Patent Prosecution Checklist: Filing Papers, Deadlines, Continuations, and the Issue Fee

By Casey Scott McKay · 2026-02-13

Patent rights are lost to calendars far more often than to doctrine, and this checklist is built around that fact. It runs twelve phases: verify the filing papers, set the docket including the deadlines with no prompt, research the examiner, handle a restriction, work the office action cycle, manage the final rejection, escalate, review the allowance, file the continuation before paying, and then handle marking, maintenance, and the annual family review. Each box gives the reason, the authority, and the trap. It flags the four unforgiving deadlines - the statutory six-month reply limit, the non-extendable issue fee, the continuation co-pendency requirement, and the divisional window - because those are where applications die. The companion article explains the machinery and the companion guide walks the strategy.

IP and Technology > Patent Counseling Transactions | Checklist | Published 13 February 2026 - Updated 1 July 2026 | Casey Scott McKay - marksy.us

Summary. Patent rights are lost to calendars far more often than to doctrine, and this checklist is built around that fact. It runs twelve phases: verify the filing papers, set the docket including the deadlines with no prompt, research the examiner, handle a restriction, work the office action cycle, manage the final rejection, escalate, review the allowance, file the continuation before paying, and then handle marking, maintenance, and the annual family review. Each box gives the reason, the authority, and the trap. It flags the four unforgiving deadlines — the statutory six-month reply limit, the non-extendable issue fee, the continuation co-pendency requirement, and the divisional window — because those are where applications die. The companion article explains the machinery and the companion guide walks the strategy.

Keywords: prosecution checklist, filing papers, inventor declaration, assignment recordation, entity status, information disclosure statement, docketing, restriction election, office action response, examiner interview, final rejection, request for continued examination, appeal, notice of allowance, issue fee, continuation, maintenance fees, patent marking, patent term adjustment, foreign filing license

How to use this checklist

| Phase | What it covers | When | |---|---|---| | 1 | Verify the filing papers | At filing receipt | | 2 | Set the docket | Same day | | 3 | Research the examiner | Before the first action | | 4 | Handle a restriction | On restriction | | 5 | Read the office action | On each action | | 6 | Interview | Before each response | | 7 | Respond | Within the period | | 8 | Manage the final rejection | After final | | 9 | Escalate | As needed | | 10 | Review the allowance | On notice | | 11 | File the continuation, then pay | Before the issue fee | | 12 | Post-issuance and annual review | Ongoing |

The four deadlines that end applications: the six-month statutory reply limit, the three-month non-extendable issue fee, continuation co-pendency, and the divisional window. Boxes touching them are marked [Gate].

The matter. Thackeray Dynamics filed on a sensor calibration method. The application was restricted, prosecuted through two actions and a final rejection, allowed on a narrowed claim, and issued. Nobody filed a continuation or a divisional. Three years later a competitor shipped a product covered by the non-elected claims, and the family had been closed since the day the issue fee was paid.

Phase 1. Verify the filing papers

[ ] Check the filing receipt against the application as filed.
- Why. Errors in inventor names, priority claims, and entity status are correctable and get harder with time.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 111.
- Trap. Filing the receipt without reading it.
[ ] Confirm inventorship reflects conception of a claimed element.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 115; 35 U.S.C. § 116; correction under 35 U.S.C. § 256.
- Trap. The project roster or the author list.
[ ] Confirm every priority claim is present, correct, and supported.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 119(e); 35 U.S.C. § 120.
- Trap. An omitted cross-reference, which silently breaks the chain.
[ ] Confirm entity status and the basis for it.
- Why. Small and micro entity status reduces fees substantially and a false assertion has consequences.
- Trap. Status that lapsed when the company took investment or granted a license to a large entity.
[ ] Confirm the assignment is executed and recorded.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 261.
- Trap. An agreement to assign rather than a present assignment. See Employee, Founder, and Mobility IP Toolkit.
[ ] Confirm the foreign filing license position.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 184; 35 U.S.C. § 185.
- Trap. A distributed team filing abroad first through a foreign parent's counsel.
[ ] File the information disclosure statement and open the standing file.
- Authority. 37 C.F.R. § 1.56; 37 C.F.R. § 1.97; 37 C.F.R. § 1.98.
- Trap. Treating it as a one-time task rather than a continuing duty.

