USPTO Plan Discourages Examiners from Collaborating with Applicants, Risks Worsening Backlog & Boosting "Low Patent Quality Narrative

Internal Performance Appraisal Plan (PAP) announcements spur outcry from patent examiners and flood of interview denials; USPTO schedules public "USPTO Hour" in response.

On October 2, 2025, the USPTO held a meeting with examiners to unveil proposed changes to the Patent Examiner Performance Appraisal Plan (PAP). Although “PAP” might sound like just another government acronym, it’s one of the most consequential documents at the agency. It dictates how patent examiners are evaluated, compensated, and ultimately, how they examine patent applications. The reaction inside the USPTO was immediate and intense.

Fifteen years ago, then–USPTO Director David Kappos overcame a record backlog by adjusting the PAP to incentivize collaboration between examiners and applicants.

Now, facing an even larger backlog than the one Kappos inherited, the USPTO appears poised to take a very different path. Less than two weeks after Director John Squires was sworn in, the agency internally announced proposed PAP revisions that appear likely to further reduce collaboration with applicants and deepen examiner frustration - the same dynamics that contributed to the current backlog. The emphasis on increased production also risks reinforcing perceptions that is being prioritized over “patent quality.”

Early Positive Steps

Back to Basics: at the start of this administration, the USPTO laudably refocused on core operations to address the growing backlog of patent applications.

Patent Eligibility

In Voice of IP’s August update, we noted that the August 4 memo on §101 was a promising start — and predicted that additional eligibility changes would follow once John Squires was confirmed as director.

That’s exactly what happened. Since taking office, Squires has taken several early — mostly symbolic — steps signaling a more balanced approach to eligibility that allows examiners to focus most of their efforts on prior art rejections, including:

• Issuing first two patents in technology areas that often face §101 scrutiny — one in distributed ledger/crypto and another in medical diagnostics.

• Vacating a PTAB panel’s new grounds of rejection under §101 for claims involving improvements in training machine-learning models.

But…

Before the USPTO could ensure that examiners were consistently applying this shift in approach to patent eligibility, the agency announced proposed PAP revisions that risk undermining the benefits of those earlier steps in reducing the backlog.

Historical Perspective: Last Record Backlog

By the numbers

Between 2002-2007, the backlog of unexamined patent applications grew by 73%. at the USPTO. By October 2007, the Washington Post reported that

If the [USPTO] could shut down its doors to catch up on its work, its 5000 patent examiners would take at least two years to clear the backlog of pending applications, there would more than 1 million new applications piled up on the doorstop.

Mindset

At the time, the USPTO leadership blamed the backlog on “worse and worse quality applications.” The Intellectual Property Owners (IPO) Association and others pushed back, questioning the USPTO’s underlying assertions and suggesting that the real problem was overly restrictive examination practices that drove allowance rates down.

Dudas Rules

That pushback did not deter then-USPTO Director John Dudas from issuing a sweeping set of rules to limit the number of claims, Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs), and continuation applications to address “the crippling backlog unexamined applications.” Those rules were ultimately enjoined but the backlog remained and, to many, appeared insurmountable when David Kappos was confirmed as director in August 2009.

Even after rescinding the Dudas rules, many in the patent community believed that drastic limits on applicant options was the only viable path to reducing the backlog — a belief Kappos would quickly disprove.

David Kappos’ Proven Gameplan

When Kappos became director, the backlog was at 1.2 million applications, and average pendency was 35 months. Within four years, both metrics improved sharply — even as application filings increased by 24%.

Approach

As Kappos later explained on Clause 8, the turnaround was due to a focus on improving the USPTO’s culture. Although encouraging examiner interviews became the most visible change, he emphasized taking many small steps to empower examiners to do what they thought was right, including allowing applications when appropriate. One of his first moves was to actually increase the initial time examiners had to review applications.

