The Patentlytics Podcast

Restriction requirements have been climbing every month since January, and we have three theories about why, none of them comforting. And a financial method application filed in 2001, by the same company as last week's case, that has survived Alice, a PTAB loss, and 17 requests for continued examination. Normally, in this segment, we tell you how much patent life is left. This week is different. Plus, can you guess this week's Obvious to Whom combination?

This week: the patent classification section that exists outside the rules and the batteryless implantable chip that earned its spot there. An examiner who combined a phone microphone, a noise filter, and a brain-computer interface and called the result inevitable. And a financial method application with a title that means something very different on Google, a PTAB loss, fifteen RCEs, and an expiration date that's closer than you'd think.

The longest Office Action issued this week runs 190 pages and 88,684 words, longer than three classic novels, with a single obviousness combination that takes up 148 pages and a Response to Arguments section that wraps up in four lines. The longest-pending case to receive an allowance this week took 148.4 months, two appeals, and two trips to the PTAB to get there. And finally: a fibroblast treatment method filed in May 2014 with a single claim step that spent eleven years cycling through seven rounds of amendments, a failed appeal, and a full claim cancellation, only to arrive in 2025 with a new independent claim that looks almost exactly like where it started.

A mechanical art unit covering games and toys is issuing patent eligibility rejections at 63.6%, more than three times the group average and nearly double the next closest unit, with no clean explanation. Thirteen art units issued Office Actions this week without allowing a single application. Then, a restriction requirement that demands an election without telling the applicant what they're choosing between. And finally, a bank that filed a check-processing patent in October 2007, survived the financial crisis, got blindsided by Alice, appealed to the PTAB, lost on 101, won on 103, and is still in prosecution 18 years later while the Dow has tripled and the bank has essentially stopped filing patents entirely.

Design patent allowances swung from 80% to 20% of the top art units in a single week and Office Actions dropped 20% in the same stretch. Two unexplained data anomalies, no clean answers. Then: a 103 rejection that leans on a 1993 handwriting converter to block a modern short-term rental listing tool. And finally, a patent application filed in June 2001 that is still in prosecution, tracing how Alice, a missed terminal disclaimer window, and 25 years of shifting 101 doctrine turned a retirement income method into a two-page claim.

One art unit. 173 rejections in a single week. And not a single extra allowance to show for it.Then there's the application that's been fighting the same examiner since 2010, through eight rejections, two appeals to the Board, three companies launched, and a Hollywood marriage (and divorce). The examiner is undefeated. The application is still alive.How long is too long to keep fighting?This week on the Patentlytics Podcast.

Patent prosecution has never been this entertaining. In this debut episode of the Patentlytics Podcast, host Bobby Walling breaks down the past week in patent prosecution, and there's plenty to unpack. Why did one art unit issue 606% more office actions than average? What does a TV remote, a pixel-count article, and a movie about cruises have to do with a 103 rejection? And how does a patent application filed in 2006 (when "I Wanna Love You" was topping the charts) end up receiving its second final office action in 2026? If you've ever wondered what patterns are hiding inside the patent system, this is your show.