ClaimHour

Fee petition mechanics · Updated June 2026

Patent prosecution attorney fee petition mechanics: inventor consultation call stack per OA response cycle, continuation and IDS strategy advisory, and PCT national phase foreign associate coordination

Patent prosecution attorneys managing 50-application dockets with 32 annual office action responses — whose billing records must satisfy the contemporaneous-documentation standard of Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) and the exceptional case fee petition requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 285 as interpreted by Octane Fitness LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014), as well as Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) in any copyright companion case — generate three billing gaps driven by advisory calls arriving on the USPTO's examination schedule, the continuing prosecution strategy calendar, and PCT national phase deadline calendars: inventor consultation calls per office action response cycle arriving when the USPTO mails each office action (32 OA responses × 5 inventor calls × 28 min × 40% untracked ≈ 34.1 hrs = $13,640–$20,460/year at $400–$600/hr), continuation filing and IDS strategy advisory calls arriving outside docketed prosecution milestones on the inventor's technology development and competitor patent filing schedule (18 continuation matters × 4 calls × 42 min × 55% untracked ≈ 27.7 hrs = $11,080–$16,620/year), and PCT national phase foreign associate coordination calls arriving on each designated country's national phase entry deadline calendar (30 national phase entries × 3 calls × 30 min × 55% untracked ≈ 24.75 hrs = $9,900–$14,850/year). For a solo patent prosecution practice with PCT work, the annual billing gap from advisory call underlogging is $34,620–$51,930.

TL;DR

ClaimHour captures every inventor consultation call that arrives when the USPTO mails an office action on its examination schedule, every continuation and IDS strategy advisory call that arrives outside docketed milestones on the inventor's technology and competitor-monitoring schedule, and every PCT national phase foreign associate coordination call that arrives on each country's national phase deadline calendar — passively, no timer, no audio, no call contents. $29–$59/mo. No PMS required.

Inventor consultation call stack per OA response cycle: calls on the USPTO's examination schedule

The USPTO sends office actions on its own examination schedule — a schedule entirely outside the prosecution attorney's control and often unpredictable in timing within the 16-month average pendency period. When the USPTO mails a non-final office action under MPEP § 706 rejecting claims on 35 U.S.C. § 102 anticipation, § 103 obviousness, or § 112 written description grounds, the attorney must consult with the inventor to understand the technical distinction between the claimed invention and the cited prior art reference before drafting the response and claim amendments. A 50-application prosecution docket with 32 OA responses per year generates an average of 5 inventor consultation calls per OA response cycle: an initial OA receipt and prior art review call when the office action arrives; a technical clarification call when the attorney has analyzed the reference's disclosure and needs the inventor to explain the claimed feature's operation; an amended claim review call when the draft response is complete; an issue fee authorization call when the notice of allowance arrives; and an allowability conference call for matters where a pre-appeal brief conference or appeal is being considered. Each call runs 25–32 minutes — too short to create a billing entry prompt, too numerous to log individually from month-end reconstruction, and too closely spaced in time to distinguish by reference when reconstructed.

Five inventor consultation call types that arrive when the USPTO mails each office action: (1) OA receipt and prior art scope advisory — arrives when the USPTO mails the office action and the client needs to understand which claims are rejected, on which grounds, and on which prior art references (25–30 min); (2) technical clarification and claim distinction advisory — arrives when the attorney's analysis of the reference identifies a technical distinction that requires inventor input to explain and record in the response (25–32 min); (3) amended claim and response strategy advisory — arrives when the draft response is complete and the inventor must approve the claim amendments and confirm the technical accuracy of the arguments (26–30 min); (4) notice of allowance review and issue fee advisory — arrives when the USPTO mails the notice of allowance under 37 C.F.R. § 1.311 and the client must decide whether to pay the issue fee, file a continuation, or file a continuation-in-part to capture additional subject matter (25–30 min); (5) pre-appeal or examiner interview advisory — arrives when the attorney and client decide whether to request a pre-appeal brief conference under MPEP § 1204 or an examiner's interview under MPEP § 713.02 to resolve a dispute about the scope of a prior art reference without appeal (25–30 min). At 40% reconstruction capture (lower than the 55% figure for other practice areas because prosecution calls are shorter, more numerous, and less likely to be logged individually): 32 OA responses × 5 calls × 28 min × 40% untracked = 34.1 hours = $13,640–$20,460/year at $400–$600/hr. In a § 285 exceptional case fee petition, prosecution-phase inventor consultation hours that are reasonably connected to the asserted patent's prosecution history must satisfy the same Hensley contemporaneous-documentation standard as litigation-phase hours.

