ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "United States Patent and Trademark Office"

(moved criteria for patentability to the article of that name)
(Quality getting worse: more complete title: ==Quality declining, allowance rate increasing==)
(30 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{infobox|series-usa}}{{navbox}}The '''USPTO''' (United States Patent and Trademark Office) is known for granting [[software patents]].  They are considered as having some of the lowest standards of evaluation.
+
{{infobox usa}}
 +
The '''United States Patent and Trademark Office''' ('''USPTO''') is known for granting large numbers of [[software patents]].
  
According to [[An Empirical Look at Software Patents|a 2004 paper by Bessen and Hunt]], the USPTO approves about 70 software patents per day.([http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=461701 see page 47])  Other sources have said that in 2006 the USTPO granted just over 40,000 software patents.<ref>http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/12/patent-ibm.html</ref>
+
According to [[An Empirical Look at Software Patents|a 2004 paper by Bessen and Hunt]], the USPTO approves about 70 software patents per day. ([http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=461701 see page 47])  Other sources have said that in 2006 the USTPO granted just over 40,000 software patents,<ref>http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/12/patent-ibm.html</ref> which is 110 per day, seven days per week.
 +
 
 +
The USPTO is an agency of the [[USA|US]] government's Department of Commerce.
  
 
==Specifically excluded==
 
==Specifically excluded==
  
 
In the [[USA]], according to the [[USPTO]], "''...it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter''."<ref>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm</ref>
 
In the [[USA]], according to the [[USPTO]], "''...it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter''."<ref>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm</ref>
 +
 +
==Examination guidelines==
 +
 +
* 1996: [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/pdf/ciig.pdf Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions] (The date, 1996, is given by Martin Goetz<ref>http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/09/in-defense-of-software-patents-part-2.html</ref> but the document itself does have a date - I don't know how we'd verify if this is still the 1996 version or if this link now points to an updated version)
 +
* 2007: new guidelines were issued, raising the standard for obviousness, following the ruling in [[KSR v. Teleflex (2007, USA)]]
 +
* 2009, 2010: Interim guidelines were issued following the [[CAFC]]'s decision on [[in re Bilski]], and further interim guidelines were published following the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]]'s decision in [[Bilski v. Kappos]].  See: [[USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept]].  (As of October 2010, final revised guidelines are not yet available) (There's an interesting article about the change in "obviousness" [http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1742 here])
  
 
==Key people==
 
==Key people==
  
 
The Director of the USPTO, since August 2009, is David Kappos.<ref>http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/kappos-sworn-in-as-director.html</ref>  Kappos previously worked for [[IBM]] as ''vice president for [[intellectual-property]] law''.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383639/index.htm</ref>
 
The Director of the USPTO, since August 2009, is David Kappos.<ref>http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/kappos-sworn-in-as-director.html</ref>  Kappos previously worked for [[IBM]] as ''vice president for [[intellectual-property]] law''.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383639/index.htm</ref>
 +
 +
==Quality declining, allowance rate increasing==
 +
 +
Despite the USPTO's public comments about improving examination, it appears the real change is that quality has actually dropped.  A 2013 study found that the "allowance rate" increased by 20% from 2009 to 2012.<ref>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/study-suggests-patent-office-lowered-standards-to-cope-with-backlog/</ref>  By 2014, 92% of patent applications were being approved.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.vox.com/2014/5/5/5682926/getting-patents-is-preposterously-easy-under-obama|title=Getting patents is preposterously easy under Obama|quote=That 92 percent corrected allowance rate is up from 68 percent in 2009.}}</ref> (54% are approved on the first request, the others are approved after being refiled with changes.)
 +
 +
This confirms that legislation such as the [[America Invents Act]] are so watered-down and corrupted that they have no positive effect.  Reform doesn't work; we need to exclude software from the patent system.
  
