About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« USPTO Extends Enhanced First Action Interview Pilot Program | Main | "At-Home" Testing for BRCA Gene Mutations »

October 13, 2010


You state that “the final rejection and allowance compliance rate (the correctness of the examiners' overall determination of the patentability of the claims)” were used previously.

This statement is factually incorrect. The USPTO had not measured or published previously the final rejection compliance rate. It focused only on final allowance compliance rate. This fundamental asymmetry led to the ‘reject, reject, reject’ policy with staggering rejection error rates as I discuss in detail in my paper at http://bit.ly/MIBJ-PTO-Reform and my comments in the USPTO proceedings on Examination Quality at http://j.mp/Exam-Qual-Comments.

I regard the new inclusion of rejection error compliance measure as the major significant advance of this new quality system. These steps certainly go in the right direction to balance and improve the incentive structure in the examination process.


Thanks for the comment. I revised the post to indicate that the Office's announcement states that those two measures were used previously.


These new metrics should provide a helpful means of countering assertions by some of those in the anti-patent crowd who mistakenly insist on equating increased patent issuance with decreased patent quality. USPTO Director David Kappos has implemented some creative programs and pragmatic approaches that appear already to have gone far in improving efficiency and morale at the patent office. He appears to have earned the high opinion in which he is generally held, and he deserves credit for his accomplishments.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2023

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31