You file a patent application. Six months later, you get a Notice of Allowance—approved on the first office action, no rejections, no arguments needed. Your attorney congratulates you. You’re thrilled. That was easy!

But here’s an uncomfortable truth that experienced patent attorneys know: If the Patent Office approves your claims without any pushback, you probably didn’t ask for enough.

Understanding the Patent Examination Process

The Normal Flow

Here’s what typically happens with a well-drafted patent application:

1. Office Action 1: Examiner rejects claims as too broad (usually citing prior art or obviousness)
2. Response 1: Attorney argues and/or narrows claims to distinguish from prior art
3. Office Action 2: Examiner may maintain some rejections or allow with amendments
4. Response 2: Further arguments and/or amendments
5. Notice of Allowance: Examiner agrees the (now narrower) claims are patentable

Average timeline: 2-3 office actions over 18-36 months.

The “Too Easy” Scenario

Office Action 1: Notice of Allowance (no rejections)

What this usually means: Your claims were already narrower than they needed to be. The examiner had no objection because you didn’t claim enough to trigger any prior art or obviousness concerns.

Why Instant Allowance Is Often a Problem

1. You’re Leaving Patent Scope on the Table

Think of patent claims like a fence around your property. The goal is to build the biggest fence the Patent Office will allow.

Scenario A: Strategic Claiming (Normal)

• You claim as broadly as reasonable
• Examiner pushes back with prior art
• You argue and narrow strategically
• Final claims are as broad as possible given the prior art
• Result: Maximum protection

Scenario B: Overly Narrow Claims (Instant Allowance)

• You claim too narrowly from the start
• Examiner has no objection (why would they?)
• You get a patent with claims narrower than necessary
• Result: Competitors can easily design around your patent

2. You Make It Easier for Competitors to Design Around

Example: Your invention is a new type of smartphone charging dock with three key features—magnetic alignment (A), wireless charging (B), and heat dissipation vents (C).

3. You Don’t Test the Boundaries of Patentability

The patent prosecution process is a negotiation. The examiner’s job is to find reasons to reject claims. Your attorney’s job is to argue why those rejections are wrong or to amend claims strategically.

Through this process, you discover:

• What prior art actually exists in your space
• How your invention differs from what came before
• Where the real patentability boundaries are
• What claim language survives scrutiny

Without this process, you never tested whether broader claims would have been allowed, you don’t know what prior art the examiner would have cited, and you missed opportunities to refine claims based on examiner feedback.

When Instant Allowance IS Okay

There are legitimate situations where a Notice of Allowance on first action makes sense:

Truly Pioneering Invention

If you’ve invented something genuinely novel with no close prior art, instant allowance is reasonable. Examples include first patents in a completely new technology area, breakthrough innovations with clear novelty, or combinations of features never contemplated before.

Indicator: Your prior art search found almost nothing relevant.

Continuation Practice

You’re filing a continuation of an earlier application, and you’ve already been through prosecution. You’re claiming a specific embodiment that you know is patentable based on earlier office actions. This is strategic: You’re deliberately claiming narrow fallback positions.

Design Patents

Design patents are inherently narrow—they protect the specific ornamental appearance. Instant allowance is more common and less concerning.

Very Specific Method Claims

Some method patents claim such specific step-by-step processes that they’re inherently narrow. If that specificity is necessary and valuable, instant allowance might be appropriate.

The Economics of Patent Scope

The Cost of Narrow Claims

What You Paid For	Cost
Prior art search	$2,000
Application drafting	$10,000
Filing fees	$2,000
Total	$14,000

What you got: A patent that competitors can easily design around, limited enforcement value, minimal licensing potential.

Effective value: Maybe $5,000-$7,000

The Cost of Proper Prosecution

What You Pay For	Cost
Prior art search	$2,000
Application drafting	$10,000
Filing fees	$2,000
Office Action 1 response	$3,000
Office Action 2 response	$2,500
Total	$19,500

What you get: Claims tested against actual prior art, maximum reasonable scope, better competitive protection, higher enforcement value.

