USPTO Prosecution in Q4 2025: Section 2(d) Primary Refusal in 81% of Analyzed Cases

Quarterly USPTO Prosecution Report | USPTO data through December 31, 2025

Executive Summary

• Section 2(d) dominance drives outcomes: Likelihood-of-confusion refusals accounted for the primary ground in 8,067 of 9,962 analyzed responses this quarter.
• Total office-action volume remains elevated: The USPTO issued 93,417 Non-Final Office Actions during Q4 2025, accompanied by 12,977 Final Actions.
• Strong directional effectiveness for common arguments: Responses addressing Section 2(d) achieved a directional effectiveness score of 0.947 on a 0–1 scale.
• Goods amendments lead argument categories: Amendments narrowing goods or services recorded the highest instance volume at 2,270 with a directional score of 0.960.
• Coverage remains partial: The analyzed subset covers 9,962 responses against 93,417 total NFIN documents, so refusal shares reflect only ingested cases.

1. Prosecution Volume

The USPTO recorded 93,417 Non-Final Office Actions across the quarter. October posted the highest monthly NFIN count at 32,918. November declined 12.9 percent month-over-month, then December rebounded 11.1 percent. These filings represent the core of substantive examination activity. Broader prosecution documents exceeded 523,000 entries when including amendments, publications, and administrative notices.

2. Office Action Document Types

Non-Final Actions and search summaries together accounted for the largest shares of recorded documents. Responses to office actions reached 45,603 filings. Specimen submissions and publication notices followed at lower but still substantial volumes.

3. Refusal Landscape

The figures below cover the analyzed subset of 9,962 responses filed in Q4 2025 against the backdrop of 93,417 total USPTO Non-Final Office Actions.

Section 2(d) functioned as the primary refusal in 81 percent of the analyzed responses. Section 2(e) issues followed at roughly 10 percent. In the overlapping view that counts multiple tags per case, Section 2(d) appeared in 8,067 instances while Section 2(e) tags reached 1,072. Specimen and identification refusals showed lower primary shares yet still contributed measurable case volumes. Average days to registration varied by tag, with specimen-tagged cases reaching registration fastest at 63 days on average.

4. Argument Effectiveness

All directional scores below derive from the analyzed subset of responses and use a 0–1 internal metric rather than a win-rate percentage.

Goods amendments generated the largest instance count at 2,270 while maintaining a directional score of 0.960. Consent agreements and class deletions posted the highest directional scores above 0.965. Arguments addressing commercial impression and weakness of the cited mark clustered near 0.93–0.945. Lower-volume categories such as consumer sophistication and suggestive-not-descriptive arguments still delivered directional scores above 0.86.

Practitioner Takeaways

1. Prioritize Section 2(d) strategy early: With likelihood-of-confusion refusals serving as the primary ground in 81 percent of analyzed cases, practitioners should prepare consent or coexistence materials at filing or first response.
2. Leverage goods amendments for high-volume impact: The category recorded 2,270 instances and a 0.960 directional score, making targeted narrowing one of the most reliable tools available.
3. Track monthly volume patterns: October’s 32,918 NFIN peak followed by an 11.1 percent December rebound suggests examiners maintain steady output even in the final quarter.
4. Consider Supplemental Register filings selectively: The 0.939 directional score for that route supports its use on borderline Section 2(e) matters but offers no direct path around Section 2(d) issues.
5. Monitor argument instance ratios: Most analyzed responses contained fewer than one verified argument per refusal type on average, indicating focused rather than multi-pronged replies predominate.

Data sourced from USPTO TSDR and public prosecution records. Figures reflect activity as recorded through the report date. This report is informational and does not constitute legal advice. Explore more USPTO data analysis on the GleanMark Insights blog.