Today's Date: October 25, 2014 Search | Home | Contact | Services | Patent Attorney | Patent Search | Provisional Patent Application | Patent Application | Software Patent | Confidentiality Agreements

An Overview of the U.S. Patent Process

Written by Gene Quinn
Patent Attorney & Founder of IPWatchdog
Zies, Widerman & Malek
Blog | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn
Posted: Mar 15, 2014 @ 4:16 pm
Tell A Friend!




Do You Have a New Invention Idea?
CLICK HERE to Submit your Invention. 100% Confidential. No Obligation.


The patent process actually starts well before you file a patent application or seek assistance from a patent attorney. Every patent application starts with an invention, and every invention starts with an idea.  While ideas are not patentable, there will be a point in time when the idea you are working on comes into vision with enough detail to cross what I call the idea / invention boundary.  To have a protectable invention you have to be able to describe it with enough detail so that someone of skill in the relevant technical field can understand how to both make and use the invention.  Once you can do that, or once the patent attorney or patent agent you hire can, you are ready to file a patent application. If you are struggling at the idea phase please see Turning Your Idea into an Invention and Moving from Idea to Patent.

The first step in the patent process should really be a patent search.  Doing a patent search is the only way to get a realistic idea about whether the invention is likely able to be protected.  There is nothing wrong with inventors doing their own preliminary search, and in fact that is very useful task.  See Patent Searching 101. At some point as your project proceeds you should have a professional patent search done.  Only with a professional patent search will you really discover everything that can be found.  Just like a novice in your field would make mistakes, as a novice patent searcher won’t find everything that can be found, including many things that really need to be considered during the drafting stage of a patent application.  After all, the whole point of a patent application is to articulate how the invention is unique.  How can  you do that without a comprehensive knowledge of what exists in the prior art?

In many cases, if not most cases, a patent search will suggest that at patent could be obtained.  The critical question, however, is not whether a patent can be obtained, but rather whether a useful patent can be obtained.  If you layer on enough specifics to any invention you will cross the point where the patent examiner will say your invention is new and non-obvious. But a patent that has such narrow claims is hardly useful for anything other than framing and hanging on the wall.

For example, does a hair dryer with integrated radio, a beer bottle opener, a shaving cream dispenser and that floats when in water sound marketable?  Perhaps as a gag gift maybe, but the addition of random features for the sake of obtaining a patent is not usually wise.  In fact, it is not typically useful to layer on specifics unless those specifics contribute to marketability. Unfortunately for many unsuspecting inventors, in most cases layer after layer of detailed specifics only makes the claim narrow, less valuable and not at all marketable.  So if you are going to try and get around prior art to obtain a patent make sure the specifics added will provide an advantage, or are necessary for your invention to operate.

After you get past the patent search stage and have decided to move forward you may consider filing a provisional patent application.  Provisional patent applications are not examined by the Patent Office, they are rather easy to file and the filing fee for a small entity (i.e., individual or business with 500 or fewer employees) is presently $130. If you qualify as a micro-entity the filing fee is just $65.  Provisional patent applications are a great tool, but only if done correctly.  You need not follow all the picky format details of the non-provisional patent application, but for the provisional patent application to be useful it needs to fully and completely describe the invention.  They are excellent to use when the inventor is still working on refining the invention.  You file the provisional patent application with the best description possible at that moment and continue development. This is particularly important now that the United States has converted to a first to file system. It is essential to get a filing date as quickly as possible. Waiting to file a patent application was never a smart strategy for many reasons, but now waiting to file a patent application can be a disaster. For more on provisional patent applications please see The Benefits of a Provisional Patent Application and Good, Bad & Ugly: The Truth About Provisional Patent Applications.

In almost all cases where I represent individuals or businesses with computer related methods (i.e., software) we file a provisional patent application.  A patent application can be filed in advance of any code being written because the code is not the invention, the system is the invention.  Invariably as code is written more will be learned, the system will grow in complexity, and then we either file a subsequent provisional patent application or we move into a nonprovisional patent application that claims the benefit of the previous filed provisional application and adds everything that has been learned since the filing of the first provisional patent application.  Remember — the moment you file a provisional patent application you have a “patent pending” and can use those terms, but a provisional patent application is only as good as the level of detail in the filing.

In order for the patent prosecution process to begin a non-provisional patent application must be filed. A nonprovisional patent application is the application you file when you want the Patent Office to review the filing and proceed toward issuing a utility patent application. You can also file an International Application, but for sake of simplicity I am focusing this article on filing a patent application directly at the USPTO without invoking international treatment. For more on International Applications please see Understanding the International Filing Process and Obtaining Patent Rights Around the World.

