In a Federal Register notice (81 Fed. Reg. 73383) published last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a request for public feedback regarding the Office's reevaluation of its examination time goals.  The Office also announced that it would be holding five roundtables in Alexandria, VA; Detroit, MI; Denver, CO; Dallas, TX; and San Jose, CA as part of its Examination Time Analysis (ETA).  According to the Office's ETA External Outreach webpage, the dates and times of the roundtables are as follows:

The Office's request for comments indicates that the solicited public feedback will be used "as an input to help ensure that the Office's examination time goals accurately reflect the amount of time needed by examiners to conduct quality examination in a manner that responds to stakeholders' interests."  The notice points out that the current examination time goals were created over forty years ago and have been adjusted twice, noting that since the examination time goals were originally developed, "significant changes to the examination process have occurred, including increased use of electronic tools, changes in law due to court decisions, a growing volume of prior art, and progress in technology, which results in increasingly complex subject matter in applications."

With regard to written comments, the Office's notice provides seven categories of questions on which it is seeking feedback (although the notice indicates that the Office welcomes any other comments on examination time).  The seven categories of questions are:

(1) Do you perceive a difference in the quality of examination performed in complex technologies compared to less complex technologies? If yes, which do you perceive as higher quality and why? In what aspect(s) is the quality of examination higher?

(2) What factors do you consider when estimating the amount of time needed to take various steps in prosecution, such as preparing responses to Office actions or preparing for interviews? In particular, if you prosecute applications in a variety of technology areas, how do those factors vary among the technologies?

(3) Are the applications you prosecute more or less complex than in the past, e.g., 10 years ago? What factors contribute to the increase or decrease in complexity? Do you believe the increase or decrease in complexity has affected the amount of time it takes to prosecute the applications? If so, by how much? Do you believe the increase or decrease in complexity has affected the quality of examination? If so, how?

(4) In order to increase the quality of examination, do you believe that an increase in the time allotted for examination should be designated for specific activities, such as interviews, or left to the discretion of the examiner? What activities would you prioritize and allocate more time to?

(5) Are there any portions of Office actions which you feel do not add value or quality to the examination? If yes, what are they?

(6) What other activities beyond examining, such as research or training, could examiners spend time on that would add value? Why do you believe these activities could add value?

(7) While the focus of this request for comments and the roundtables is to find the appropriate amount of time for examination, cost and pendency are also contributing factors. Do these factors raise a concern that should be considered?

Written comments, which must be submitted by December 27, 2016 to be considered, can be submitted by e-mail to ExternalExaminationTimeStudy@USPTO.gov, or by regular mail addressed to:  Mail Stop Comments—Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450, marked to the attention of Raul Tamayo, Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.  The Office is also seeking public feedback through the interactive collaboration tool, IdeaScale (additional information regarding IdeaScale can be found in the Office's notice or the ETA External Outreach webpage.

Those interested in attending any of the roundtables can find registration information in the Office's notice or the ETA External Outreach webpage.

The ETA External Outreach webpage also provides some background material illustrating the use of examination time goals in the context of individual examiner evaluation, and as an input for forecasting pendency and hiring needs.  Slides 12 to 18 may be of particular interest to practitioners and applicants as these slides provide information on production units, examining hours, and counts, and the role that technology complexity and seniority play in setting examination time goals.