The Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA) administers a Quality Assurance program for reviewing the quality of the examination of patent applications. The general purpose of the Quality Assurance program is to collect patent examination quality data used to report patent examination quality metrics and to inform decisions for continuous patent quality improvement.

As part of OPQA's Quality Assurance program, a quality review is conducted by Review Quality Assurance Specialists on a randomly selected sample of Office actions on the merits mailed throughout the fiscal year. The sample is computer generated under the office-wide computer system, which selects a predetermined number mailed Office actions per year for review, which number is representative, in quantity and technology, of all Office actions on the merits mailed in the fiscal year. A subsample of the selected Office actions are both reviewed and searched by the Review Quality Assurance Specialists.

The Review Quality Assurance Specialist independently reviews each sampled Office action assigned to their docket to determine the action's compliance with patent statutes. The Review Quality Assurance Specialist may consult with, discuss, or review an application with any other reviewer or professional in the examining corps, except the professional who acted on the application. The review will, with or without additional search, provide the examining corps personnel with information which will assist in improving the quality of issued patents. The Quality Assurance program shall be used as an educational tool to aid in identifying best practices and problem areas in the examining Technology Centers (TCs). Quality reviews, for statutory and/or other compliance, may also be performed in other appropriate areas. All completed reviews are forwarded to the examining TCs or art units for consideration.

Whenever a completed review has been forwarded to the TC under the Quality Assurance program, the TC should promptly decide what action is to be taken in the application and inform the Office of Patent Quality Assurance of the nature of that action.

If, during any quality review process, it is determined that one or more claims of an allowed application are unpatentable, the prosecution of the application will be reopened. The Office action should contain, as an opening, form paragraph 13.04.

Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claim [1] considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below:

[2]

Examiner Note:

1. This paragraph should be used when a rejection is made on any previously allowed claim(s) which for one reason or another is considered unpatentable after the Notice of Allowance (PTOL-85) has been mailed.

2. Make appropriate rejection(s) as in any other action.

3. In bracket 1, identify claim(s) that are considered unpatentable.

4. In bracket 2, state all appropriate rejections for each claim considered unpatentable.

If the issue fee has already been paid in the application, the application must be withdrawn from issue, and the action should contain not only the above quoted paragraph, but also form paragraph 13.05.

Applicant is advised that the Notice of Allowance mailed [1] is vacated. If the issue fee has already been paid, applicant may request a refund or request that the fee be credited to a deposit account. However, applicant may wait until the application is either found allowable or held abandoned. If allowed, upon receipt of a new Notice of Allowance, applicant may request that the previously submitted issue fee be applied. If abandoned, applicant may request refund or credit to a specified Deposit Account.

Examiner Note:

1. This form paragraph must be used when the prosecution is reopened after the mailing of the Notice of Allowance.

2. In bracket 1, insert date of the Notice of Allowance.

Quality review forms and papers are not to be included with Office actions, nor should such forms or papers be retained in the file of any reviewed application whether or not prosecution is to be reopened. The application record should not indicate that a quality review has been conducted.