The Count System and Getting a Patent: Understanding the Incentives the USPTO Gives Examiners

By /

Below is an overview of how office action counts at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can shape the career trajectory and compensation of patent examiners. Office actions are the formal written communications between examiners and applicants regarding the patentability of inventions, and the count system is a production-based metric used to evaluate examiner performance.

1. Overview of the USPTO’s Count System

1.1 Purpose of the System

The USPTO uses a count system to measure the productivity of patent examiners in examining patent applications. Each examiner is expected to handle a certain amount of work—measured primarily through “counts” for various actions (e.g., first office actions, final rejections, allowances). This system incentivizes timely processing of applications and helps the USPTO manage its overall backlog.

  • Production Goals: Examiners have biweekly or quarterly production goals tied to their Examiner Performance Appraisal Plan (PAP).
  • Office Actions: Actions such as a non-final office action, final rejection, or allowance each contribute differently to an examiner’s count total.

1.2 Types of Actions That Generate Counts

While the specifics can vary based on the examiner’s technology center and art unit, some broad examples include:

  1. First Action on the Merits (FOA) or Non-Final Rejection: Typically grants the examiner a set number of counts (often the highest single action count).
  2. Final Rejection: Carries a smaller count value than the first action but still contributes to production.
  3. Allowance: When the examiner allows a patent application, it usually provides a count similar to or slightly less than the first action.
  4. Request for Continued Examination (RCE) Disposal: RCE-related office actions can generate partial counts, although these have historically been subject to different (sometimes lower) credit to discourage repeated RCE cycles.
  5. Abandonments: If an application is ultimately abandoned, it may count as a “disposal,” but often with reduced count credit compared to an allowance.

Note: The exact count values per type of action vary and can change over time.

2. Impact on Examiner Careers

2.1 Performance Evaluation and Ratings

Patent examiners are evaluated on several factors, including quality (accuracy of rejections and allowances) and timeliness/production. The count system primarily feeds into timeliness/production metrics:

  • Meeting Production Goals: An examiner who consistently meets or exceeds set production goals is likely to receive favorable performance ratings (e.g., “fully successful,” “outstanding”).
  • Below-Goal Performance: Falling short of production expectations can lead to lower ratings and, if persistent, may trigger performance improvement plans (PIPs).

These performance ratings directly influence an examiner’s promotion potential, bonus eligibility, and overall career advancement.

2.2 Promotions and Grade Levels

Examiners typically enter the USPTO at lower grade levels (e.g., GS-7, GS-9, or GS-11) and can be promoted through higher levels (up to GS-14 for most examiners, and GS-15 in some cases). Progression depends heavily on:

  1. Consistent Production: Sustained ability to meet count requirements over time.
  2. Quality Metrics: Avoiding large error rates or re-work.
  3. Years of Service: Examiners often must spend a minimum period at each grade and show consistent performance.

2.3 Bonus and Award Programs

The USPTO periodically offers special achievement awards or monetary bonuses to examiners who exceed production goals or demonstrate high-quality examining. For example:

  • Accelerated Production Awards: Exceeding a certain percentage of your production quota might result in a bonus.
  • Quality-Related Awards: Achieving high-quality metrics (few re-opened cases or appeals lost) while maintaining production targets can lead to further incentives.

Such awards can significantly boost overall compensation—making the ability to generate office action counts efficiently a key factor in an examiner’s take-home pay.

3. Daily Work Management and the Count Pressure

3.1 Scheduling and “Biweeks”

Patent examiners work on a two-week (biweek) cycle, during which they aim to accumulate enough counts to meet or exceed their production quota. This can influence:

  • Prioritization of Actions: Examiners may focus on finalizing actions they can complete more quickly or that yield higher counts, especially toward the end of a biweek.
  • Efficiency Measures: Tools like search templates, classification systems, and internal training on prior art searching techniques are crucial to maintain speed and quality.

3.2 Balancing Quality and Quantity

A key challenge examiners face is balancing fast production with thorough examination. Overemphasis on production metrics can lead to:

  • Inadequate Searches: Risk of missing relevant prior art.
  • Inconsistent Rejections: Potential rework if actions are challenged on appeal or reopened after applicant response.
  • Examiner Stress or Burnout: The pressure to meet quotas can contribute to job dissatisfaction if not managed well.

4. Office Actions and Compensation

4.1 Base Salary vs. Production Bonuses

While an examiner’s base salary is determined by grade level and step within the General Schedule (GS) pay scale, exceeding production goals often leads to additional compensation:

  1. Overtime or Comp Time: Examiners who choose to work extra hours to achieve or surpass goals can earn overtime pay or compensatory leave.
  2. Quality-Based Incentives: Some programs reward examiners who maintain an above-average Allowance Compliance Rate (ACR) or high-quality first office actions.

4.2 RCEs and Second Actions

Because repeated Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs) can generate fewer or different counts, examiners often strategize about how best to handle repeated filings in a particular application. This dynamic affects how examiners plan their long-term docket management to maximize both efficiency and count credit.

5. Transparency and Evolution of the Count System

5.1 Past Revisions and Ongoing Discussions

The USPTO has revised its count system multiple times to address criticisms—such as disincentives for thorough searches or repeated RCE filings. These adjustments aim to better align examiner incentives with patent quality.

  • 2010 Count System Changes: Reduced credit for second (or subsequent) RCE actions and allocated more time for initial examination.
  • Future Reforms: Stakeholders and the examiner union frequently propose reforms to balance production requirements with robust examination practices.

5.2 Publicly Available Data

The USPTO publishes periodic Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) reports that may discuss examiner performance data and recommended changes. Additionally, the USPTO Data Visualization Center provides some statistics on pendency and other metrics, though it does not break down individual examiner counts.

6. Practical Tips for Examiners and Applicants

6.1 For Examiners

  • Effective Time Management: Planning a balanced docket to secure consistent counts and avoid “panic” near each biweekly deadline.
  • Quality Emphasis: Strive for clear, thorough office actions to minimize re-work or re-opens, which ultimately wastes production time.
  • Continuous Learning: Keeping updated on new USPTO initiatives, search tools, and classification updates can boost efficiency.

6.2 For Patent Applicants

  • Awareness of Examiner Pressures: Understanding examiner production metrics can help applicants time responses and arguments strategically.
  • Clarity in Responses: Providing concise, well-structured amendments or arguments can reduce back-and-forth and expedite prosecution.
  • Pre-Appeal Conferences: Taking advantage of initiatives like the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference can resolve issues early—benefitting both the applicant and the examiner’s production quota.

7. Conclusion

The office action count system at the USPTO is central to a patent examiner’s career and compensation. By tying production goals to promotions, bonus opportunities, and performance appraisals, the USPTO aims to ensure timely examinations of patent applications. However, examiners must balance these quantitative demands with rigorous examination to maintain quality. Understanding how counts work—both as an examiner and as a patent applicant—can greatly influence prosecution strategy and outcomes.

For official resources, visit:

1 thought on “The Count System and Getting a Patent: Understanding the Incentives the USPTO Gives Examiners”

  1. Pingback: Who Does What at the USPTO: Key Roles Explained - Innovation Cafe

Leave a Comment

Scroll to Top