 
==Examiners stuck for time==
 
==Examiners stuck for time==
  
 
Examiners in the USPTO have on average 20 hours to examine each application.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383639/index.htm</ref>
 
Examiners in the USPTO have on average 20 hours to examine each application.<ref>http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383639/index.htm</ref>
 +
 +
==Procedural notes==
 +
 +
More info sought: there is an "Office of First Filing" and an "Office of Second Filing".<ref>http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp</ref>
  
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
Line 21: Line 40:
 
* [[Criteria for patentability]]
 
* [[Criteria for patentability]]
 
* [[1994 USPTO software patent hearings]]
 
* [[1994 USPTO software patent hearings]]
 +
* [[Legislation in the USA]] - the USPTO interprets the legislation
 +
* [[USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept]]
 +
* [[Suggestions for the USPTO in 2013]]
 +
* [[Continuation patent]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
Line 26: Line 49:
 
* http://uspto.gov - the USPTO's website
 
* http://uspto.gov - the USPTO's website
 
* [http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair The USPTO's PAIR system for checking the status of applications]
 
* [http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair The USPTO's PAIR system for checking the status of applications]
 +
* [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.htm Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)]
  
 
===USPTO documents===
 
===USPTO documents===
 
* http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd20072130-10-04-2007-1 "There is no authority that we know of which permits software per se to be considered statutory <nowiki>[</nowiki>patentable subject matter<nowiki>]</nowiki>."
 
* http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd20072130-10-04-2007-1 "There is no authority that we know of which permits software per se to be considered statutory <nowiki>[</nowiki>patentable subject matter<nowiki>]</nowiki>."
 
* [http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/accelerated/ The USPTO's accelerated patent procedure]
 
* [http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/accelerated/ The USPTO's accelerated patent procedure]
* http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/interim-guidelines-on-statutory-subject-matter.html - A third-party article linking to the USPTO's guidelines on interpreting the Bilski particular-machine-or-transformation test
+
* http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/interim-guidelines-on-statutory-subject-matter.html - A third-party article linking to the USPTO's guidelines on interpreting the Bilski [[Particular machine or transformation]] test
  
 
===Third party documents===
 
===Third party documents===
 
* http://www.bitlaw.com/source/soft_pats/final.html
 
* http://www.bitlaw.com/source/soft_pats/final.html
 
* http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/patentable.html
 
* http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/patentable.html
* [http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/05/dayintech_0526 A 1981 patent claims to be the first USA software patent]
+
* [http://www.wired.com/thisdayintech/2009/05/dayintech_0526 A 1981 patent claims to be the first USA software patent], May 2009, '''Wired'''
 
* [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_granted_software_patents.png Graph of number of software patents granted by the USPTO per year]
 
* [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_granted_software_patents.png Graph of number of software patents granted by the USPTO per year]
 +
* [http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1742 KSR, patent obviousness and USPTO practice], 29 Sep 2010, '''ipeg'''
 +
* [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/08/uspto-software-composition-inventions-are-unpatentable-under-101-unless-they-clearly-disavow-that-the-storage-mechanism-is.html USPTO: Software Composition Inventions are Unpatentable under §101 unless they Clearly Disavow that the Storage Mechanism is a Transitory Wave or Signal], 27 Aug 2013, '''[[Patently-O]]'''
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
<references />
+
{{reflist}}
  
  
 
{{footer}}
 
{{footer}}
[[Category:Patent office practice by region|USA]]
+
[[Category: Patent office case law]]
[[Category:USA]]
+
[[Category: Patent offices]]
 +
[[Category: USA]]

Revision as of 06:08, 13 May 2014

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is known for granting large numbers of software patents.

According to a 2004 paper by Bessen and Hunt, the USPTO approves about 70 software patents per day. (see page 47) Other sources have said that in 2006 the USTPO granted just over 40,000 software patents,[1] which is 110 per day, seven days per week.

The USPTO is an agency of the US government's Department of Commerce.

Specifically excluded

In the USA, according to the USPTO, "...it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter."[2]

Examination guidelines

Key people

The Director of the USPTO, since August 2009, is David Kappos.[4] Kappos previously worked for IBM as vice president for intellectual-property law.[5]

Quality declining, allowance rate increasing

Despite the USPTO's public comments about improving examination, it appears the real change is that quality has actually dropped. A 2013 study found that the "allowance rate" increased by 20% from 2009 to 2012.[6] By 2014, 92% of patent applications were being approved.[7] (54% are approved on the first request, the others are approved after being refiled with changes.)

This confirms that legislation such as the America Invents Act are so watered-down and corrupted that they have no positive effect. Reform doesn't work; we need to exclude software from the patent system.

Examiners stuck for time

Examiners in the USPTO have on average 20 hours to examine each application.[8]

Procedural notes

More info sought: there is an "Office of First Filing" and an "Office of Second Filing".[9]

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

USPTO documents

Third party documents

References