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


  • "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


« The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc) | Main | Webinar on Data Privacy in Intellectual Property Litigation »

July 14, 2016


Hey Don,

I wish I could say that this Post-Prosecution Pilot Program was a positive response by the USPTO, but I can't. It just comes across as yet another PR campaign by the USPTO management to act like their doing something to address significant prosecution problems, especially in notoriously "anti-patent" Art Units such as 3600. Until I see/hear otherwise, I've got a very jaundiced view of this new program.

In my experience, proper requests under the AFCP 2.0 request program are often avoided by Examiner's arguing that additional searching is necessary - even if amendments are copied directly from dependent claims.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2024

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