Congratulations! You are ready to file a United States (U.S.) non-provisional patent application for your invention. This is a major milestone for any startup. But what comes next? Is it just a waiting game? Well ... maybe not.
A challenge with the standard patent process is that U.S. non-provisional patent applications are subject to the overburdened queues of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). USPTO statistics for an application show that the Traditional Total Pendency is 26.1 months to 42.9 months. (See Pendency Statistics USPTO from July of 2024). This means that, on average, a non-provisional patent application will slowly transition from filing to issuance over a two to four year timeline. Most of this timeline is spent waiting for formal patent prosecution to begin, i.e., receiving a first USPTO office action. An office action is an official letter sent by a patent examiner that provides a substantial ruling (e.g., objection, rejection, allowance) for the U.S. non-provisional patent application. USPTO statistics show that First Office Action Pendency period is an average of 19.7 months. (See Pendency Statistics USPTO from July of 2024).
No matter how you look at it, waiting over a year and a half to start formal patent prosecution is a lot of time to sacrifice to the standard patent process. Yet, there is another option!
The USPTO's Prioritized Patent Examination Program (referred to as the Track-1 Program) is an accelerated examination for securing a final patent application allowance within 12 months from the date that a Track-1 petition is granted. Filing the Track-1 petition must occur at the time of filing (or respective to a Request for Continued Examination) and be accompanied by the appropriate fees (~$4500 undiscounted fees). A major benefit of the Track-1 program is that Track One Pendency From Petition Grant To Allowance is reduced to 3.9 months. (See Track One Data USPTO for fiscal year 2024).
Example Timeline of a Track-1 Program:
- Filing a U.S. non-provisional patent application with a Track-1 petition.
- Receiving a USPTO grant of the Track-1 petition at two to three months from filing.
- Receiving an Allowance at six to seven months from filing (i.e., 3.9 months from Petition Grant rounded up).
- Note that Track-1 Process Timelines are 12 months from the Track-1 petition grant (or fourteen to fifteen months from filing).
- USPTO statistics show that First Office Action Pendency period for the standard patent process is an average of 19.7 months.
As a takeaway, a startup company can procure an Allowance under the Track-1 program before formal patent prosecution begins under the standard patent process. This is a significant reduction of the patent process timeline. Further, this reduced timeline produces a higher level of confidence in building a patent portfolio and may translate to fewer office actions and associated costs, which would in turn offset the Track-1 filing fees. For instance, if an Allowance is received under the Track-1 program, the startup company can highlight the fast success before the USTPO in an investor pitch and contemplate a broader strategy for U.S. continuation and international applications leveraging the Allowance to build a patent portfolio.
More generally, using a Track-1 petition to trigger faster prosecution enables more informed business decisions for how to build a patent portfolio, raise capital, manage cost and budgets, and continue research and invention development.
- Associate
Patrick has practiced in varying areas of intellectual property, with a current focus on patent application writing and patent prosecution. He is particularly experienced in freedom to operate opinions, as well as strategic ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Artificial Ingenuity: Is Generative AI the New 'Person of Ordinary Skill' in Patent Law?
- The Expiration of the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0)
- Patently Unclear: Why Result-Oriented Claims Don’t Make the Cut Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
- Make Your Invention The Priority, What Track-1 Can Do For You!
- Navigating Final Rejections in Patent Prosecution: AFCP 2.0 vs. 37 CFR § 1.116
- A Clear POV on Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101: Contour’s Claims Zoom Back Into Focus in Contour v. GoPro
- Understanding the Recent Federal Circuit Decision in Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. on Patent Ineligibility
- Federal Circuit Clarifies Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Laboratories: The Impact of Patent Term Adjustments on First-Filed Patents
- The Risks and Rewards of Using Open Source Software
- Don't Let Your Trade Secrets Walk Out the Door With Your Employees: Patent Them!
Archives
- November 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- August 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017