Accelerated Examination

USPTO Track One (also called Prioritized Examination or PX) is the USPTO's paid fast-track program for utility and plant nonprovisional applications. Enacted under the America Invents Act, it provides a goal of a final disposition — either a notice of allowance or a final office action — within 12 months of the Track One filing date. As of 2024, the fee is $4,000 for large entities, $2,000 for small entities (defined as independently-owned businesses with fewer than 500 employees, nonprofit organizations, and universities), and $1,000 for micro entities (individuals who qualify based on income limits and prior application counts). To qualify, the application must be a nonprovisional utility or plant application, and the Track One request must be filed with the application or within 4 months of the filing date. The application is capped at 4 independent claims and 30 total claims when the Track One request is filed (though claims can be added later via amendment and normal rules apply). The USPTO caps Track One at 15,000 grants per fiscal year (October–September), so applicants seeking it should file early in the fiscal year to avoid being waitlisted. Track One does not affect claim scope or substance — it is purely a queue-jumping mechanism. The examiner assigned is the same one who would have handled a standard application in that technology area; the difference is timing. Track One applications receive first office action within about 6 months on average and a final disposition within about 10–12 months, compared to 18–30+ months for standard examination in many art units.

The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) is a program between the USPTO and dozens of foreign patent offices that allows an applicant who has received a positive result in one country to accelerate examination in another country using the first country's work. The core principle is 'share the work' — if the JPO has already examined your claims and found them allowable, the USPTO need not start from scratch. To use PPH at the USPTO based on a Japanese patent allowance: (1) You must have a corresponding U.S. application pending. (2) You must have at least one claim in the foreign application that was allowed or found to be patentable. (3) You amend or confirm that the U.S. claims correspond to (are of the same or narrower scope than) the allowed foreign claims. (4) You file a PPH request with the USPTO, attaching copies of the foreign office actions, search results, and the allowed claims (with English translations if not in English). There is no fee for a PPH request at the USPTO. Once granted, the USPTO advances the application out of turn for early examination. PPH does not guarantee allowance — the USPTO examiner is still conducting an independent examination under U.S. law — but it often results in faster allowance because the examiner benefits from the foreign examination work and the claims are already pre-narrowed to an allowable scope. The USPTO participates in a global PPH network covering 40+ offices including the EPO, JPO, KIPO, CIPO, IP Australia, CNIPA, and others. Some bilateral agreements (like PPH MOTTAINAI with Japan) allow even broader use cases, including basing a U.S. PPH request on a Japanese search report without a final allowance.

A startup should prioritize accelerated examination in several common situations: (1) Fundraising or acquisition: investors and acquirers often assign higher valuation to an issued patent versus a pending application. A pending application creates uncertainty; an issued patent is an asset. If a fundraising round or acquisition discussion is imminent (12–24 months away), paying for Track One can close that gap. (2) Competitive threat: if a well-funded competitor is working in the same space and you know or suspect they have filed or are filing, being issued first gives you something concrete — an issued patent that puts the competitor on constructive notice and can be asserted. (3) Licensing leverage: issued patents command better licensing terms and are much easier to use in negotiations than applications. If you plan to build a licensing program, getting one anchor patent issued fast often unlocks better deals for the rest of the portfolio. (4) Freedom-to-operate confirmation: the examination process often surfaces prior art you weren't aware of — an accelerated examination delivers that feedback faster, letting you adjust product design, claims, or strategy sooner. (5) Before a public disclosure: if you are required to disclose technology publicly (at a conference, in a product launch, to a standards body) and have a filing pending, accelerating to issuance before the disclosure reduces exposure to potential challenger attacks. When NOT to accelerate: if claim breadth is more important than speed and you prefer extended prosecution to fight for broad claims, standard examination allows more back-and-forth. Some practitioners prefer to let examination develop at its own pace while filing continuations to capture broader scope.

Track One and a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) serve completely different purposes and are not alternatives to each other. Track One accelerates a new application's path through examination before any office actions are issued. An RCE is a request to continue prosecution after a final rejection — it reopens examination on an application that has already received a final office action, pays a fee, and optionally includes claim amendments or arguments. An RCE essentially resets the examination cycle and removes the 'final' status of the last rejection, allowing the applicant to submit new arguments, amendments, or both. Track One status, once granted, is maintained through the accelerated queue until a final disposition. An RCE filed on a Track One application continues the application — but it no longer has Track One status after the RCE is filed (the application reverts to standard examination). If you want to continue accelerated prosecution after an RCE, you must file a new Track One request with the RCE and pay a new Track One fee. Alternatives to an RCE after a final rejection include: the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP 2.0, free, limited amendments), an after-final amendment with no AFCP request (examiner discretion to enter), filing a notice of appeal (freezes the prosecution record and often prompts examiners to reconsider), or filing a continuation application (new application with new filing date, no RCE fee, but starts prosecution over). Continuations are often strategically better than RCEs for claim scope reasons.

Yes, and this is one of the most valuable and underused PPH strategies available to PCT filers. The Global PPH program (launched 2014) allows PCT applicants to use a positive International Preliminary Report on Patentability (IPRP Chapter II), a positive Written Opinion from the International Searching Authority (ISA), or a favorable examination result from a PPH partner office as the basis for a PPH request when entering national phase in the U.S. Mechanics: (1) File your PCT application and request examination from a participating ISA (the EPO, JPO, or USPTO acting as ISA are common). (2) Obtain a Written Opinion or IPRP that indicates at least one claim as allowable. (3) When entering U.S. national phase, immediately file a PPH request with the USPTO, attaching the international search report, written opinion or IPRP, and an indication of which U.S. claims correspond to the indicated-as-allowable claims. (4) If the U.S. claims correspond in scope (same or narrower), the USPTO will advance the application out of turn. This is particularly powerful for PCT filers who prosecute Chapter II examination during the international phase — if you get positive written opinions from the ISA before national phase entry, you can enter national phase in multiple PPH-participating countries simultaneously with immediate priority status, effectively compressing the global prosecution timeline at minimal additional cost. The key is to ensure international claims are drafted broadly enough to capture the intended scope but narrow enough to survive examination — the PPH-allowable claims then become the baseline for U.S. prosecution.