USPTO patent boss lays out big changes to exam times and routing

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

USPTO patent boss lays out big changes to exam times and routing

Drew Hirshfeld, commissioner for patents, speaking at Managing IP's virtual US Patent Forum

At this year’s Managing IP US Patent Forum, patents commissioner Drew Hirshfeld delved into important changes and updates to prosecution at the office

The USPTO patents organisation has made a lot of changes this month, the most important of which patents commissioner Drew Hirshfeld laid out to listeners at Managing IP’s US Patent Forum yesterday.

Hirshfeld, who was appointed for a second five-year term in his role last July, explained that on October 1, his organisation changed exam times, put in a new performance appraisal plan for employees, and revolutionised how the office dockets and routes cases to examiners.

“We are just at the front end of those very significant changes, and many of them are correcting things that haven’t been changed, quite frankly, in 30 to 40 years,” he said. “I feel really good about this – I and others have been working on these changes for years."

On the clock

On the topic of examination times, Hirshfeld said: “I will tell you first hand from my experience as an examiner, 26 years ago, that as technologies change, the time needed to examine cases should change too.

“But that hasn’t always been the case,” he added. 

He said that the most recent round of changes to exam times, and changes from 2019, were implemented to bring the USPTO up to date and to bring anomalous areas into line with the office's standards.

In October 2019, Hirshfeld and his team raised the floor for some mechanical areas, and other areas that had the lowest time for prosecution, to give them a more reasonable amount of time to examine cases.

“Before that, some of these times were way out of line with where they should have been,” he said.

His team also gave time to examiners for attributes. If an application had more than 20 claims, for example, the patent organisation would give examiners more time to look over it.

“We basically tried to make the time somewhat tailored to the exact application,” he said.

This year, the patent organisation changed its required exam times to fall in line with the co-operative patent classification (CPC) system, a scheme that was jointly developed by the EPO and the USPTO. 

As of last week, said Hirshfeld, the USPTO officially transferred over to the CPC system from the US patent classification system, which allowed it to base exam times on the CPC.

Appraise you like I should

Hirshfeld said his team focused on two key areas for the patent examiner appraisal scheme: examiner searches, and the clarity of written prosecution records.

“Those are two foundational pieces that we felt needed to be emphasised more in the appraisal scheme, so we changed the plan to put more focus on them.

“The search is critical. Getting the right art in the case, and early, is very important to making prosecution as effective as possible. The clarity of the written record is also critical to making sure the applicant or even third parties understand why the examiner made the decision that he or she made,” he said.

On the right route

The change that Hirshfeld seemed most excited about wasthe introduction of a more precise application routing system.

“I have actually done complete webinars just on this topic,” he said. “We are creating a much more comprehensive routing scheme where we actually create a technological profile for every examiner based on the cases they have worked on.”

He noted that his organisation receives well over 450,000 new cases a year, not including continuations, which means that the way it routes those is a huge undertaking.

The new system, he said, matches the technological profile of an examiner to that of every incoming application based on its classification picture under the CPC.

“It means that you can match applications with the best examiners and divert the work appropriately.”

He noted that if several examiners were equally qualified to manage an application, the system would direct the application to an examiner based on his or her workload. 

“So it helps us with our workload balancing as well,” he added.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Brian Paul Gearing brings technical depth, litigation expertise, and experience with Japanese business culture to Pillsbury’s IP practice
News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Gift this article