Continuation and IDS strategy advisory: calls outside docketed prosecution milestones

Continuation filing strategy and information disclosure statement review decisions occur outside the docketed prosecution milestones that anchor the patent prosecution attorney's billing record. The docketed milestones are the statutory deadlines — the 3-month shortened statutory period for responding to an office action under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a), the 12-month window from the US filing date for filing a continuation under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the IDS submission deadline under 37 C.F.R. § 1.97(b) and (c) — but the attorney's decision-making advisory calls about whether to file a continuation, which claims to pursue in the continuation beyond what the parent application is pursuing, and whether a newly discovered prior art reference must be cited in an IDS under the duty of candor imposed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 occur on the inventor's technology development schedule and the competitor's patent filing and publication schedule, not on any USPTO deadline calendar. When a competitor's published application appears in a search and discloses overlapping subject matter, the inventor calls the attorney before the USPTO identifies the reference in an office action — requiring a call to analyze whether the competitor's application anticipates pending claims under § 102, whether the inventor's own pending claims need to be amended to distinguish the competitor's disclosure, and whether the competitor's published application must be submitted in an IDS during the pendency of the application. The timing of this call is entirely driven by when the competitor's application publishes, which is on the USPTO's publication schedule, not on any billing calendar.

Two continuation and IDS strategy advisory call types that arrive outside docketed prosecution milestones: (1) continuation filing strategy and claim portfolio advisory call — arrives when the parent application receives a notice of allowance and the attorney and inventor must decide whether to file a continuation to pursue additional claims not allowed in the parent, whether to file a continuation-in-part to capture additional subject matter disclosed by the inventor since the parent was filed, and how to structure the claim hierarchy across the continuation family for maximum protection against design-arounds (40–44 min); (2) competitor prior art monitoring and IDS submission advisory call — arrives when competitive intelligence identifies a published patent or application that discloses subject matter overlapping with the pending claims, requiring analysis of whether the reference is material to patentability under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(b) and must be submitted in an IDS, whether the pending claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by the reference and should be amended preemptively, and whether the reference supports filing a continuation with narrower claims that distinguish the reference while maintaining coverage of the core inventive concept (40–44 min). At 55% untracked: 18 continuation matters × 4 calls × 42 min × 55% = 1663.2 min / 60 ≈ 27.7 hours = $11,080–$16,620/year at $400–$600/hr.

PCT national phase foreign associate coordination: calls on PCT deadline calendars

PCT national phase prosecution generates a billing gap architecturally distinct from domestic prosecution: the coordination calls between the PCT filing attorney and the foreign associates handling national phase prosecution in each designated country arrive on the foreign associates' own national phase entry deadline calendars — the 30-month deadline from the priority date for national phase entry in most PCT member states under PCT Article 22, the 31-month deadline in states that have notified the International Bureau under PCT Rule 49.1(a)(iii), and the chapter II examination deadlines for IPEA applications. The foreign associate calls when the national phase entry deadline is approaching in its jurisdiction, when a foreign office action has been received and requires instruction from the PCT attorney on claim amendment strategy, and when the foreign patent office has raised a unity-of-invention objection under PCT Rule 13 requiring the PCT attorney to instruct the associate which invention to pursue first. Each coordination call requires the PCT attorney to review the foreign office action, compare the foreign examiner's citation of prior art references with the US prosecution history (to assess whether the foreign examiner's prior art analysis creates prosecution history that could affect the US patent's claim scope under the doctrine of equivalents under Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002)), and instruct the associate on claim amendments that maintain consistency with the US prosecution strategy. The timing of these calls is driven by the foreign associate's jurisdiction-specific deadlines, not by any billing calendar the PCT attorney maintains.

Two PCT national phase foreign associate coordination call types that arrive on PCT deadline calendars: (1) national phase entry strategy and foreign claim adaptation advisory call — arrives when the foreign associate notifies the PCT attorney that the national phase entry deadline is approaching in its jurisdiction, requiring analysis of which claims from the PCT application's claim set should be prioritized for national phase prosecution in each jurisdiction (based on the jurisdiction's market importance to the client, the claim scope permitted by the foreign patent office's prior art standards, and the translation cost relative to the estimated commercial value of foreign protection), and whether the claims should be adapted for the jurisdiction's specific patentability requirements under the applicable national law (30–34 min); (2) foreign office action response instruction and prosecution history advisory call — arrives when the foreign associate receives a foreign office action and contacts the PCT attorney for instructions on the response strategy, requiring analysis of the foreign examiner's prior art citations and whether they were previously cited in the US prosecution (if so, the foreign attorney can cite the US prosecution history arguments; if not, the response strategy must be developed independently), whether the foreign office action's claim objection creates prosecution history estoppel that could affect the US patent's doctrine-of-equivalents scope under Festo, and which claim amendments would resolve the foreign objection without creating arguments that could be used against the US patent's claims in litigation (28–32 min). At 55% untracked: 30 national phase entries × 3 calls × 30 min × 55% = 1485 min / 60 = 24.75 hours = $9,900–$14,850/year at $400–$600/hr.

