直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Prosecution First Blog

RCE Statistics - Is There Still a Backlog?

February 08, 2016

Authored and Edited by Jessica L. Roberts, Ph.D.; Adriana L. Burgy

When patent prosecution ends in no claims allowed, applicants have the opportunity to file Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs). Of all new utility, plant, and reissue filings received at the USPTO within the last 12 months, nearly 30% of those applications were not actually “new”, but RCEs filed by applicants in already pending cases. These statistics indicate RCEs have become a common vehicle for entering rejected claims back into prosecution.

Over the years, the USPTO vacillated on how it treats RCEs. In 2009, the USPTO adopted a system that led to a delay of further consideration of RCE’d applications. These changes included slightly decreased “counts” for Examiners towards their production goals for patent applications. As shown in the graph below, these actions resulted in a rapid growth of RCE filings awaiting examination.

RCE Statistics

The USPTO recognized the rapid growth in RCE backlog and began implementing various initiatives to address the problem. As a stop-gap measure, the USPTO temporarily reverted to the old count system. They also began pushing initiatives including the Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS) and After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP 2.0) programs. To further reduce the RCE inventory, the USPTO devised a two-phase approach where the first phase, beginning March, 2013, featured a temporary increase in production credit for RCEs. The second phase, implemented October, 2013 focused on a longer term approach to reorganize new application dockets and improve the workflow for RCEs. Looking at the statistics, the USPTO appears to have the RCE backlog largely under control today with a flatting of the number of RCE applications waiting for a next action.

USPTO statistics can be found here.

Tags

After-Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP)

Contacts

Adriana L. Burgy
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4345
Email

Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Reception

2026 IPO Education Foundation Awards Dinner

December 15, 2026

Washington, DC

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Conference

IPBC Asia 2026

November 17-19, 2026

Tokyo

Conference

2026 AIPLA Annual Meeting

October 29-31, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

31st Annual UMass Chan Research Retreat

October 14-15, 2026

Worcester

Seminar

PTAB Bar Association Thought Leader Summit 2026

October 7, 2026

Alexandria

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Webinar

PTAB Developments and Their Impact on Parallel Litigation: Strategic Considerations

August 26, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

A Year of Change for Post-Grant Patent Challenges: Key PTAB and CRU Developments, and Strategic Implications

August 19, 2026

Webinar

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP