2025 USPTO Recap: What This Year’s Developments Mean for Patent Filers
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is navigating a period of significant transition. Driven by workforce shifts, operational restructuring, evolving approaches to subject matter eligibility, and new fee structures, the agency is reshaping how applicants engage with the patent system. While change often brings uncertainty, it also creates opportunities for companies to refine their strategies and position their portfolios for success.
This article outlines the most meaningful developments discussed in Wolf Greenfield’s recent webinar, Finding Opportunity in Change: Exploring Recent Developments at the USPTO, and highlights practical steps for innovators navigating the road ahead.
A Shifting USPTO Workforce Landscape
One of the most significant drivers of change is the federal government’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative. Although the USPTO is funded by user fees, it remains subject to executive directives. A February 2025 memorandum called for government-wide reductions in force, and the USPTO implemented its own reduction on September 30, affecting about one percent of its 14,000 employees. The layoffs focused on communications, public engagement, and some patent unit roles.
Return-to-office directives are another influential factor. A January 2025 mandate required federal employees to return in person, but existing collective bargaining agreements—signed in late 2024—protect most examiners’ telework status through 2029. That stability may not last. As of August 29, 2025, the USPTO eliminated union representation for Patents and OCIO employees, classifying the Patents business unit as performing national security work. The move could ultimately reduce telework protections and is already reflected in the agency’s hiring strategy, with new examiner positions designated as non-remote and based in Alexandria, Virginia.
Operational consolidation is occurring as well. The USPTO announced the permanent closure of its Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Denver, Colorado on September 30, 2025. While more than 300 teleworking employees listed Denver as their duty station, the office itself had fewer than 10 onsite employees, and its outreach functions will shift to virtual formats. Examination processes remain unchanged.
What These Internal Changes Mean for Patent Prosecution
For applicants, the most immediate impact stems from examiner availability and production demands. The USPTO’s new Performance Appraisal Plan raises expectations by requiring examiners to meet 100 percent of their production goals—an increase from 95 percent—without a corresponding pay adjustment. Supervisory patent examiners now must review all Office Actions, including those from seasoned examiners.
Interview practice is also changing. Effective October 1, 2025, examiners are compensated for only one interview per prosecution cycle, and additional interviews require supervisory approval. Combined with the end of the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 program, applicants should anticipate more limited examiner interaction.
In this environment, planning becomes essential. Applicants should:
- Schedule interviews early, ideally after the first non-final Office Action.
- Submit a clear, comprehensive agenda in advance.
- Allow ample time—at least one week—for scheduling.
- Consider whether a preliminary written submission could clarify issues before the interview.
- For complex cases, an in-person interview may still offer advantages.
USPTO Backlog Initiatives: AI and Structural Reforms
Reducing pendency remains a core USPTO priority. In January 2025, the agency outlined a strategy that includes incentives for examiners to issue first actions in new applications, expanded hiring efforts, and increased reliance on artificial intelligence. These steps helped raise the number of first actions from 530,000 in the 2023 fiscal year to 545,000 in the 2024 fiscal year and lowered the average time to first action from 20.5 to 19.9 months. Still, early gains were temporary, as first-action pendency rose to 22.6 months in the 2025 fiscal year.
A central component of the agency’s modernization effort is the Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot (ASAP). The voluntary program, limited to 1,600 applications through April 2026, provides applicants with a “top ten list” of potential prior art concerns before substantive examination. This early insight allows applicants to tailor their filings by submitting preliminary amendments, affidavits, or other targeted responses.
At the same time, the USPTO is retiring programs that diverted resources from its core backlog-reduction goals. The Climate Change Mitigation, Cancer Moonshot, and Traditional Accelerated Examination programs all concluded in 2025, while age-based and health-related petitions remain available.
Taken together, these shifts point to a future in which first actions may arrive sooner and applicants will benefit from incorporating AI-driven insights into drafting. They also suggest greater variability throughout examination, making strategy even more important.
An Evolving Approach to Subject Matter Eligibility
Subject matter eligibility continues to be a dynamic area for patent applicants, particularly in fields such as software, AI, and machine learning. Approaches to subject matter eligibility were mixed as the Federal Circuit, the USPTO, and Congress approached clarifying subject matter eligibility from several angles.
An August 4, 2025 USPTO memorandum advises examiners not to treat AI-related claim limitations as mental processes if they cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Examiners are also encouraged to evaluate whether an invention improves a technology or technical field—and to view “close calls” through a preponderance-of-the-evidence lens.
The new USPTO director’s early actions underscore a willingness to interpret eligibility more favorably for applicants who can demonstrate technological improvements in their specifications. The Appeals Review Panel’s recent decision in ex parte Desjardins reflects this trend, recognizing machine-learning-based claims as eligible when they detail how the technology itself is improved.
Still, applicants should remain mindful of Federal Circuit precedent. In Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp., the court held that simply applying established machine learning techniques in a new data environment is not enough to satisfy § 101. Claims must delineate how the technology itself is improved, not merely applying machine learning to a known problem in a general way.
Congress may eventually reshape the eligibility framework. The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), which continues to gain bipartisan attention, proposes statutory exclusions and could bring more clarity to eligibility analysis. While its future remains uncertain, it has generated momentum in the Senate. The next year and beyond should be interesting in the subject matter eligibility area.
Discretionary Denial and Director Review: A Broader Set of Considerations
A March 26, 2025 memorandum outlines additional factors the director may consider when deciding whether to institute AIA trials. These include whether the patent has been previously adjudicated, the strength of the unpatentability arguments, the level of expert testimony, how long the patent has been in force, and any compelling economic or national security interests.
These considerations—many of which favor patent owners—mean petitioners should expect a more nuanced and potentially more limited path to institution, especially for long-standing portfolios or technologies with significant public interest implications.
Fee Changes: Rising Costs and Strategic Implications
The USPTO’s January 2025 fee schedule includes a 7.5 percent increase across most categories, plus an additional 2.5 percent boost to front-end fees. The agency also introduced new surcharges for continuations filed more than six or nine years after the earliest priority date, fees for high-volume IDS submissions, and a fee for requesting director review.
These increases can meaningfully affect filing strategy. Applicants may want to reconsider whether a continuation or an RCE offers better value, particularly because the fee for a second RCE now exceeds the cost of filing a new application. Monitoring citation practices is also more important than ever; IDS fees escalate as the number of references rises above 50, 100, and 200.
While the USPTO has not released formal proposals, discussions around potential “value-based fees” suggest that further structural changes could be on the horizon.
Navigating What Comes Next
The USPTO’s evolving landscape underscores the importance of thoughtful planning and proactive engagement. Applicants who prepare early, leverage available tools, and anticipate changing examiner availability will be best positioned to navigate the new environment. Clear, detailed specifications—particularly for software and AI innovations—remain essential. And as fees continue to rise, strategic filing decisions will play an increasingly central role in managing long-term portfolio costs.
Related Content: