Having an effective relationship with a patent examiner can help you obtain a patent. In fact, an examiner’s grant rate can significantly affect the chances of a patent being granted.

Knowing the statistics on your particular patent examiner can be important for a successful patent application process. You are in luck if your assigned patent examiner is one who has a good grant rate, understands the technology involved in your invention, and is known for being reasonable and fair in their examination.

By getting in front of a favorable examiner or a favorable art unit, you may be able to increase the chances of your patent application being granted, and decrease the time it takes for the application to be processed. It can also help to avoid potential roadblocks and costly delays in the examination process.

However, it’s important to note that the USPTO strives to have fair and impartial examination of patent applications, and the assignment of a particular examiner to your application has traditionally been done randomly.  So how do you improve your chance of being assigned to a particular examiner, or at least to a particular art unit?

Understand art unit and patent examiner stats

Predicting where your application is assigned can improve your odd of allowance.  When applications are received at the USPTO, they are assigned to a particular art unit.  The allowance rate, or the rate at which patent applications are granted, can vary significantly between different Art Units at the USPTO.

This variability can be due to a number of factors, including the complexity of the technology areas, the level of expertise of the examiners in the Art Unit, and the backlog of applications in the Art Unit. As a result, the allowance rate for a particular technology area can range from a high rate of grants to a low rate of grants, depending on the Art Unit.

For example, the Business Method Art Unit of the USPTO has been nicknamed the “death squad” because of its reputation for having a low allowance rate for patents covering business methods.  The Business Method Art Unit at the USPTO has been known for being particularly strict when it comes to granting patents for business methods, leading to a lower allowance rate compared to other Art Units. As a result, the Business Method Art Unit has gained a reputation for being difficult for applicants to navigate, leading to its nickname as the “death squad”.

It’s important to keep in mind that while the allowance rate for the Business Method Art Unit may be lower than for other Art Units, this does not mean that obtaining a patent for a business method is impossible. The strength and validity of the patent claims, the quality of the application, and other factors can also play a significant role in the examination outcome.

Fortunately, there are tools for finding USPTO patent examiners. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) provides a variety of online resources for practitioners. These include a web-based tool that lets applicants request an examiner interview, a document that outlines the USPTO’s policy on videoconferences, and an automated form for requesting an examiner interview. The USPTO Employee Locator Search Tool  allows you to search for specific patent examiners by name, office, and technology area.

You’ll need some tools to learn about your patent examiner. These tools will help you make sense of your claim language, identify preferred embodiments and technical details, and target a focused search strategy.  PowerPatent’s software also provides information on the specific examiners assigned to your patent application, their grant rates, and an analysis of the types of rejections they typically make. This Examiner Lookup tool that helps you understand examiner results based on grant rates and other criteria.

AI Software at USPTO To Determine Case Assignment

The USPTO has developed an AI tool that is used to assign patent cases to examiners. The AI tool is designed to optimize the workload distribution among examiners, balance the workload among technology areas, and promote efficient use of examiner resources.

The AI tool takes into consideration various factors such as the examiner’s workload, technology area expertise, and other factors when assigning cases to examiners. The goal of the tool is to ensure that patent cases are assigned to examiners who are best suited to handle them, resulting in a more efficient and effective examination process.

It’s important to note that while the AI tool helps to optimize the assignment of cases to examiners, the ultimate goal of the USPTO is to have fair and impartial examination of patent applications. The assignment of a particular examiner to your application is not a guarantee of a favorable outcome, but rather a reflection of the USPTO’s efforts to ensure a balanced workload among examiners.

How to Optimize Your Application Assignment

Claim drafting can be optimized to some extent to improve the chances of a patent application being assigned to a particular patent examiner. The structure and wording of the claims in a patent application can affect the technology area classification of the invention, which can determine which examiner or art unit will be assigned to examine the application.

The allowance rate, or the rate at which patent applications are granted, can vary significantly between different Art Units at the USPTO.

This variability can be due to a number of factors, including the complexity of the technology areas, the level of expertise of the examiners in the Art Unit, and the backlog of applications in the Art Unit. As a result, the allowance rate for a particular technology area can range from a high rate of grants to a low rate of grants, depending on the Art Unit.

It’s important for applicants to consider the allowance rate of the Art Unit to which their application is assigned when evaluating their chances of obtaining a patent. However, it’s also important to keep in mind that the allowance rate is just one of many factors that can impact the success of a patent application. The strength and validity of the claims, the quality of the application, and other factors can also play a significant role in the examination outcome.

While aiming for a particular examiner is quite hard, it is much easier to draft your application to be selected to a particular art unit. The text of a patent application, including the claims and the abstract, is used by the USPTO to assign the application to an appropriate Art Unit, which is a group of examiners with expertise in a specific technology area.

The Art Unit is responsible for examining the application and determining whether the invention is eligible for a patent. The assignment of a patent application to an Art Unit is an important factor in the examination process, as it can impact the likelihood of the application being granted and the speed of the examination.

How to improve your chance of being assigned a  desired art unit or patent examiner

Based on the text of the patent application, the USPTO uses automated tools and manual processes to classify the invention into a specific technology area and assign the application to an appropriate Art Unit. By ensuring that the text of the patent application accurately reflects the invention and its technology area, applicants can improve the chances of their application being assigned to an Art Unit with expertise in their field, potentially leading to a more favorable examination outcome.

By providing a complete and accurate description of the invention with optimized text on its technical features, you can help the USPTO to classify the invention and assign the application to an appropriate Art Unit.  PowerPatent software can help you provide an accurate and complete description of the invention in their patent application and help ensure that the application is assigned to an appropriate Art Unit and improve the chances of a favorable examination outcome.

Claim drafting that is clear, concise, and focused on a specific technical aspect of the invention can help to ensure that the technology area classification of the invention is accurate. This can increase the chances of the application being assigned to an examiner (or to an art unit) who has expertise in the relevant technology area, potentially leading to a more favorable examination outcome.

It’s important to keep in mind, however, that the assignment of a particular examiner to a patent application is done randomly and based on the USPTO’s efforts to balance the workload among examiners. While optimizing claim drafting can increase the chances of the application being assigned to a favorable examiner, there is no guarantee of a favorable outcome. Ultimately, the success of a patent application depends on the strength and validity of the claims, as well as the overall quality of the application, so we will talk about that next.

Identifying preferred embodiments, examples or technical details in the description of a patent is important, but what is the best way to do it? Obviously, the more complicated the invention is, the more important it is to characterize it in the right way. A detailed description of a patent is the place where an inventor fleshes out their idea. The description should contain enough information to enable a skilled person to reconstruct the invention. However, the description does not have to detail every possible combination of steps.

A Detailed Description of a Preferred Embodiment should include: A theory of the invention; a description of at least one way to implement the invention; and a list of alternatives. The list should include the core concept of the invention, as well as any improvements incorporated in the invention. It should also mention a variety of different combinations of features and methods.

Typically, the smallest of the large is the smallest of the small. Unlike the aforementioned triumvirate of examples, the smallest of the small is not necessarily the most important. It is usually better to avoid using the smallest of the small in the description of a patent, as this can limit the scope of claims.

The smallest of the large is the smallest obliquely cited example. The smallest obliquely cited instance is a term or concept that is often emphasized as the “single most important aspect” of the invention. This is not a hard and fast rule, and the smallest obliquely citation may not actually be the smallest.

As with any other part of a patent, the description of a patent should not be taken for granted. Make sure to read the specification carefully and to check for errors, and to point out any errors made by your attorney.

Filing Continuations To Keep Your Patent Examiner

Filing a continuation application can increase the chances of a patent application being assigned to the same patent examiner as a previous application, but it is not a guarantee.

A Continuation application is a type of patent application that is filed after a previous application and claims the benefit of the earlier filing date. When a Continuation application is filed, it is assigned to the same Art Unit as the previous application, which can increase the chances of it being assigned to the same patent examiner.

However, the assignment of a patent examiner to a Continuation application is not guaranteed to be the same as the previous application, as the USPTO has processes in place to balance the workload among examiners and ensure that each application is assigned to an appropriate examiner.

While filing a Continuation application can increase the chances of the same examiner being assigned, it is not a guarantee. The ultimate goal of the USPTO is to have fair and impartial examination of patent applications, regardless of the examiner who is assigned.

Continuation patent prosecution is more complex than other types of prosecution. It can take just as long to prosecute a continuation application as it does to draft and file an original application.  patent with no prior claims to priority takes almost two years to get the nod, while a continuation patent with multiple claims gets the nod in under a year and a half.

Getting feedback from examiners

Getting feedback from examiners is important in patent prosecution. It can save you time and money, as well as help you make smarter decisions.

The USPTO has procedures for measuring the quality of the patent examination process. This includes the quality of the patent grant decision and Office action.  A recent webinar by the Midwest Regional U.S. Patent and Trademark Office emphasized the importance of effective communications between applicants and patent examiners.

An examiner interview can be a crucial part of the prosecution of a U.S. patent application. A patent examiner is the person who decides whether an idea deserves protection. They have a hefty caseload. They spend a great deal of time preparing for an interview. It’s important to communicate effectively with them so that you can advance your application.

An interview agenda is a useful tool to help organize the conversation. The agenda should list the main areas of discussion. The agenda should be sent at least 24 hours before the interview.

If the applicant is not satisfied with the outcome of the interview, he or she can request a follow-up interview. In addition, applicants should send the examiner a summary of the interview. The examiner should respond by email or phone within one business day.

If the examiner agrees with the invention, the applicant can ask for a patent. If the examiner disagrees with the invention, the applicant must rebut the rejection by producing arguments for validity. This may involve arguing separately for dependent claims.

Getting feedback from examiners is important to improving the odds of success in patent prosecution. Ultimately, the applicant must decide when to appeal. If the patent is rejected, the applicant must work with a patent attorney to revise the application and prepare an argument for validity.