Design patent practitioners might find interesting and useful some weekly design patent data. If anyone is interested in additional statistics, information, issues, or recommended practices in future posts, please let me know in the comments or message me directly.
Design Patent Pendency Rates
800 design patents issued on June 3, 2025. A full 25% of them had rocket docket requests. This is slightly higher than the 2025 moving average of 23% through May 27, 2025.
The average time filing to issue was 639 days (21 months). When expedited, the time fell to 182 days (6 months). When non-expedited, the time rose to 791 days (26 months).
Remember that although the rocket docket was suspended on April 17, 2025, all proper requests submitted prior to that date will be honored so it will take a while to clear the backlog. It will be interesting to see how that eventually affects average pendency rates.
Non-Final Rejections were received in 256 applications. When expedited (39), the average filing to issue time was 251 days (8 months). When non-expedited (217), the time rose to 893 days (21 months).
Final Rejections were received in 62 applications. When expedited (6), the average filing to issue time was 384 days (13 months). When non-expedited (56), the time rose to 1044 days (34 months).
Ex Parte Quayle Actions were received in 179 applications. When expedited (34), the average filing to issue time was 231 days (8 months). When non-expedited (145), the time rose to 1044 days (34 months).
Restriction Requirements were received in 67 applications. When expedited (8), the average filing to issue time was 240 days (8 months). When non-expedited (59), the time rose to 1085 days (36 months).
9 unlucky non-expedited applications received a Non-Final Rejection, a Final Rejection, and an Ex Parte Quayle Action. The average filing to issue time was 1147 days (38 months).
396 applications avoided both a rejection and an Ex Parte Quayle Action. The average filing to issue time was 506 days (16.6 months).
If prosecution speed is important, the obvious lesson here is to try and avoid rejections, objections, and restrictions. I’ve written an article about that here.
Rejections/Objections/Restrictions
Improper broken line statements (108), defective drawings (82), and indefinite depth (67) continue to be some of the most common rejections and objections. Here are the approximate numbers:
Trending Issues
This week had several interesting and informative applications that involved section 103 obviousness with an LKQ discussion, section 112 indefiniteness with an In re Maatita discussion, section 112 written description with an In re Owens discussion, and a section 103 discussion on non-analogous art. The relevant application numbers are below under each issue. Since this is the first week posting these issues, I will also include application numbers from last week (May 27, 2025).
103 Obviousness with LKQ discussion
June 3: App. Nos. 29852171, 29794397
May 27: App. Nos. 29916290, 29916286, 29916271, 29911113, 29886037, 29861665, 29803956, 29803944
112 Indefiniteness with In re Maatita Discussion
June 3: App. No. 29878036
May 27: App. Nos. 29871165, 29868762, 29848402, 29848401, 29848399, 29843984, 29744300
112 Written Description with In re Owens Discussion
June 3: App. No. 35517712
May 27: App. No. 29911113
103 Non-Analogous Art Discussion
June 3: App. No. 29759223
Practitioners researching these issues can obtain the applications from the USPTO Patent Center. Alternatively, research can be conducted on these issues by using your own search requests with ProSearch by Design Patent Pro.
Recommended Practices
In the interest of trying to reduce the overall rejection and objection rates for certain issues, the following examples are provided that have been obtained from this week’s applications. Practitioners may consider comparing their own proposed titles and broken line statements against these rejections, objections, and recommendations. Please remember this is not legal advice and every examiner may have a different perspective on what is acceptable.
Title Objections/Rejections
App. No. | Original Title | Objection/Rejection | Amended Title |
|
|
|
|
29977669 | Storage Box | Broad | Storage Tray |
29972372 | Mount | Ambiguous | Satellite Receiver Holder |
29966095 | Illuminating Base | Unclear | Base |
29963542 | Beauty Apparatus | Ambiguous | Blackhead Extraction Tool |
29903934 | Jewelry or Ornamental Item Such as a Pendant, Tag, or the like | Ambiguous and “or the like” indefinite | Article of Jewelry
|
29896813 | Display with Icon of a Gaming Machine | Broad and indefinite | Display Screen or Portion Thereof with Icon of a Gaming Machine |
29852171 | Groved Mandrel for Producing Embolic Coil | Misspelling and unclear | Grooved Mandrel for Producing an Embolic Coil |
29821659 | Display Screen with an Avatar | Misdescription and ambiguous | Display Screen with an Icon |
29791752 | Small Container | Unnecessary | Container |
29729370 | Mobile Phone Holder with Wireless Charging | Functional Language | Mobile Phone Holder |
Broken Line Statement Objections/Rejections
App. No. | 29984651 |
Original | None |
Amended | The dash-dot-dot broken lines represent stitching on Backpack Inner Compartment and are included in the claimed design. The dash-dash broken lines show environment and form no part of the claimed design. |
App. No. | 29919177 |
Original | The dash-dash-dash lines are included for the purpose of illustrating portions of the insulating container that form no part of the claimed design. The dash-dot-dash broken line is included for the purpose of illustrating a boundary line and forms no part of the claimed design. |
Amended | The broken lines in the figures illustrate portions of the insulating container that form no part of the claimed design. The dot-dash broken lines of Figs. 9-11 and (Insert New Figure Numbers here) are included to show partially enlarged views only and form no part of the claimed design. |
App. No. | 29896993 |
Original | The broken line rectangle showing the display screen and the broken lines showing the graphical user interface illustrate portions of the display screen with graphical user interface that form no part of the claimed design. |
Amended | The broken line rectangle showing the display screen illustrates portions of the display screen with graphical user interface that form no part of the claimed design |
App. No. | 29894356 |
Original | The broken lines shown in the Figures show portions of the Toy that form no part of the claimed design. |
Amended | The broken lines immediately adjacent to the shaded areas depict the bounds of the claimed design, while all other broken lines show portions of the Toy that form no part of the claimed design. The broken lines form no part of the claimed design. |
App. No. | 29877742 |
Original | The broken lines are for illustrative purposes only and form no part of the claimed design. |
Amended | In the drawings, the broken lines depict portions of the article that form no part of the claimed design. |
App. No. | 29876153 |
Original | The broken lines shown in the drawings illustrate portions of the Game Controller Stand that form no part of the claimed design. |
Amended | The broken lines immediately adjacent to the shaded surfaces depict the bounds of the claimed design, whereas all other broken lines shown in the drawings illustrate portions of the game controller stand that form no part of the claimed design. |
App. No. | 29843654 |
Original | The broken lines of even length showing of elements, including text, on the display screen illustrates portions of the display screen and forms no part of the claimed design. |
Amended | The outermost broken lines of even length showing the display screen form no part of the claimed design. The remaining broken lines showing the graphical user interface, such as text, form no part of the claimed design. |
Disclaimer: This article is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice.
