Cool Queuing Theory Model Suggests Continuations Not the Problem at the PTO
Recently on Bill Heinze’s I/P Updates, I read about a note published by George Mason authors entitled “Improving Patent Examination Efficiency and Quality, An Operations Research Analysis of the USPTO, Using Queuing Theory“. 17 Fed. Cir. B. J. 133, 163 (2007). The authors were attempting to validate validate the PTO’s concern with excessive continuation filings and proposed new rules regarding continuations. The model, which incorporated feedback and branching of applications, was based on two assumptions:
- A priority queue processes higher priority items first, giving them a shorter queuing delay – but at only at the expense of longer queuing delays for lower-priority arrivals. Since the USPTO gives higher priority to RCEs and continuing applications than to regular new applications, large numbers of RCEs and continuing applications should result in disproportionate waiting times for regular new applications.
- At the very least, a limit on the number of continuing applications would be desirable because continuing applications can produce multiple generations of unlimited numbers of high priority offspring. RCEs and multiple non-final office actions both contribute to the risk of starvation, but pose less potential risk than continuing applications because they do not produce parallel offspring (branching feedback).
Surprisingly, the study found that continuing applications were not the primary cause of congestion of patent applications at the PTO. According to the model, the excessive number of non-final rejections per application was the main culprit. The non-final rejections in each round of prosecution exceeded by far the number of second and later RCEs and continuation applications. Thus, limiting or prohibiting successive generations of RCEs and continuation applications as the only change will not be effective in reducing the backlog. Instead, reducing non-final rejections per application would be more effective because it would relieve the PTO of its primary burden on the system.
The note went on to say that hiring additional examiners is not an effective solution because the PTO would need to exponentially increase its personnel in order to keep up with its load of patent applications. Instead, a policy change addressing the source of the problems is required.
Thus, it looks like it is time for the PTO to revise its rules, which have already been brought into question by Tafas v. Dudas, described in my blog from Nov. 2. Using research data and mathematical models may prove to be a valuable aid as the PTO leadership considers its next move.
December 14, 2007 10:51 am 1 Comment
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Subscribe
By Watch Year One, June 20, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
The style of writing is quite familiar to me. Have you written guest posts for other bloggers?
p.s. Year One is already on the Internet and you can watch it for free.