Phase 2. Set the docket

[ ] [Gate] Docket the reply deadline with the extension arithmetic.
- Why. Three months shortened, six months statutory maximum, not extendable further. Missing it abandons the application.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 133; 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.
- Trap. Assuming an extension is always available. Past six months it is not.
[ ] Docket the eighteen-month publication date.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 122(b).
- Trap. Missing the chance to request non-publication where foreign filing is genuinely not contemplated.
[ ] Docket the provisional conversion deadline.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 119(e).
- Trap. Twelve months that pass while the application is "nearly ready."
[ ] Docket the Paris Convention twelve-month and PCT thirty-month deadlines separately.
- Trap. Conflating them and missing the earlier one. See Patent Priority and International Filing Checklist.
[ ] [Gate] Create a reminder for the continuation decision, tied to allowance.
- Why. Co-pendency has no notice attached to it. Nothing prompts it, and once the parent issues the family closes permanently.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 120.
- Trap. The single most common permanent loss in patent practice.
[ ] Docket to a system, not to a person.
- Trap. A calendar that leaves with the associate.
[ ] Set internal deadlines ahead of external ones, with escalating reminders.

Phase 3. Research the examiner

[ ] Pull the allowance rate, average action count, interview rate, and appeal reversal rate.
- Why. One publicly available hour that determines whether the strategy is to negotiate, appeal, or continue.
- Trap. Skipping it and guessing about the most important variable in the case.
[ ] Review recent allowed applications in the art unit for what worked.
- Trap. Reinventing an argument the unit has already accepted elsewhere.
[ ] Note whether restrictions are routine in the unit.
- Trap. Being surprised by a split that could have been planned at drafting.
[ ] Record the profile in the file.
- Why. The next application in the family goes to the same unit.

Phase 4. Handle a restriction

[ ] Elect with traverse.
- Why. Preserves the argument without delaying examination.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 121.
- Trap. Electing without traverse and losing the point.
[ ] Elect the invention with the best commercial reach.
- Trap. Electing whichever seems easiest to allow.
[ ] [Gate] Diary the divisional deadline immediately.
- Why. Non-elected subject matter must be pursued while the parent is pending, and a divisional filed as a result of a restriction carries statutory protection against the parent.
- Trap. Exactly what happened in the worked matter above.

Phase 5. Read the office action

[ ] Read the claim dispositions first.
[ ] Read any statement of allowable subject matter, and decide whether that patent is worth having.
- Trap. Taking it reflexively, or refusing it reflexively.
[ ] Read the rejections in order of cost to overcome.
[ ] [Gate] Read every cited reference in full, not the characterization.
- Why. Rejections built on misread passages are common and collapse when quoted back in context.
- Trap. Working from the examiner's summary.
[ ] Verify each cited reference actually predates your effective filing date.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a); 35 U.S.C. § 102(d).
- Trap. A reference that does not qualify, unchallenged.
[ ] Check the search record for where the examiner did not look.

Phase 6. Interview

[ ] Request the interview before writing the response.
- Authority. 37 C.F.R. § 1.133.
- Trap. Interviewing after two written rounds.
[ ] Bring proposed claim language.
[ ] Bring the reference, open to the passage.
[ ] Ask what limitation would distinguish, in the examiner's view.
[ ] Confirm the substance in the response, including any agreement on allowable subject matter.
- Trap. An agreement that exists only in memory.

Phase 7. Respond

[ ] Respond to every ground and every claim.
- Authority. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111.
[ ] Quote the limitation, then quote the reference.
[ ] Amend by elevating a dependent limitation where possible.
- Why. Support is established and estoppel is more contained.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 132(a).
[ ] Cite specification paragraphs for every support argument.
[ ] Distinguish on the narrowest sufficient basis.
- Why. Every broad distinction is quoted at claim construction. See What the Claim Means.
[ ] Chart any amended claim against the competitor products the client named.
- Trap. An allowable claim that reads on nothing.
[ ] Respond within the shortened period where the budget allows.
- Why. Extensions cost fees and patent term.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 154(b).

