Three USPTO Prosecution Announcements Not To Miss

The USPTO has made a series of recent announcements in April that should not go unnoticed as they serve as important reminders for best practices in patent prosecution. In particular, the USPTO’s announcements address continuation applications, a new working group to mitigate fraud, and the elimination of expedited examinations for design applications.

Accelerated Patent Issuance

On April 15, the USPTO announced that it will be accelerating the timeline for patent issuance. Effective May 13, 2025, patents will now issue approximately two weeks following issue notification. While this one-week reduction from the previous three weeks between issue notification and issue date may seem mundane, it can be consequential for applicants looking to file continuation applications who did not do so when paying their issue fee.

As every patent practitioner knows, continuation applications require copendency with their parent applications under 35 U.S.C. § 120 and as described in MPEP § 211.01(b). Prosecutors and their clients often file continuation applications to keep patent families pending at the USPTO. To ensure that this valuable opportunity is not lost, it is best practice to file any continuation application upon payment of the issue fee. The USPTO’s modernization effort to expedite patent issuance places only greater importance on prosecutors and clients aligning on their continuation strategy before issue fee payment due to the forthcoming accelerated timing.

The USPTO’s Fraud Detection and Mitigation Working Group

One day later, on April 16, the USPTO also announced the launch of its Patent Fraud Detection and Mitigation Working Group. The announcement states that the group’s mission is “to mitigate threats and protect the integrity of the U.S. patent system” while focusing on “erroneous micro entity and small entity fee certifications,” “suspicious filings,” and “potential misrepresentations to the USPTO, including false signatures.” Along with the announcement, the USPTO published a new website further detailing the group’s objectives, relevant USPTO rules and regulations, and potential consequences for perpetrating fraud. At the very top of the website, the USPTO provides a strong reminder that every individual associated with an application has duties of candor, good faith, reasonable inquiry, and to ensure that representations are truthful and nonfrivolous.

The new working group provides several further reminders of practices that may seem minor but must be kept in mind by prosecutors. First, under Rule 1.4, a patent practitioner must personally sign any papers submitted to the USPTO. If someone else inserts the signature on behalf of the practitioner, then that signature is falsified and sanctions under Rule 11.18(c) may be imposed, including termination of the proceedings. To avoid any risk whatsoever, practitioners must always insert their own signature on filings. Second, the USPTO has recognized a “significant increase in applications claiming micro-entity status” in which many applicants are not actually eligible for micro-entity status. For prosecutors involved with small businesses, start-ups, and solo inventors, it is important to verify that the applicant qualifies for the USPTO’s discounted rates. The USPTO’s guidelines for small and micro-entity status can be found here for reference. Lastly, the USPTO warns against using “technology to electronically file high volumes of spurious patent applications with no intent to pursue patent protection.”

Even a quick glance at the working group’s website reveals that the USPTO does not take these matters lightly. The USPTO makes its point by providing examples of penalties, including “a penalty of not less than three times the amount that an entity failed to pay the USPTO when the entity is found to have falsely made an assertion or certification of small or micro entity status” and lists of disciplinary proceedings where practitioners have been found accountable. The USPTO also promotes its successful crack down on fraud by publicizing the numbers of falsified signatures (3,300 applications terminated since October 2024), fee deficiency notices (2,200 notices mailed), and fees recouped as a result of investigation ($1.8M+). Accordingly, prosecutors should use the USPTO’s announcement to remember these seemingly minor but important practices.

No More Expedited Examination of Design Applications

For those involved with design patent applications, the USPTO announced on April 14 that it was suspending the expedited examination program effective April 17, 2025. The USPTO cited in its rationale that requests for expedited examination have surged 560% due in large part to fraudulent applications. By eliminating these requests, the USPTO states that it will be better able to combat fraud and reduce the pendency and inventory of unexamined design applications. For reference, expedited design application examinations often lasted two months or less while normal pendency is around fifteen months based upon the USPTO’s data. Prosecutors who file design applications should be aware of this change and seek to get applications on file as early as possible given the elimination of the expedited examination shortcut.