1. The National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP)
USPTO DEVELOPMENTS
James Dwyer
Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations
July 21, 2014
for Patent

2. Key Points of Interest
The projected filing growth rates in FY 2014 and FY 2015 have been revised downward to 5% from 6% and 5.5% respectively.
FY 2013 filings were 6.2% over FY 2012.
RCE filings are 3.2% above FY RCEs are 28.8% of total UPR filings, compared with 29.6% in FY 2012.

3. 10 and 20 month pendency goals will still be attained in FY 2019.
Key Points of Interest
10 and 20 month pendency goals will still be attained in FY 2019.
More Flexibility on Hiring Goals
Allows for more robust Quality Initiatives
FY 2013 filings were 6.2% over FY 2012.
RCE filings are 3.2% above FY RCEs are 28.8% of total UPR filings, compared with 29.6% in FY 2012.

4. - Docket Management (DM) - Count System changes
Key Points of Interest .
RCE backlog and filing data has been improved due in part by USPTO initiatives:
- Docket Management (DM)
- Count System changes
- After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0
- Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS) pilot
FY 2013 filings were 6.2% over FY 2012.
RCE filings are 3.2% above FY RCEs are 28.8% of total UPR filings, compared with 29.6% in FY 2012.

5. Total Serialized and RCE Filings FY 2002 – FY 2014 (through July 9)
FY 2013 filings were 6.2% over FY 2012.
RCE filings are 3.2% above FY RCEs are 28.8% of total UPR filings, compared with 29.6% in FY 2012.
444,724 as of July 9, 2014.
FY 2014 total UPR filing growth rate is projected to be 5% over FY 2013.
The FY 2013 total UPR filing growth rate was 6.2%.

6. CPC learning curve begins
Unexamined Patent Application Backlog FY 2009 – FY 2014 (through July 9)
AIA filing bubble
(March 2013)
CPC learning curve begins
(October 2013)
FY 2013 target (2014 President’s Budget): 566,800
Ended FY 2013 at 584,998.
619,314 Unexamined Applications as of July 9, 2014. 6 6

7. Unexamined Patent Application Backlog and RCE Backlog FY 2010 – FY 2014 (through July 9)
AFCP
(March 2012)
QPIDS
(May 2012)
RCE Count Change
(March 2013)
RCE Audit
(July 2013)
End of Fiscal Year 2012 RCE backlog was 95,200. End of FY 2013 backlog was 78,272. 7

8. Excess and Optimal Unexamined Patent Application Inventory FY 2009 – FY 2014 (through June)
616,019
312,224
Function of our capacity.
303,795 Excess Unexamined Applications as of June 2014. 8

9. RCE Backlog FY 2010 – FY 2014 (through July 9)
RCE CSI Changes
(Nov 2009)
AFCP
(March 2012)
QPIDS
(May 2012)
RCE Count Change
(March 2013)
RCE Audit
(July 2013)
End of Fiscal Year 2012 RCE backlog was 95,200. End of FY 2013 backlog was 78,272.
62,937 as of July 9, 2014. 9

10. Distribution of RCE Backlog by Age
as of July 9, 2014 Vs. October 1, 2013
DM changes prioritized examiners to move oldest cases
Count System changes incentivized examiners to work on a larger volume of RCEs
33,671 RCEs (53.5% of backlog) are over four months old as of July 9, 2014
59,702 RCEs (73.4% of backlog ) were over four months old as of October 1, 2013 10 10

11. FY 2014 RCE Filings by TC (through July 9)11 11

12. Forward Looking First Action Pendency FY 2009 – FY 2014 (through June)
Forward Looking First Action Pendency as of June 30, 2014: 15.8 months
Forward Looking Pendency represents an estimate of the average number of months it would take to complete a first Office action under current and projected workload and resource levels for an application filed at the given date.