Phase 8. Manage the final rejection

[ ] Request an after-final interview.
[ ] Consider an after-final amendment that cancels claims or adopts interview language.
- Why. Entry is discretionary and most likely for amendments requiring no new search.
[ ] File a pre-appeal brief request with the notice of appeal.
- Why. Panel review at a fraction of the cost of a full appeal.
- Trap. Skipping straight to a request for continued examination or a full appeal.
[ ] Evaluate the request for continued examination against appeal.
- Authority. 37 C.F.R. § 1.114.
- Trap. A third request with an examiner who has not moved on two.
[ ] Gather any evidence before the final action.
- Why. After final, a declaration is admitted only on a showing of why it was not earlier presented.
- Authority. 37 C.F.R. § 1.132.

Phase 9. Escalate

[ ] Check the examiner's reversal statistics before appealing.
[ ] Organize the appeal brief by claim grouping.
- Why. Claims argued together stand or fall together.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 134.
[ ] Ensure all evidence is in the record before the notice of appeal.
[ ] Use a petition, not an appeal, for procedural objections.
- Why. Improper finality, refusal to enter an amendment, and improper restriction are petitionable rather than appealable.
[ ] [Gate] File a continuation before the appeal concludes.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 120.
[ ] Know the further routes.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 141; 35 U.S.C. § 145.

Phase 10. Review the allowance

[ ] Check every examiner's amendment against the client's product and the market.
- Trap. Discovering after issuance that the amendment moved the claim off the target.
[ ] Read any statement of reasons for allowance, and decide whether to comment.
- Why. It will be quoted arguing for a narrow construction, and both commenting and staying silent are choices.
[ ] Verify the patent term adjustment calculation.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 154(b).
- Trap. An error left uncorrected past the window.
[ ] Reconcile the information disclosure statement one final time.
- Authority. 37 C.F.R. § 1.56.
[ ] Note the issue fee deadline: three months, not extendable.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 151.

Phase 11. File the continuation, then pay

[ ] [Gate] File the continuation before paying the issue fee.
- Why. Co-pendency is absolute and the closure is permanent.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 120.
- Trap. Paying first, which is what happened to Thackeray.
[ ] Draft continuation claims against competitor products, not against the rejected claims.
- Trap. Refiling what was just rejected.
[ ] Re-run the support map for every new claim.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See Section 112 Compliance Checklist.
[ ] Consider a different claim layer in the continuation.
- Why. Data structure, method, system, and component each face different art and different eligibility posture.
[ ] Assess double patenting before disclaiming.
- Why. A terminal disclaimer ties term to the earlier patent and conditions enforceability on common ownership.
- Authority. 37 C.F.R. § 1.321; safe harbor at 35 U.S.C. § 121.
- Trap. Disclaiming reflexively in a family that may be split.
[ ] If closing the family, record the decision and the reason.
- Trap. Closure by omission rather than by choice.

Phase 12. Post-issuance and annual review

[ ] Docket the maintenance fees.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 41(b).
- Trap. A lapsed patent, the cheapest way to lose a six-figure asset.
[ ] Establish marking.
- Why. Constructive notice affects the damages period.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 287. See Patent Damages Checklist.
[ ] Consider provisional rights where applicable.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 154(d).
[ ] Consider reissue for a correctable defect, within the limits.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 251; certificates of correction at 35 U.S.C. § 254 and 35 U.S.C. § 255.
[ ] Run the annual family review.
- Why. What issued, what is pending, what is due, what it cost, and what it covers. It is the report that keeps a portfolio funded.
- Authority. See Patent Portfolio Management Toolkit.
[ ] Record the examiner and art unit intelligence for the next filing.