Once the nonprovisional patent application is filed it is preliminarily reviewed by the United States Patent & Trademark Office to determine whether all of the required parts of the application are present. In order to obtain a filing date the filing must include at a minimum a specification (i.e., the written portion of the application). Effective December 18, 2013, the Patent Law Treaty Implementation Act changed the law and a drawing and claim are no longer required to obtain a filing date. But please beware! Best practice is still to include at least one drawing if a drawing is required to understand the invention (which is almost always the case and drawings should, in my opinion, always be filed) and at least one claim. While we can debate whether claims should be present at the time of filing, there is really no debate about drawings. While it is theoretically possible to file a drawing after the initial filing date of a nonprovisional filing, it is going to be practically impossible. Once you file you cannot add anything new to the application. This prohibition against the addition of “new matter” extents to text, claims and drawings. Since drawings are almost invariably going to include nuances not literally described the filing of a drawing after the filing date can be refused by the Patent Examiner if the drawing would add something new (i.e., anything new) that was not previously disclosed. Notice also that the filing fee, among other things, does not need to be present at the time of filing. To be sure, the Patent Office will not do anything substantive until you pay the filing fee, but this can be paid later. In typical USPTO fashion, there is a fee applicable for the privilege of paying the filing fee after the initial filing.

In the event that the nonprovisional patent application submitted is missing pieces the applicant (or attorney of record) will receive either a Notice of Missing Parts or a Notice of Omitted Items. The Notice of Missing parts awards a filing date and explains what must be submitted and by when, and includes any fee (i.e., penalty) due for the privilege of this later filing. With respect to the Notice of Omitted Items, such a notice explains that you have referred to something in the application that was not included in the original filing. This is frequently due to oversight of some kind. You can try and correct this, but if what is missing is critical the only thing that you can do is file a new application or a continuation in part. This is because the original filing must be 100% complete in terms of what is disclosed. As already mentioned, there can be no addition of new material after the initial filing unless a new application is filed or a continuation in part application is filed (in which case a new filing date is awarded to the new material).  It is, however, important to distinguish so-called “new matter” from adding claims.  New matter is defined by the totality of what is present at the time of filing the nonprovisional patent application.  If it is present anywhere in the filing it is NOT new matter.  So you can add claims during prosecution as long as those claims are legitimately covered by what was filed, such as in the specification or shown clearly in a drawing.

Once the patent application is complete, the fee paid, oaths or declarations of the inventor are on file, the next step in the process is the examiner determining whether you have a single invention in the patent application, or whether there are multiple inventions present.  At the US Patent Office you are entitled to a single invention in an application. One fee for one invention. If there is more than one invention present it will be necessary to elect one invention to move forward. You can always file what is called a divisional application on non-elected inventions without compromising your filing date, which said another way means your divisional patent application will be treated as if filed on the same day of the nonprovisional patent application provided the divisional patent application is filed before the nonprovisional patent application (referred to as a “parent application”) ceases to be pending, either because it is issued or abandoned.  There is nothing wrong with initially including more than one invention in the patent application, so if the inventions are related, such as a device and method of using, you might as well include both and let the Patent Examiner tell you if they want you to elect one to proceed with.

At this point your application is now ready to enter the examination phase. How quickly the examiner will get to review the application varies greatly depending upon the complexity and technological area of invention. For some types of inventions it could literally take 3 years to hear from the examiner. In some cases an examiner may get in touch with you substantially quicker.  If you are filing a design patent application you can receive a notice of allowance within 6 or 8 months, but for a nonprovisional patent application you should anticipate that the wait will be at least 12 to 18 months, but likely longer.

In some situations inventors and applicants need or want to receive quicker treatment from the Patent Office. To speed things up, over the last several years the USPTO has instituted an acceleration program that allows patent applicants to advance faster and get a patent decision within 12 months, usually within 6 months. This is acceleration of treatment is referred to as Track One examination, or prioritized examination. The Track One applications seem to have a higher allowance rate and very fast decision making. There is an additional fee of $2,000 to the USPTO for small entities and an additional charge of $500 to $1,000 can be expected to prepare the request. While this would add an additional $2,500 to $3,000 to the filing fees due initially, having watched this program closely, the overall cost of prosecution is lower in the long run. This is because patent examiners and the attorneys involved deal with the application over and over within several weeks, rather than waiting 12 to 18 months in between consideration. The fast consideration by examiners means the invention is in the front of everyone’s mind and little or no ramp up time is required. This leads to a streamlining affect that no doubt contributes to higher allowance rates.

The first time you will substantively hear from the examiner is when the examiner issues what is referred to as a First Office Action on the Merits (FOAM). At this point you are now truly beginning what most would refer to as prosecution of the patent application. The examiner has told you what, if anything, he or she thinks is patentable, and explained (usually in abbreviated fashion) what claims are lacking and why. The applicant, or attorney, must respond to each and everything raised by the examiner in a response filed no later than 6 months after the date of the First Office Action.  Notwithstanding the 6 month period to respond, the Patent Examiner will set what is called a “shortened statutory period” to respond, which for an Office Action is 3 months.  The shortened statutory period is the time period within which you can respond without having to pay a fee to respond.  After the shortened statutory period, which can be 1, 2 or 3 months depending on what the Examiner sends, you can respond up to 6 months but only if you request AND pay for an automatic extension.  Automatic extensions can get expensive, the cost goes up depending on how many months of extension you have to purchase.  They are called automatic extensions because the Patent Office must grant the extension if you ask and pay for the extension.  You should, however, plan on doing things within the shorten statutory period in order to conserve funds and in order to get the maximum patent term.

