Of the patents issued thus far in 2010, more than 25% carry the baggage of a file history with at least one request for continued examination (RCE) and that rate is expected to rise. RCEs are also filed in a significant number of patent applications that are eventually abandoned.
Patent Office management sees the high RCE rate as a symptom of a breakdown in the prosecution system. In their view, after two rounds of negotiation, the parties should have arrived at final positions -- either by identifying appropriate patent-worthy claims or else by determining that no-such patentable subject matter exists. At that point, further negotiation with the same examiner makes little sense in the ordinary case. If the applicant and examiner come to an agreement then the case is concluded, otherwise the applicant appeals to a higher authority.
The Problem of RCEs: Although RCEs do generate USPTO revenue, they are troublesome because they frustrate the USPTO's goal of reducing the large backlog of 730,000+ unexamined patent applications. Furthermore, the current RCE fee of $810 ($405 for small entities) do not cover PTO expenses associated with the ongoing examination. The cost differential is made-up with maintenance and extension fees. In most of the RCE'd cases, the applicant and examiner eventually do reach an agreement without an appeal to the Board -- but only after more rounds of discussion. This re-working of applications raises costs for patent applicants, delays patent issuance, prevents work on the backlog of cases, and generally makes all the parties look silly.
No Solution Yet: Historically, the patent examiners count system provided some incentive for examiners to induce the filing of RCEs. The count system has been modified to reduce that incentive. Despite this disincentive, RCE filings do not appear to have dropped in any significant way. Another growing RCE disincentive involves patent term adjustment (PTA). The long examination backlog is leading to unprecedented PTAs that can add additional months and years to the term of a patent. Although the filing of an RCE cuts-off the ongoing accumulation of (type-B) PTA, folks are continuing to file RCEs.
Explaining why RCEs are Filed: Although not universal, the broadest independent claims of a patent application are often narrowed during prosecution. It is important to recognize, however, that the narrowing amendments typically involve the inclusion of limitations already found in dependant claims. In the negotiation context, the dependent claims begin to look like pre-set negotiable points. It obviously takes time to reach some mutual agreement between the applicant and the PTO. Perhaps the usual case does need more than two rounds. However, my sense is that the high RCE numbers persist because initial office action rejections regularly fail to directly address the claimed invention and (consequently?) necessary claim amendments are not proffered by the applicant until after the final rejection. At that point, an RCE may be required. Of course, even in the best of times RCEs are sometimes unavoidable -- such when prompted by the late discovery of important prior art. The additional time delay of RCEs may be helpful in other cases such as when limitations that distinguish the invention from the prior art are buried in the specification.
The PTO is looking for ways to reduce RCEs and more generally reduce the re-working of applications. To that end, I would like to ask two general questions that will help me create a follow-on survey:
-
What is your explanation for the large number of RCE filings?
-
What can the PTO do help prosecution conclude more quickly (on average) and reduce the number of RCE filings? (examiner behavior, PTO procedures, negotiation techniques, patent application format...)
-
Do some patent attorneys disagree with my notion that the amendment process is a negotiation?