PAP Revisions

A USPTO press release from the time noted that management was “working with representatives of the patent examiners union, the Patent Office Professional Association (POPA), to better align the performance standards for patent examiners with the USPTO’s goals for increasing quality in patent examination and reducing the backlog of pending patent applications,” and that the discussed “changes would be the first major revision to the patent examiners’ performance appraisal plan (PAP) since 1986.”

Proposed changes included:

• Establishing a “Stakeholder Interaction” element that emphasizes routine use of interviews to facilitate compact prosecution and timely responsiveness to requests for personal interviews;

  …

• Revamping the workflow element to provide examiners more opportunities to use their professional discretion to manage their own workflow.

Results

During his Clause 8 interview, Kappos noted that the USPTO rose from among the lowest ranked agencies for morale and engagement to being ranked number one out of over 200. The turnaround was later profiled in Tailspin as a rare example of successful government reform.

Current Backlog of Total Pending Applications Ticks Up

Unexamined Applications Backlog Declines

At a late-September USPTO Hour webinar, Acting Commissioner for Patents Valencia Martin Wallace said that at the beginning of the year the office had over 837,000 applications awaiting examination but now has fewer than 794,000.

Official Line

According to Law 360’s Ryan Davis, Martin-Wallace suggested that the USPTO was already on track in dealing with the backlog problem, emphasizing that the USPTO’s focus was on “making sure that our employees are receiving what they need, not only to do the job but to be comfortable and enjoy their time here at the USPTO.”

If the USPTO was already heading in the right direction, it raises questions about why such significant PAP changes are being pursued now.

But Total Pending Applications Backlog is Rising…

In August, Voice of IP highlighted a growing concern that efforts to reduce the unexamined backlog might be masking a rise in the backlog of total pending applications.

Contributing factors:

the end of the AFCP program (under the last administration) + higher production demands (currently) has led to examiners allowing fewer cases after final . . . [and] reinforced the approach of pushing for RCEs, even in cases that are clearly on track to be allowed.

We noted that

without empowering and encouraging examiners to work more collaboratively with applicants, the headline backlog reductions risk being statistical optics.

The latest numbers unfortunately indicate that concern was warranted: the overall backlog of total pending applications has actually modestly increased from 1,242,664 in June 2025 to 1,247,357 in September 2025.

Continued increase explains push

This increase likely helps explain the push for the new PAP changes. However, the proposed revisions appear to double down on the same production-driven approach that has so far failed to reduce the total backlog.

Proposed PAP Changes

Status

The USPTO has informed examiners that the new PAP has not yet been finalized and is not expected to take effect until next month.

Flood of Interview Denials

However, examiners are already routinely relying on the proposed changes to deny interviews after final office actions. During one of the internal sessions explaining the changes, a Deputy Commissioner for Patents stated that examiners should still grant interview requests that exceed the new compensated limit. Not doing so, he said, could count against their stakeholder interaction scores under the revised PAP — a point that has only added to examiner dismay.

Rollout Concerns

The internal announcement of the proposed PAP came without any written guidance. Examiners, practitioners, and applicants have all expressed uncertainty about what the new expectations will mean in practice.

The USPTO plans to use a USPTO Hour webinar this week - now titled “USPTO Hour: Understanding a patent examiner’s role in the IP community” - to roll out the changes to the public.

Proposed PAP Changes

The following proposed changes have garnered particular concerns from examiners:

1. Interview restrictions

• Caps compensation at one hour of interview time per round of prosecution unless additional time is approved by a supervisor.

• Likely to discourage applicant-initiated interviews since additional discussions could go uncompensated or require extra supervisory approval.

• May also disincentivize examiner-initiated interviews that could otherwise resolve issues before allowance.

2. Additional supervisory review

• USPTO (seemingly as part of changes to the supervisory examiner’s PAP) is reportedly considering requiring both first Office Actions and allowances from all examiners — including primaries — to undergo supervisor review.