The prosecution process sees applicants go back and forth with the examiner in order to attempt to persuade the examiner that there is subject matter that is patentable. This give and take process does have its temporal limits. After the response by the applicant or attorney, the examiner will issue a Second Office Action, which could be made final. After the examiner has rejected claims twice the examiner has the authority to make the rejections final. Final rejection, however, is not so final. There is still an opportunity to amend and make changes.  You have a right to amend to cancel claims, place claims in better condition for appeal, or amend the claims if you are going to adopt a suggestion of the Examiner that would make a claim patentable.  No other changes will be permitted by the Patent Examiner after Final Rejection. Thus, Final Rejection really signifies the entrance into the end game of a prosecution, whereby the prosecution of the application is winding down to a conclusion.

After prosecution is over you will either wind up with some claims being allowed, all being rejected or all being allowed. In many situations at least some claims will be allowed and some rejected. At this point you can make several choices. You can either have the allowed claims issue or file a Request for Continuing Examination (RCE). This RCE will restart prosecution. If you choose to have the allowed claims issue you can choose to file a Continuation or a Continuation in Part, which will allow for you to continue to try and persuade the patent examiner that certain claims are allowable. Both Continuations and Continuations in Part start a new application process from the beginning, as opposed to the RCE which continues forward on the same application. Use of the RCE, however, will prevent the allowed claims from immediately issuing.  Detailed and strategic use of Continuations and RCEs goes beyond this basic primer.

Of course, along the way a decision can be made to appeal a Final Rejection by the examiner. Such an appeal goes to the Board of Patent Appeals, and perhaps ultimately to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In certain contexts appeals can be the right decision, but they are very difficult. As a general rule most appeals are not successful, which makes appealing a difficult decision unless there has been real, identifiable error, or the Patent Office is holding fast to certain interpretations that would have negative consequences for a series of patent applications.  Pursuing an appeal at some point can make sense if there is real, identifiable error, because during the appeals process before the case gets to the Board there is a review to see if there is that type of error and whether it might be able to be fixed without a full appeal.  Again, detailed discussion of the intricacies of the appeals process goes beyond this basic primer, but suffice it to say that a small but growing number of applications are appealed to the Board.

Good luck and happy inventing!

- - - - - - - - - -

For information on this and related topics please see these archives:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Educational Information for Inventors, Gene Quinn, Inventors Information, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Prosecution, Patents


About the Author

is a US Patent Attorney, law professor and the founder of IPWatchdog.com. He is also a principal lecturer in the top patent bar review course in the nation, which helps aspiring patent attorneys and patent agents prepare themselves to pass the patent bar exam. Gene started the widely popular intellectual property website IPWatchdog.com in 1999, and since that time the site has had many millions of unique visitors. Gene has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the LA Times, USA Today, CNN Money, NPR and various other newspapers and magazines worldwide. He represents individuals, small businesses and start-up corporations. As an electrical engineer with a computer engineering focus his specialty is electronic and computer devices, Internet applications, software and business methods.

 

 


Sponsored by LAMBERT & LAMBERT

 

Lambert & Lambert, Inc. (L&L) is an international license agency that represents independent inventors and product developers with innovative inventions and technologies.  As one of the premier license agencies, and among only a few that work on contingency, L&L's goal is to commercialize their client’s products by placing them with a manufacturer who is well positioned to sell the product in large quantities.  With products currently selling in stores such as Walmart®, Target®, ToysRUs®, and many more, L&L has a proven track record of success.


Lambert & Lambert is also a proud Professional Member of the United Inventors Association, the Better Business Bureau, the MN Inventors Congress, Licensing Executives Society and has been recognized by the National Inventor Fraud Center as "Official Good Guys".

 

Learn more at:

www.lambertinvent.com

 

Email us at:

info@lambertinvent.com

Lambert & Lambert, Inc.

11180 Zealand Ave N

Minneapolis, MN 55316  USA

Tel: 651-552-0080

Fax: 651-552-7678

 

2 comments
Leave a comment »

  1. Hey Gene!

    Nice post. Simple and to the point for novices.

    Just a suggestion. How about adding a flow chart in it :)

  2. Good day! Mr Gene Quinn
    In order to patent a cell phone app I can image one will claim content on the server and the device i.e. cell phone. Is this true? further more upon contacting prior art search and a patent is spotted however the content are embedded on a cell phone ‘s memory or hard drive can this be view as similar.