How ClaimHour fits patent prosecution practice

If you manage a 50-application prosecution docket with 32 annual office action responses — with inventor consultation calls arriving each time the USPTO mails an office action on its examination schedule, before any billing entry prompt exists — continuation and IDS strategy advisory calls arriving when competitive intelligence warrants them on the competitor's patent publication schedule, not on any USPTO deadline calendar — and PCT national phase coordination calls arriving when foreign associates notify you of approaching deadlines in their jurisdictions, not on any billing calendar you control — and if your § 285 exceptional case fee petitions, Fogerty copyright companion fee awards, and Hensley lodestar cross-checks must demonstrate contemporaneous billing records under the consistent-methodology standard of Welch v. Metropolitan Life, 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007) — ClaimHour was built for that gap.

Get early access

Related questions

How does the inventor consultation call stack per OA response cycle generate billing gaps on the USPTO's examination schedule?

The USPTO mails office actions on its own examination schedule — triggering inventor consultation calls the attorney cannot predict or schedule. Five call types per OA response: OA receipt and prior art scope advisory (25–30 min), technical clarification and claim distinction advisory (25–32 min), amended claim and response strategy advisory (26–30 min), notice of allowance review and issue fee advisory (25–30 min), and pre-appeal or examiner interview advisory (25–30 min). At 40% reconstruction capture (prosecution calls are shorter and more numerous than other practice areas): 32 OA responses × 5 calls × 28 min × 40% untracked ≈ 34.1 hours = $13,640–$20,460/year at $400–$600/hr.

How does the continuation and IDS strategy advisory gap generate billing gaps outside docketed milestones?

Continuation filing and IDS submission decisions occur on the inventor's technology development schedule and the competitor's patent publication schedule — not on any USPTO deadline calendar the attorney tracks. Two call types: continuation filing strategy and claim portfolio advisory (40–44 min, arriving when the parent application receives a notice of allowance — requiring continuation-versus-divisional analysis, claim hierarchy planning, and continuation-in-part scope assessment) and competitor prior art monitoring and IDS submission advisory (40–44 min, arriving when competitive intelligence identifies a published patent requiring 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 materiality analysis and claim amendment assessment). At 55% untracked: 18 matters × 4 calls × 42 min × 55% ≈ 27.7 hours = $11,080–$16,620/year at $400–$600/hr.

How does PCT national phase coordination generate billing gaps on foreign associate deadline calendars?

PCT national phase coordination calls arrive when foreign associates face jurisdiction-specific deadlines — a schedule entirely outside the PCT attorney's billing calendar. Two call types: national phase entry strategy and foreign claim adaptation advisory (30–34 min, arriving when the foreign associate notifies the PCT attorney of an approaching national phase entry deadline — requiring jurisdiction priority analysis, claim adaptation for local patentability requirements, and translation cost assessment) and foreign office action response instruction and prosecution history advisory (28–32 min, arriving when a foreign office action requires instruction — requiring foreign prior art citation comparison with US prosecution history and Festo doctrine-of-equivalents estoppel risk analysis). At 55% untracked: 30 entries × 3 calls × 30 min × 55% = 24.75 hours = $9,900–$14,850/year at $400–$600/hr.

How does the § 285 exceptional case fee petition apply to patent prosecution billing records?

Under Octane Fitness LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014), § 285 exceptional case fee petitions apply the Hensley lodestar framework: the fee petitioner must submit contemporaneous billing records. For a prosecution solo who also handles patent defense, prosecution-phase inventor consultation hours reasonably connected to the asserted patent's prosecution history must meet the same contemporaneous-records standard as litigation-phase hours. The consistent-methodology inference from Welch v. Metropolitan Life, 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007), extends reconstruction-based reductions from prosecution-phase entries to litigation-phase entries when the billing record shows systematic undercount in inventor consultation calls — compounding the exposure from each underlogged OA response cycle consultation call.

Further reading