This is because (1) PTO’s pendency computation method considers both issued patents and abandoned applications but does not consider applications still in-process; (2) pendency can vary widely for individual applications, depending on the type of invention and factors such as whether the application is subject to a secrecy order; (3) pendency is higher when the filing date used is that of the original, rather than the most recent, application for the particular invention; and (4) the applicants themselves are partly responsible for the time taken to examine applications. PTO’s Calculation of Pendency Considers Abandoned Applications but Not Applications In-Process

Pendency is an important factor in any consideration of the patent examination process because it provides (1) the inventor with an estimate of how long PTO is likely to take to issue a patent, (2) PTO with information on how it is managing its workload, and (3) decisionmakers such as the Congress and the administration with a method to measure results. Overall, the average pendency for foreign applications—which accounted for 36.8 percent of all patents issued or applications abandoned—was 20.9 months, compared with 20.2 months for all applications. In fiscal year 1995, PTO committed about three-fourths of its funding and staff to the patent process. Table III.2 compares the full-time equivalent (FTE) staff assigned to the patent process, the trademark process, executive direction and administration, and information dissemination over the same 10-year period. Overall, PTO’s published reports indicate that the agency reduced pendency by 2.9 months from fiscal year 1986 through fiscal 1995. Rather, the applicant must make a separate request for examination, which may come at any time up to 7 years after the application is filed. PTO’s funding and staffing have increased in recent years, and PTO has consistently committed the majority of these resources to the patent process. Also, there appear to be differences in the methods for computing and reporting pendency. These issues include an analysis of patent pendency; a comparative summary of recent resource allocations within PTO, particularly in regard to the patent process; and a comparison of patent examination processes and pendency between PTO and the patent offices in Japan and Europe. We did not independently verify the statistics. 5. 6.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Patent and Trademark Office's (PTO) operations, focusing on: (1) patent pendency; (2) PTO allocation of resources among its patent and trademark processes, dissemination of information, and executive direction and administration; and (3) a comparison of PTO workload and examination processes with those of other industrialized nations.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) PTO computation and reporting of patent pendency is inadequate; (2) PTO does not provide separate statistics on patents issued, abandoned applications, or applications still in process in its pendency calculations; (3) PTO does not report variations in pendency among individual applications or measure pendency from the original filing date in accordance with patent law; (4) PTO does not determine how much of pendency is due to the patent examination process or applicant delays; (5) applicant delays may constitute as much as 36 percent of the average pendency period; (6) PTO has consistently committed most of its resources to its patent process, which in fiscal year (FY) 1995 constituted three-quarters of its funds and staff; (7) funding and staffing for the trademark process, executive direction and administration, and information dissemination also increased from FY 1986 through FY 1995; (8) during the same period, the PTO patent workload increased significantly while average pendency decreased by about 2.9 months; (9) it is difficult to compare the PTO patent examination process and pendency with those of Japan and Europe, which are the other two primary patent-granting entities; (10) Japan and Europe require an additional request for examination before starting the examination process, which may delay examination for months or years after an applicant's initial filing; and (11) Japan and Europe include applications in-process in their pendency computations.