13. First Action Pendency and Total Pendency FY 2009 – FY 2014 (through June)
Total Pendency as of June 30, 2014: 27.8 months.
FY 2012 data:
Average Total Pendency FY 2012 Target: 34.7 months. Actual result: 32.4 months.
Average First Action Pendency FY 2012 Target: 22.5 months. Actual result: 21.9 months.
First Action Pendency as of June 30, 2014: 19.3 months.
Average Total Pendency FY 2014 Target (2015 President’s Budget): 26.7 months
Average First Action Pendency FY 2014 Target (2015 President’s Budget): 17.4 months
CPC training/transition time and the change to the RCE count scheme will effect the decrease in First Action pendency in FY 2014

14. 12-Month Rolling Average Allowance Rate, by Quarter
and 12-Month Rolling Average Allowance Rate, less RCE Abandonments by Quarter FY 2009 – FY Q3
12-Month Rolling Average Allowance Rate Less RCE Abandonments as of FY 2014 Q3: 71.1%
12-Month Rolling Average Allowance Rate as of FY 2014 Q3: 53.5% 14

15. 12-Month Rolling Average UPR Examiner Attrition Rate
Less Transfers and Retirees and Overall Attrition Rate FY 2001 – FY 2014 (through June)
12-Mth Rolling Average Attrition Rate Less Transfers and Retirees: 3.63%.
12-Mth Rolling Average Overall Attrition Rate: 4.27%. 15
Green line represents when 12-month rolling average data begins. 15

16. Quality Composite FY 2011 – FY 2014 Q3
Monitoring Continuous Improvement
Fiscal year targets for desired progress throughout the Strategic Plan period have been established to evaluate interim performance and track year-to-year changes. Thus, the Quality Composite measures our progress toward meeting FY15 expectations and monitors continuous improvement in various quality categories throughout the current USPTO Strategic Plan (FY10-FY15).

17. Quality Composite
Quality data is compiled on a quarterly basis.

18. Examiner Staffing Levels by Duty Station
The number of interviews conducted per AFCP request. The time frame for counting interviews runs from receipt of the AF Amendment (PALM code A.NE) until the Mailing of the Next Office Action (to include advisory actions), thus only applications with a subsequent action are included. Only includes those interviews recorded in PALM. 18 18

19. http://www. uspto. gov/patents/init_events/patapp-initiatives-timeline

20. Track One Filings
(through July 9)

21. Track One Office Time/Applicant Time – Track One Vs. Total Pendency
(12-month Rolling Average through June)
No RCEs
RCEs Included 21 21

22. Pending Track One Applications
That Have Not Received a Final Disposition
Through July 9
(From Petition Grant)
86 Applications Over 12 Months 22 22

23. Track One Applications That Have Received a Final Disposition
Through July 9
(From Petition Grant)
260 Applications Over 12 Months 23 23

24. After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0
(May 19, 2013 – June 28, 2014)
The number of interviews conducted per AFCP request. The time frame for counting interviews runs from receipt of the AF Amendment (PALM code A.NE) until the Mailing of the Next Office Action (to include advisory actions), thus only applications with a subsequent action are included. Only includes those interviews recorded in PALM. 24 24

25. Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS)
FY 2012 – FY 2014 (through July 8, 2014) 25 25

26. Third Party Submissions
(Sept 16, July 4, 2014)
Third Party Submissions
Proper
1,450
Improper (including 219 resubmissions and 19 that were not 3rd party)
453
Not Yet Reviewed 17
Total
1,920
Total Documents Breakdown
Patents
1,774
Published US. Apps
1,483
Foreign Reference
1,095
NPL
2,023
Total Documents
6,375

27. Third Party Submissions Third Party Submissions
(Sept 16, July 4, 2014)
Third Party Submissions
Proper
1,450
Improper (including 219 resubmissions and 19 that were not 3rd party)
453
Not Yet Reviewed 17
Total
1,920

28. Benefits of CPC
CPC is used by more than examiners in more than 45 Patent Offices around the world – and the user community is growing …
US, EPO, KR, CN collections classified into one classification system for search
USPTO has one official detailed classification system for efficient search (more detailed than IPC)

29. Benefits of PCT
CPC based on IPC. USPTO on same footing as most of the world’s IPOs.
USPTO has an up-to-date, dynamic classification system.
Many users around the world using the same patent collection classified in a harmonized way for classification search.
MAJOR milestone reached in the CPC implementation and contribution towards harmonization efforts.

30. CPC Transitional Timeline for Patent Examiners
Jan. 2015
May-Dec 2014
Nov 2013 –June 2014
Oct-Dec 2013
Sept-Oct 2013
Sept 2013
June 2013

31. More Robust Technical Training and Expertise
Making it easier for experts from industry and academia to provide relevant technical training