happens sometimes.
Then there are abandonments without FAOMs, such as express abandonments due to incomplete apps getting re-filed as continuations. Believe it or not, this happens quite a bit. Then there are abandonments after restriction req’s, such as when both the EPO or JPO already destroyed the claims with prior art in the foreign equivalent apps.
Well then Cy, what do the numbers say?
They certainly don’t say that there two non-finals for every final. You can’t get that ratio from this data. Instead, the numbers tell you (roughly), that of all applications, the proportion of those that receive at least one non-final action is twice as high as the proportion that receive at least one final action.
This is a completely different proposition than yours – this data provides no information on the ratio of final to non-final actions, as those cases that receive at least one non-final action could receive 12, on average, while those that receive at least one final might receive an average of only 1.2. Yes, we know that the vast majority of those that receive finals also received at least one non-final, but that just means that we expect the numbers in the first column to be bigger than those in the second, which they are.
To say that in any case there is a 35% chance of getting a final action is plain silly and misleading. There is closer to a 100% chance of getting a final action in a case that winds up getting allowed.
Professor Crouch’s numbers say you are wrong, at least with a case randomly chosen from this set of 20,000. According to the second chart, significantly more than half of the allowed cases don’t receive a single final office action. That surprises me, as my experience is quite different, but I have no real basis to question the numbers. Do you?
Now, nobody has actually said that “there is a 35% chance of getting a final action” in any ony one of your cases. That would be silly, as your cases might not be a representative sample of the entire set. But that’s how statistics work. If you don’t know how to interpret them, that’s your fault, not Professor Crouch’s.
Oh, wait, never mind – they’re going abandoned from failure to respond to a restriction requirement. Duh.
I’ve noticed that for all of the whinging on this forum about how the big mean old PTO has a “reject reject reject” mentality and hates applicants, time and time again, the numbers don’t reflect the myth. Could it be that those that whinge the hardest are those lacking in practitioning skills compared to the non-whingers? Clearly, these numbers show that many practitioners are not having trouble getting cases to resolution quickly (well, ignoring the backlog). Clearly these numbers show that the “RCE GRAVY Train” is a myth.
Find something new to complain about guys (I know you can do it).
I’m with IANAE here: Where are all these apps coming from that go abandoned without a FAOM?
The final rejection rates appear low.
Misleading to who?
To anyone with a critical reasoning facility. To say that in any case there is a 35% chance of getting a final action is plain silly and misleading. There is closer to a 100% chance of getting a final action in a case that winds up getting allowed. I doubt first action allowances or allowances after a non-final comprise 65% of cases.
Well then Cy, what do the numbers say?
More misleading numbers. First of all, it is rare to get a final action without first or at least without also getting a non-final at some point. Thus, the final vs. non-final “likelihoods” are misleading.
Misleading to who? Who said anything about comparing the “final” figures to the “non-final” figures.
What the final vs. non-final numbers say is that on average there are two non-finals for every final.
Actually, the numbers say no such thing. It might be true, but you can’t get there from this chart, which is telling us something entirely different.
“I seem to recall some commenter making cracks about the rates of abandonment in the 1600 art unit resulting from the relative inability of practitioners in this art unit to draft valid claims.”
The commenter with the highest “likelihood” of making cracks about practitioners not being able to draft valid claims would be you, Mooney.
What’s going on with the applications that don’t get a non-final rejection? First action allowances? Abandonment before substantive examination?
Also, is there some more graphical way to show this data?
I seem to recall some commenter making cracks about the rates of abandonment in the 1600 art unit resulting from the relative inability of practitioners in this art unit to draft valid claims.
This would seem to put that argument to rest.
More misleading numbers. First of all, it is rare to get a final action without first or at least without also getting a non-final at some point. Thus, the final vs. non-final “likelihoods” are misleading.
The “likelihood” of getting a restriction may be meaningful as is that of an RCE being filed.
What the final vs. non-final numbers say is that on average there are two non-finals for every final.
Most practitioners already know that.
I wonder how the numbers would change for 3600 if you separated out the art units for electronic commerce from the other art units in 3600? Based on my experience with Examiners in the electronic commerce art units of 3600 I would imagine the rejection rates and the RCE rates would increase.
Another interesting statistic to look at would be the rate of appeals in each of these tech centers (again, separating out the e-commerce art units in 3600).
Comments are closed.