Understanding the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0) Program

Introduction
‍

The After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0) program is a valuable initiative by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) designed to streamline the patent examination process. This program provides patent applicants with an additional opportunity to reach an agreement with the patent examiner after receiving a final rejection.

Post-Final Rejection Options
‍

When a patent application receives a final rejection, the applicant has several options:

1. File an Appeal: The applicant can appeal the examiner's decision to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This process is often lengthy and expensive.
2. Request for Continued Examination (RCE): The applicant can file an RCE to continue the examination process. This allows for further amendments and arguments to be considered by the examiner.
3. File a New Application: The applicant can file a new application, such as a continuation or divisional application, to pursue the subject matter further.
4. After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) 2.0 Program: The applicant can opt to participate in the AFCP 2.0 program, which provides additional time for examiners to consider after-final response amendments.

AFCP 2.0 Program Features
‍

1. Extended Time for Examiners: The program allocates additional time for examiners to consider responses after a final rejection, allowing for a more thorough review of amendments.
2. Interview Opportunities: Examiners are encouraged to conduct interviews with applicants to discuss the after-final response, facilitating a better understanding of the amendments and fostering a more collaborative resolution process.
3. Eligibility: To participate in the AFCP 2.0 program, applicants must file a response after a final rejection that includes an amendment to at least one independent claim. The response must be filed within the statutory period for response.
4. No Additional Fees: There are no extra fees required to participate in the AFCP 2.0 program, making it an accessible option for applicants looking to resolve issues without incurring additional costs.

Comparing AFCP 2.0 and RCE

‍
Pros of AFCP 2.0:

• No Additional Fees: Unlike an RCE, participating in the AFCP 2.0 program does not require additional fees.
• Faster Resolution: The program can lead to a quicker resolution compared to filing an RCE, as it aims to address issues promptly through extended examination time and direct communication.
• Increased Chance of Allowance: The additional time and examiner interviews can increase the likelihood of reaching an agreement and moving towards allowance.

Cons of AFCP 2.0:

• Limited Examiner Time: The examiner's additional time under AFCP 2.0 is limited, and if the amendments are too complex or extensive, the examiner might not be able to fully consider them within the allotted time.
• Dependent on Examiner's Discretion: Success under the AFCP 2.0 program heavily depends on the examiner's willingness and ability to engage with the applicant's amendments and conduct interviews.

Pros of RCE:

• Extended Examination: Filing an RCE essentially restarts the examination process, providing a more comprehensive opportunity to address the examiner's concerns with new amendments and arguments.
• Flexibility: An RCE allows for more extensive amendments and new evidence that might not be feasible under the AFCP 2.0 program due to time constraints.

Cons of RCE:

• Additional Fees: Filing an RCE incurs significant additional fees. For example, the standard fee for an RCE for a small entity is $1,360, and for a micro-entity, it is $680.
• Longer Timeframe: The RCE process can be lengthy, potentially delaying the final resolution of the application.

Appeal Process Overview

‍
Pros of Filing an Appeal:

• Third-Party Review: An appeal allows for a third-party review by the PTAB, which can provide a fresh perspective on the issues.
• Potential to Overturn Rejection: If successful, an appeal can overturn the examiner's rejection without the need for further amendments or prosecution.
• Establish Precedent: A successful appeal can set a precedent that may be beneficial for related patent applications.

Cons of Filing an Appeal:

• High Cost: Filing an appeal is generally more expensive than AFCP 2.0 or RCE. It involves significant legal fees and the costs associated with preparing and presenting the appeal.
• Lengthy Process: The appeal process can be lengthy, often taking several years to reach a final decision.
• Risk of Affirmation: There is a risk that the PTAB will affirm the examiner's rejection, potentially leaving the applicant with no further options but to file an RCE or a new application.

‍

Cost Analysis

• AFCP 2.0: No additional fees
• RCE: Requires substantial fees (e.g., $1,360 for a small entity, $680 for a micro-entity)
• Appeal: Typically the most expensive option, involving substantial legal fees and costs

Choosing the Right Option

‍
The decision between AFCP 2.0, RCE, and filing an appeal depends on the specific circumstances of the patent application:

• AFCP 2.0: Best for cases where the amendments are relatively straightforward, and there is a strong potential for resolving the issues through direct communication with the examiner without incurring additional costs.
• RCE: Better suited for more complex cases requiring extensive amendments or new evidence, or where previous attempts to resolve the issues through AFCP 2.0 have been unsuccessful.
• Appeal: Appropriate for cases where the applicant believes the examiner has made a clear error in the rejection and is willing to invest in a potentially lengthy and costly process to overturn the decision.

Conclusion

‍
The AFCP 2.0 program is an effective tool for patent applicants facing final rejections. By leveraging the additional time and improved communication channels offered by the program, applicants can increase their chances of overcoming rejections and securing their patents. Incorporating best practices from patent drafting, such as clear and hierarchical claims, can further enhance the likelihood of a successful resolution under the AFCP 2.0 program.

For those navigating the complexities of patent prosecution, understanding and utilizing programs like AFCP 2.0, alongside sound patent drafting strategies, can make a substantial difference in achieving favorable outcomes. Depending on the complexity of the case and the amendments needed, choosing between AFCP 2.0, RCE, and filing an appeal will involve weighing the costs and benefits to determine the most efficient path to securing patent protection.

‍