Phase 13. The deadline reference

Every deadline in U.S. prosecution, what it does, and whether it can be saved.

| Deadline | Length | Extendable? | Consequence of missing | |---|---|---|---| | Reply to an office action | 3 months shortened | To 6 months for fees | Abandonment | | Statutory maximum reply | 6 months | No | Abandonment | | Issue fee | 3 months | No | Abandonment of an allowed application | | Continuation co-pendency | Until parent issues or abandons | No | Family closed permanently | | Divisional filing | Until parent issues or abandons | No | Non-elected claims unrecoverable | | Provisional conversion | 12 months | No | Priority date lost | | Paris Convention priority | 12 months | No | Foreign priority lost | | PCT national stage entry | 30 months typically | Limited, per office | National rights lost | | Notice of appeal | Reply period | With the reply period | Loss of appeal right | | Appeal brief | 2 months from notice | Yes, for fees | Appeal dismissed | | Maintenance fees | Set intervals post-issuance | Surcharge window, then lapse | Patent lapses | | Patent term adjustment challenge | Short window from grant | No | Term error becomes permanent |

[ ] Mark the four "No" rows in the docket differently from everything else.
- Why. They are unforgiving, and treating all deadlines as equally recoverable is how applications are lost.
- Trap. A docketing system with a single reminder profile.
[ ] Docket the two deadlines with no incoming paper separately.
- Why. Continuation and divisional deadlines are not on any document. Nothing arrives to prompt them.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 120; 35 U.S.C. § 121.
[ ] Run a monthly review of everything pending, independent of incoming correspondence.
- Why. It is the only way to catch the promptless deadlines.
- Trap. A system keyed entirely to received documents.

Phase 14. Special prosecution tracks

[ ] Consider prioritized examination where an issued patent is needed on a schedule.
- Why. Compresses the timeline substantially for a fee and a claim-count limit, which matters for a financing, a licensing negotiation, or a preliminary injunction motion.
- Trap. The compressed schedule leaves less room for the interview-and-amend cycle, so claims should be tighter at filing.
[ ] Check eligibility for acceleration on other grounds.
- Why. Applicant age or health and certain subject matter categories support acceleration without the fee.
[ ] Consider the patent prosecution highway where a counterpart has been allowed abroad.
- Why. Work done in a participating office can advance the U.S. application out of turn.
- Authority. See Filing a Patent Internationally.
[ ] Consider a third-party submission against a competitor's pending application.
- Why. Prior art with a concise statement of relevance, filed in a defined pre-allowance window, is the cheapest intervention in the patent system — a fraction of any post-grant proceeding, aimed at a claim before it issues.
- Trap. Missing the window, after which the only routes are post-grant proceedings costing orders of magnitude more.
[ ] Handle a received third-party submission as a preview of an invalidity case.
- Trap. Treating it as routine art.
[ ] Note when an application is reassigned to a new examiner.
- Why. Arguments that failed with the prior examiner may deserve a second presentation.

Phase 15. Coordinating with the rest of the portfolio

[ ] Route foreign office actions to U.S. counsel automatically.
- Why. Art cited abroad is material and must be disclosed while any related application is pending.
- Authority. 37 C.F.R. § 1.56.
- Trap. A European search report that never crosses the desk.
[ ] Route art from litigation and Board proceedings involving family members.
- Trap. An inter partes review petition against a parent, with art nobody put into the pending continuation. See PTAB Petition Checklist.
[ ] Reconcile the information disclosure statement across all pending family members.
- Trap. Art in the parent's file and absent from the child's.
[ ] Check for common ownership before treating a related filing as prior art.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C).
- Trap. Accepting a rejection over the applicant's own earlier application when the exception disqualifies it.
[ ] Track which priority date each claim in the family actually gets.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 119(e); 35 U.S.C. § 120.
- Trap. A family where nobody can say what date any given claim carries.
[ ] Align claim scope across the family against the competitive map.
- Trap. Four patents covering the same narrow implementation and none covering the market.

Phase 16. Entity status and fees

Fee errors are quiet, cumulative, and occasionally serious.