• Supervisors already play a significant role in determining allowance rates for junior examiners. Extending that review to primaries could further reduce examiner autonomy and incentivize avoiding allowances to limit review risk.

3. Higher production requirements

• Production goals would reportedly increase by more than 100 hours per year.

• One 15-year examiner wrote on Reddit: “I am so disappointed that this is the first time in my career where I feel like I HAVE to reduce my quality in order to meet expectations.”

• Examiners say the change will reduce their flexibility to collaborate with applicants or assist colleagues.

4. Reduced time for PPH cases

• The proposed plan cuts the time allotted for Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) cases by 25%.

• While PPH cases historically have slightly higher allowance rates, that’s likely because US claims need to be amended to match those allowed abroad.

• Some worry the change implicitly encourages deference to foreign examination outcomes rather than independent review.

Overall

The proposed PAP changes add pressure on examiners while discouraging them from devoting additional time to working with applicants to reach what they believe is the right outcome in the most efficient way possible. The result risks prioritizing production metrics over examination quality and examiner discretion.

Unexpected Internal PAP Rollout Raises Examiner Concerns

Historically, changes to the PAP have followed extensive consultation with POPA, the union representing USPTO patent examiners. The process was often time-consuming for leadership, but it helped ensure buy-in from examiners who felt their perspective was heard.

Examiners Assured after “Disbanding” POPA

When the USPTO announced executive orders disbanding POPA in early September, management assured employees the move would “not affect any employee’s ... work hours, award programs, or the like.” In his swearing-in remarks on September 22, new Director John Squires emphasized support for examiners’ “vital work” and encouraged them to “Tell. Me. What. You. Think.”

October Surprise

Ten days later, a Deputy Commissioner for Patents announced seemingly sweeping, unexpected PAP changes. Examiners — fresh from navigating the barrage of guidelines during the last administration and RIF and RTO concerns during this administration — were caught off guard.

Examiner reaction

The r/patentexaminer subreddit and private chats quickly filled with concerns about the proposals’ impact. While the subreddit doesn’t always reflect the full examiner community, the tone of the reactions closely mirrors the broader mood inside the agency from what Voice of IP has heard.

• One examiner told Voice of IP, “No one is happy at the USPTO.”

• Another veteran examiner recalled, “I remember examiners sticking around until they were 80 because they loved the job. Now everyone can’t wait to retire.”

Impact

The rollout marked a sharp shift from prior practice — replacing a collaborative process with a top-down announcement at a moment of already relatively low morale. The examiners’ reactions suggests that the proposed PAP could worsen the backlog by increasing attrition and further weakening morale among remaining examiners.

Path Forward for Squires

Where it stands
The new PAP has not yet been finalized. That leaves time for revisions — and for leadership to reconsider whether the proposed framework aligns with the agency’s long-term goals.

The precedent
When David Kappos faced a similar backlog in 2009, he worked with the examiners’ union to revise the PAP around examiner engagement, professional judgment, and communication with applicants. The result was measurable improvement in both backlog reduction and employee morale — achieved without new restrictions for applicants.

What’s next for Squires
Director Squires could take a similar approach. Rather than tightening production requirements and oversight, he could adapt Kappos’ proven framework — focusing on empowering examiners and encouraging collaboration with applicants.

Bottom line
There’s still time to change direction. A single call to Kappos might be all it takes for Squires to avoid repeating past mistakes and steer the USPTO toward a strategy that has already been shown to work.

Path Forward for Practitioners and Applicants

What to expect

Until the new PAP is finalized, practitioners should expect uncertainty in examiner behavior — particularly around interviews. As noted above, some examiners are already applying parts of the proposed framework in anticipation of it taking effect.

Approach

Regardless of the final outcome, practitioners should remain mindful of the pressures examiners are facing while finding ways to align with the USPTO’s stated goal of reducing the backlog. Demonstrating that collaboration and flexibility lead to efficient, high-quality outcomes will continue to be the most effective strategy for both sides.