Effective value: $15,000-$20,000+

Red Flags That Your Claims Are Too Narrow

During Drafting

“We kept the claims narrow to ensure allowance.” Translation: Your attorney is risk-averse and didn’t fight for broader scope.

Claims only describe your exact embodiment. Good claims should cover your specific implementation, reasonable variations, and alternative approaches that achieve the same result.

Every feature of your product is in the independent claims. Independent claims should include only essential features, not every detail.

After Filing

Notice of Allowance within 6-12 months. While timing varies, suspiciously fast allowance warrants scrutiny.

No rejections at all. At minimum, you’d expect some rejections or minor objections. Zero pushback is unusual.

Examiner’s comments suggest the claims were obviously narrow. If the Notice of Allowance notes that claims are “very specific” or “narrow in scope,” the examiner is telling you they didn’t need narrowing.

What to Do If You Get Instant Allowance

Option 1: File a Continuation Before the Patent Issues

Let the narrow claims issue (you get a granted patent). Simultaneously file a continuation with broader claims before you pay the issue fee. The continuation goes through normal prosecution with the broader claims.

Benefits: You have a granted patent (narrow but valid), you get a second chance at broader claims, same priority date.

Cost: Additional application (~$8,000-$12,000)

Timeline: Must file continuation before original patent issues.

Option 2: Request Continued Examination (RCE) and Broaden Claims

Before paying the issue fee, file an RCE with amended claims. Intentionally broaden the claims. Let the examiner reject them. Then negotiate back to optimal scope.

Benefits: Tests whether broader claims are possible, same application.

Cost: RCE fee ($1,400) + attorney time ($2,000-$4,000)

Downside: Delays issuance, but worth it for better scope.

How to Prevent Overly Narrow Claims

Choose Experienced Prosecution Counsel

Look for attorneys who have a track record of successful office action responses, understand your technology deeply, and think strategically about claim scope—not just allowance.

Ask during hiring: “What percentage of your applications get allowed on first office action?”

Discuss Claim Strategy Upfront

Questions to ask your attorney:

• “Are we claiming as broadly as reasonable, or are we playing it safe?”
• “What features could we potentially remove from the independent claims?”
• “What variations of our invention should the claims cover?”
• “What would happen if we made the claims broader?”

Start Broad, Narrow If Needed

Best practice claiming strategy:

Independent Claim 1: Broadest reasonable interpretation—includes only truly essential features, covers your invention plus reasonable alternatives.

Dependent Claims 2-n: Progressive narrowing—add specific features one at a time, create fallback positions, cover specific embodiments.

Budget for Office Actions

Don’t assume instant allowance. Budget for at least 2 office action responses ($5,000-$7,000 total), and potentially a third response or appeal ($3,000-$5,000).

If it’s allowed immediately, you can decide whether to broaden via RCE or file a continuation.

Questions to Ask After Instant Allowance

1. “Is this typical for applications in this technology area?”
2. “Do you think we could have gotten broader claims allowed?”
3. “Should we consider filing a continuation with broader claims?”
4. “How do these claims compare to competitor patents in this space?”
5. “If a competitor wanted to design around this patent, how easy would it be?”

An experienced attorney should be able to answer these honestly and discuss whether the claim scope is optimal.

The Bottom Line

Getting a Notice of Allowance on your first office action feels great—it’s fast, it’s cheaper, and you have a granted patent.

But in many cases, instant allowance means claims are likely narrower than necessary, your product is vulnerable to design-arounds, and you left valuable patent scope on the table.

The patent prosecution process isn’t an obstacle—it’s an opportunity to refine and optimize your claims. The back-and-forth with the examiner helps you discover what prior art actually matters, what claim scope is achievable, and how to position your invention most strategically.