[ ] Establish entity status correctly at filing and document the basis.
- Why. Small and micro entity status reduce fees substantially, and the qualifying conditions are specific.
- Trap. Asserting status from habit rather than from the facts.
[ ] [Gate] Re-verify status at every fee payment.
- Why. Status changes when the applicant takes investment, exceeds an employee threshold, or licenses rights to an entity that would not qualify — and the obligation to notify runs with the change.
- Trap. A startup that qualified at filing and did not at the issue fee, paying the wrong amount for years.
[ ] Correct an erroneous status assertion promptly when discovered.
- Why. A good-faith error corrected with the deficiency paid is a very different matter from one left standing.
- Trap. Discovering the problem during diligence, where it becomes a disclosure item.
[ ] Budget excess claim fees at drafting rather than at filing.
- Why. Independent claims beyond the base allowance and total claims beyond the threshold both carry fees, and multiple dependent claims carry a substantial surcharge.
- Trap. A sixty-claim set filed without anyone pricing it.
[ ] Track the maintenance fee schedule and the surcharge windows.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 41(b).
- Trap. Relying on a reminder from a third-party service nobody has verified.

Phase 17. Handling a transaction mid-prosecution

Applications change hands, and prosecution continuity is where value leaks.

[ ] Record the assignment promptly on any transfer.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 261.
- Trap. An unrecorded assignment discovered years later during diligence. See IP Due Diligence Toolkit.
[ ] Update the correspondence address and power of attorney.
- Trap. Office actions delivered to former counsel and never forwarded, which is a direct route to abandonment.
[ ] Re-verify entity status after the transaction.
- Trap. A small-entity application acquired by a large entity, with fees unchanged.
[ ] Reconcile the information disclosure statement with what the acquirer knows.
- Why. Art known to the new owner becomes material to any pending application.
- Authority. 37 C.F.R. § 1.56.
- Trap. A buyer's invalidity analysis of adjacent art, filed away rather than disclosed.
[ ] Confirm terminal disclaimers do not break on a split.
- Why. A disclaimer conditions enforceability on common ownership, so separating family members can disable them.
- Authority. 37 C.F.R. § 1.321.
- Trap. A carve-out transaction that quietly unenforces half a family.
[ ] Transfer the docket, the support maps, and the examiner intelligence, not just the files.
- Trap. A clean file wrapper and no institutional memory, so the next continuation repeats arguments that already failed.

Phase 18. The prosecution file, and what belongs in it

The file wrapper is public and the internal file is not, and both matter. This is what the internal file should hold when the matter is handed to someone else.

[ ] The support map from drafting.
- Why. Every amendment argument depends on it, and the prosecutor three years out cannot reconstruct it.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
[ ] The search record and the patentability assessment.
- Why. It documents diligence, informs the disclosure obligation, and tells the next drafter where the art is thin.
[ ] The disclosure log of client events and dates.
- Why. It set the filing deadline and it will be needed if any grace-period question arises. See Prior Art and Patentability Checklist.
[ ] The examiner and art unit profile.
- **Why. **It is the strategy input for every continuation in the family.
[ ] Interview notes and what was agreed.
- Why. The formal summary is terse; what actually persuaded the examiner is worth recording.
[ ] The claim charts against competitor products.
- Why. It is the record of why the claims were scoped as they were, and it is where continuation claims start.
[ ] The client decision memoranda.
- Why. Whether to accept a narrow allowance, whether to appeal, whether to close the family — recorded with the reasoning, because these will be questioned later and because they are the institutional memory.
[ ] A one-page family map.
- Why. Members, filing dates, priority dates, status, claim focus, and what remains pending. It is the single most useful page in the file and it takes ten minutes to maintain.

A closing note on ownership of this checklist. Phases 1 and 2 belong to whoever opens the file, and they should be a template rather than a judgment call. Phases 3 through 9 belong to the prosecutor. Phases 10 and 11 are the ones that need a second pair of eyes, because they are irreversible and they arrive at the moment everyone believes the work is done. Phase 12 belongs to whoever owns the maintenance budget. And the deadline table at Phase 13 belongs on a wall, because the four unforgiving rows in it account for nearly every patent right lost to something other than the merits.

Phase 19. The abandonment recovery path

It happens, and knowing the route matters more than pretending it does not.

