Rowan Analytics Insights
Patent Analytics Benchmarking Report – May 2021

As the provider of the only integrated patent application software for all the stages of patent application development, from invention capture to drafting, to analytics / error checking through patent prosecution, Rowan users have access to data on every step of the patent application development process.  We believe using analytical data throughout the process can have a powerful impact on portfolio development and help lead to the quantifiable go/no go decisions at multiple checkpoints.

Many companies we talk to find it challenging to consistently track the patent prosecution process beyond the initial filing. Indeed, they have little visibility into the process once they have given their approval and their application has been filed. They talk to their outside counsel when they provide a patent disclosure at the beginning of the process, and often receive redlines of different drafts.   But when you are handling many applications everyone says it becomes difficult to keep track of these redlines over time.  Short of reviewing all of their drafters’ work at every stage, they do not have any efficient way to assess the drafting progress again until the patent is issued, which could be two or more years and tens of thousands of dollars later.

By using a platform like Rowan, analytical data on your whole application, including your text and drawings, is available throughout the process of patent application development.  Companies should leverage this data from patent application software and implement checkpoints all along the way, then work with their outside counsel to make go/no go decisions based upon the data available.  We believe that more data should be used when making decisions throughout the drafting process.

At Rowan, we believe that benchmarking is critical for all organizations.  It may be cliché, but Knowledge is Power.  For Rowan Patents, benchmarking helps measure the impact our software has for corporations and practitioners.  As an example, when looking at Office actions on disposed applications, we found that those drafted with Rowan had 44% fewer 112 rejections and 18% fewer Office actions.

Rowan will be publishing data on a monthly basis looking at various patent application and prosecution statistics.  We will call out interesting trends over time on baseline stats (# of Office actions, types of Office actions, etc.) when they emerge, but as you can see from the example below – not surprisingly – the USPTO tends to be pretty consistent on those items:

In this first month’s analysis, we looked at Office actions with two bases for rejection.  We noticed that applications with a 112 rejection are most likely to have additional rejections – 87% of Office actions with a 112 rejection had another basis for rejection. There were 16% more 112+103 pairings than the next highest combination, which was 102+103. There are 50% more 112+103 errors than the third highest, 102+112.  Like the overall statistics above, the month of April appears representative of consistent USPTO activity as the data for 2020 as a whole was similar.

Whether there is a causal relationship between 112 and 103 errors, or if this is simply a result of the underlying drafting remains to be seen.  Is it possible that examiners look more closely for obviousness under 103 when the application contains errors under 112? Or more simply said, do 112-type issues make examiners then take a closer look? Is it possible that a drafter who does not take available steps to prevent or reduce avoidable drafting errors through a technology framework is also cutting corners in ways that hinder your ability to make a go/no-go decision?

If you would like to receive data on applications filed by your firm or your company like the below, to help you understand the power of analytical data to help you, please contact us and we will be happy to analyze your applications as a courtesy.

Sources: USPTO, Rowan analysis

Supporting data