The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) should reintroduce its After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) program—a once valuable tool for patent applicants looking to resolve final office actions without resorting to a full appeal or filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). The AFCP program provided a streamlined way to address final rejections and potentially improve the chances of allowance without extending prosecution timelines unnecessarily. This article will explore what the AFCP program was, how it functioned, and why its reintroduction would be beneficial for both applicants and the USPTO.
What is the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) Program?
The AFCP program was an initiative by the USPTO to allow further consideration of patent applications after a final office action. Typically, a final office action represents the examiner’s last formal rejection during prosecution, and the options available to applicants are limited—usually requiring an appeal or RCE. The AFCP offered an in-between approach, allowing examiners to give focused review to a well-structured response.
This extra layer of consideration could often lead to claim allowance or, at the very least, more constructive feedback. The core intent was to reduce the number of unnecessary appeals and cut down on the prolonged back-and-forth that traditionally follows a final rejection.
History of the Program
The AFCP program initially launched as a pilot and quickly gained traction among practitioners and applicants. Its streamlined approach and the relatively quick decisions that followed made it a popular option. However, the USPTO eventually paused the program, citing a need for data collection and internal review of procedures.
Though stakeholders had expressed strong support for the program, it remained closed longer than expected. Many hoped that an improved and better-structured version would return to offer relief from the increasingly bureaucratic and costly nature of post-final patent prosecution.
USPTO’s Opportunity in 2025: Why It Should Reintroduce AFCP
In 2025, many in the patent community believed the USPTO should reintroduce the AFCP program with updated guidelines and procedures. Given the rising backlog and the need for improved efficiency in prosecution, reactivating this initiative could address persistent concerns regarding delays and overuse of RCEs and appeals.
The USPTO missed a timely opportunity to support innovation by failing to provide a valuable middle-ground option for applicants. A revised AFCP would show the agency’s commitment to responsiveness and modernization—key values as it adapts to a more tech-driven and IP-intensive global economy.
How the AFCP Program Worked When Active
Here’s a quick recap of how the AFCP functioned:
- Applicant Received a Final Office Action
After the second rejection, the final office action served as a barrier that required resolution before an allowance could be achieved. - Filing the AFCP Request
Applicants could file a petition with a fee and submit a focused response, potentially including amendments that didn’t require extensive reexamination. - Examiner’s Consideration
The examiner reviewed the response with specific guidance to consider it thoroughly. Unlike routine responses, AFCP submissions were prioritized. - Outcome Options
The examiner could allow the claims, provide further clarification, or maintain the rejection—still, without needing an RCE or an appeal.
Benefits of Using the AFCP Program
If the USPTO decided to reintroduce AFCP in 2025, it could have reinvigorated a key pathway for applicants to resolve final office actions efficiently. Let’s break down the major benefits that were observed when the program was active:
- Cost Efficiency:
Filing an RCE or initiating an appeal can rack up significant legal and government fees. AFCP, in contrast, required a modest filing fee and could potentially result in claim allowance without expensive follow-ups. - Time Savings:
Appeals often take several months or even years. RCEs extend prosecution time considerably. The AFCP process, on the other hand, encouraged fast examiner responses, sometimes within weeks. - Direct Examiner Interaction:
Unlike other post-final options, AFCP created a channel for direct communication with the examiner. Applicants could better clarify their arguments and resolve misunderstandings that would otherwise escalate. - Higher Allowance Rates:
Historically, applications submitted through AFCP had a reasonable success rate in overcoming final rejections. For well-prepared responses, this often led directly to allowance. - Supports Innovation:
By reducing unnecessary procedural steps, AFCP aligned with the broader innovation ecosystem’s needs—especially for startups and individual inventors needing quicker decisions. - Resource Optimization:
The USPTO also benefited. AFCP helped examiners make efficient decisions and reduced the volume of appeals and RCEs that clogged the system.
This program wasn’t just an advantage for applicants; it also lightened the administrative load on the USPTO, creating a win-win scenario.
Limitations and Considerations
Despite the many upsides, the AFCP program wasn’t a silver bullet. There were important limitations and strategic considerations that applicants needed to evaluate before filing:
- Limited Examiner Time Allocation:
Examiners were given only a narrow amount of time to review AFCP submissions. If your amendments were too complex or your arguments required extensive legal analysis, AFCP might not be sufficient. - Risk of Maintained Rejection:
Submitting through AFCP didn’t guarantee a favorable outcome. If the response failed to satisfy the examiner’s objections, the final rejection would stand—wasting time that could’ve been spent preparing an appeal or RCE. - Not Ideal for Broad Amendments:
If your application needed substantial changes to claims or specifications, AFCP wasn’t the venue. You’d still need to go through the full RCE route to allow comprehensive review. - Strategic Use Required:
Because you could only use AFCP a limited number of times per application, applicants had to pick the timing carefully. Filing prematurely could cost you the best chance at a quick allowance. - No Applicant Interviews Included by Default:
Examiner interviews could be requested but weren’t built into the AFCP process. In complex cases, lack of dialogue might hinder progress.
Given these, strategic decision-making was crucial. Patent counsel often played a key role in assessing whether the AFCP route made sense or if resources would be better spent on other prosecution tactics.
The Path Forward for Patent Reform
AFCP was never intended to be a permanent solution to the USPTO’s procedural challenges. But it served as a strong model of what practical, low-cost reforms could look like. By reinstating AFCP or launching similar initiatives, the USPTO can:
- Reduce unnecessary procedural steps
- Make prosecution fairer for smaller entities
- Improve patent quality by allowing focused examiner engagement
- Shorten the timeline from application to allowance
In an increasingly innovation-driven world, every improvement counts. A smartly reintroduced AFCP program could be just the reform the system needs.
A Missed Step Toward a Smarter, Fairer Patent System
The USPTO should reintroduce the AFCP program in 2025. Doing so would’ve provided applicants with a flexible, cost-effective pathway to resolve final office actions—one that balanced thorough examination with procedural efficiency. Instead, applicants are once again left navigating high-cost, high-stakes appeals and redundant RCEs.
The AFCP program was never perfect, but its benefits far outweighed its limitations. With modest adjustments and stakeholder input, it could been one of the most applicant-friendly reforms in recent years.
USPTO Should Reintroduce AFCP Program—a missed chance to revive a tool that helped applicants resolve final rejections efficiently. Until then, Stevens Law Group is here to help. Our experienced patent attorneys can guide you through the petition process, craft strong responses, and keep your innovation moving forward.
References:
USPTO.gov – After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 – CLOSED
USPTO.gov – Patents
Leave a Reply