The USPTO is inviting the public to submit comments on issues related to patent application pendency. The USPTO is specifically seeking comments on the following questions:

1. Are the current targets of 10 month average first action patent pendency and 20 month average total patent pendency the right agency strategic targets for the USPTO, stakeholders, and the public at large? If not, what are the appropriate average first action patent pendency and average total patent pendency targets, and what is the supporting rationale for different targets?

2. Should the USPTO have first action pendency and total pendency targets be met by nearly all applications (e.g., 90 or 95 percent of applications meeting the pendency target) rather than seeking to meet the specific overall targets of 10 months and 20 months respectively?

3. Should the USPTO consider technology-specific patent pendency targets, for example, at the Technology Center level? If so, should all the Technology Centers have the same target? If not, please explain why Technology Centers should have different pendency target levels and how they should be determined?

4. With an eye to patent term adjustment (PTA), the USPTO wants to know if they should consider using a first action pendency target tied to minimizing the number of applications in which a first action is not mailed within 14 months? Similarly, the USPTO is also asking whether the PTA provisions include more specific actions by the USPTO in specific timeframes. Should the USPTO also consider using some of the other PTA specific timeframes for their optimal pendency targets?

5. A USPTO policy to encourage completing first office actions too soon after the filing date of an application does not allow for the publication of all pertinent patent prior art and for the appropriate window for third-party prior art submissions. Thus, the USPTO asks whether the benefits of a prompt first Office action outweigh potential concerns of the Office action being issued too quickly?

6. Should the USPTO be cautious at this point in time to avoid going too low in first action pendency due to so many recent changes in patent law? For example, the USPTO pointed to significant case law decisions that may impact large categories of inventions and possibly lead to reduced patent filings.

7. In addition to seeking public input on optimal patent first action and total pendency levels, the USPTO also is interested in knowing if there are other activities where pendency or timeliness should be measured and reported. What other metrics should the USPTO consider utilizing to measure pendency or timeliness throughout the examination process? Further, specifically regarding RCEs, what other metrics should the USPTO consider utilizing to measure the pendency or timeliness regarding RCEs? Should these metrics also be considered for other continuing-type applications (i.e., continuation, continuation-in-part, and divisional applications)?

Written comments must be received on or before September 8, 2014, and should be sent via email to: patent_pendency2014@uspto.gov.