[ ] Establish exactly what was missed and when.
- Why. The revival standard and the fee depend on the nature of the deadline and the length of the delay.
- Trap. Acting before the facts are pinned down.
[ ] Determine whether the delay was unintentional.
- Why. Revival of an application abandoned for failure to reply is available on a petition with a statement that the entire delay was unintentional, plus the required fee and the reply that should have been filed.
- Trap. A statement made loosely, which is a representation to the Office.
[ ] File the petition promptly.
- Why. Delay in seeking revival can itself be questioned, and the Office may require an explanation of the period between discovery and the petition.
- Trap. Investigating internally for months before filing.
[ ] Include the required reply with the petition.
- Trap. A petition granted with nothing to advance the case.
[ ] Check the patent term consequence.
- Authority. 35 U.S.C. § 154(b).
- Trap. Assuming revival restores the term as well as the application.
[ ] Understand what cannot be revived.
- Why. A missed continuation co-pendency deadline is not an abandonment to be revived — the family simply closed, and no petition reopens it. The same is true of a divisional window that passed. 35 U.S.C. § 120; 35 U.S.C. § 121.
- Trap. Conflating the two, and assuming every miss has a remedy.
[ ] Notify the client immediately and in writing.
- Why. It is both the right thing and the practical one; a missed deadline disclosed promptly with a recovery plan is a very different conversation from one discovered later.
- Trap. Waiting until the petition is decided.
[ ] Fix the docketing failure that caused it.
- Trap. Reviving the application and leaving the system that lost it unchanged.

A note on why this phase exists at all. Most checklists omit the recovery path, on the theory that a well-run practice will not need it. Every well-run practice eventually does — through a docketing transition, a departure, a system migration, or a client who did not forward a notice. Having the sequence written down turns a bad week into a procedure, and it makes the difference between a matter that is recovered promptly and one where the delay in acting becomes its own problem.

Key Authorities at a Glance

| Authority | Proposition | Phase | |---|---|---| | 35 U.S.C. § 111 | Application requirements | 1 | | 35 U.S.C. § 115 | Inventor's oath or declaration | 1 | | 35 U.S.C. § 116 | Joint inventors | 1 | | 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) | Benefit of a provisional | 1, 2 | | 35 U.S.C. § 120 | Continuations; co-pendency | 2, 9, 11 | | 35 U.S.C. § 121 | Restriction, divisionals, safe harbor | 4, 11 | | 35 U.S.C. § 122(b) | Publication | 2 | | 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) | No new matter | 7 | | 35 U.S.C. § 133 | Reply period; abandonment | 2 | | 35 U.S.C. § 134 | Appeal to the Board | 9 | | 35 U.S.C. § 151 | Issue fee; not extendable | 10 | | 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) | Patent term adjustment | 7, 10 | | 35 U.S.C. § 154(d) | Provisional rights | 12 | | 35 U.S.C. § 184 | Foreign filing license | 1 | | 35 U.S.C. § 251 | Reissue | 12 | | 35 U.S.C. § 261 | Assignment in writing | 1 | | 35 U.S.C. § 287 | Marking and notice | 12 | | 35 U.S.C. § 41(b) | Maintenance fees | 12 | | 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 | Duty of disclosure | 1, 10 | | 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 | Responsive reply | 7 | | 37 C.F.R. § 1.114 | Request for continued examination | 8 | | 37 C.F.R. § 1.133 | Interviews | 6 | | 37 C.F.R. § 1.136 | Extensions of time | 2 | | 37 C.F.R. § 1.321 | Terminal disclaimers | 11 |

The five things people get wrong

One: they let the family close. The continuation deadline has no notice, nothing prompts it, and it arrives at the moment everyone believes the matter is finished. It is the single most common permanent loss in patent practice and it is purely a calendaring failure.

Two: they forget the divisional. Non-elected subject matter is unrecoverable once the parent issues, and restrictions are common enough that this happens constantly.

Three: they never research the examiner. One publicly available hour tells you the allowance rate, the average action count, the interview receptiveness, and the appeal reversal rate — which together determine the entire strategy. Almost nobody looks.

Four: they skip the interview. It is free, it is fast, it resolves in thirty minutes what two written rounds do not, and practitioners avoid it out of habit rather than reason.

Five: they take extensions without counting the cost. Extensions cost fees and reduce patent term adjustment, and for anything whose value sits at the end of its term that is real money quietly spent. See Prosecuting a Patent Application from Filing to Issue.