United States Patent and Trademark Office

"USPO" redirects here. For the agency governing United States Post Offices, see United States Postal Service.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is an agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce that serves as the national patent office and trademark registration authority for the United States. The USPTO's headquarters are in Alexandria, Virginia, after a 2005 move from the Crystal City area of neighboring Arlington, Virginia.

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Seal of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
The James Madison building on the campus of the United States Patent and Trademark Office headquarters in Alexandria. This is the largest building on the campus.
Agency overview
Formed	July 4, 1836; 187 years ago (1836-07-04)^[1]^[2] Washington, D.C., U.S.
Headquarters	Alexandria, Virginia, U.S. 38°48′05″N 77°03′50″W / 38.801499°N 77.063835°W / 38.801499; -77.063835
Employees	13,103 (as of Sept 30, 2022)^[3]^: 20
Agency executives	Kathi Vidal, Director Derrick Brent, Deputy Director^[4] Vaishali Udupa, Commissioner for Patents^[5] David S. Gooder, Commissioner for Trademarks^[6]
Parent agency	United States Department of Commerce
Website	www.uspto.gov

Relief representing the Patent Office at the Herbert C. Hoover Building

The USPTO is "unique among federal agencies because it operates solely on fees collected by its users, and not on taxpayer dollars".^[7] Its "operating structure is like a business in that it receives requests for services—applications for patents and trademark registrations—and charges fees projected to cover the cost of performing the services [it] provide[s]".^[7][8]

The Office is headed by the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, currently held by Kathi Vidal as of April 19, 2022. Andrei Iancu was the former director of the USPTO until he left office on January 20, 2021.

The USPTO cooperates with the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) as one of the Trilateral Patent Offices. The USPTO is also a Receiving Office, an International Searching Authority and an International Preliminary Examination Authority for international patent applications filed in accordance with the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

Mission

The legal basis for the United States patent system is the Copyright Clause in Section 8 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power to grant patents and copyrights on a national basis. Trademark law, on the other hand, is considered to be authorized by the Commerce Clause.^[9]

 

Signboard of US Patent Office Alexandria

The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

The USPTO maintains a permanent, interdisciplinary historical record of all U.S. patent applications in order to fulfill objectives outlined in the United States Constitution.^[7] The PTO's mission is to promote "industrial and technological progress in the United States and strengthen the national economy" by:

• Administering the laws relating to patents and trademarks;
• Advising the Secretary of Commerce, the President of the United States, and the administration on patent, trademark, and copyright protection; and
• Providing advice on the trade-related aspects of intellectual property.

Structure

 

USPTO Madison Building Exterior

 

Interior atrium of the USPTO Madison Building

The USPTO is headquartered at the Alexandria Campus, consisting of 11 buildings in a city-like development surrounded by ground floor retail and high rise residential buildings between the Metro stations of King Street station (the main search building is two blocks due south of the King Street station) and Eisenhower Avenue station where the actual Alexandria Campus is located between Duke Street (on the North) to Eisenhower Avenue (on the South), and between John Carlyle Street (on the East) to Elizabeth Lane (on the West) in Alexandria, Virginia.^[10][11][12] An additional building in Arlington, Virginia, was opened in 2009.

 

USPTO satellite office in San Jose, California

The USPTO was expected by 2014 to open its first ever satellite offices in Detroit, Dallas, Denver, and Silicon Valley to reduce backlog and reflect regional industrial strengths.^[13] The first satellite office opened in Detroit on July 13, 2012.^{[14][15][16][17][18]} In 2013, due to the budget sequestration, the satellite office for Silicon Valley, which is home to one of the nation's top patent-producing cities, was put on hold.^[19] However, renovation and infrastructure updates continued after the sequestration, and the Silicon Valley location opened in the San Jose City Hall in 2015.^[20]

As of September 30, 2009^[update], the end of the U.S. government's fiscal year, the PTO had 9,716 employees, nearly all of whom are based at its five-building headquarters complex in Alexandria. Of those, 6,242 were patent examiners (almost all of whom were assigned to examine utility patents; only 99 were assigned to examine design patents) and 388 were trademark examining attorneys; the rest are support staff.^[21] While the agency has noticeably grown in recent years, the rate of growth was far slower in fiscal 2009 than in the recent past; this is borne out by data from fiscal 2005 to the present:^[21] As of the end of FY 2018, the USPTO was composed of 12,579 federal employees, including 8,185 patent examiners, 579 trademark examiners, and 3,815 other staff.^[22]

At end of FY	Employees	Patent examiners	Trademark examining attorneys	Patent Filings (Utility)	Trademark Filings	Patent Application Backlog
2022	13,103^[3]^: 20	8,509^[3]^: 20	718^[3]^: 20	457,510^[3]^: 22	787,798^[3]^: 24
2021	12,963^[23]^: 2,19,243	8,073^[23]^: 19,243	662^[23]^: 19,243	650,703^[23]^: 38	943,928^[23]^: 38,223
2020^[24]	12,928	8,434	622	653,311^[23]^: 38,201	738,112^[23]^: 38,223
2019^[25]	12,652	9,614	701	666,843^[23]^: 38,201	673,233^[23]^: 38,223
2018^[26]	12,579	8,185	579	647,572^[23]^: 38,201	594,107^[23]^: 38
2017^[27]	12,588	8,147	549	650,350^[23]^: 38,201	530,270^[23]^: 38	526,579
2016^[28]	12,725	8,351	570	650,411	530,270	537,655
2015^[29]	12,667	9,161	456	618,062^[28]	503,889^[28]	553,221^[28]
2014^[30]	12,450	9,302	429	618,457^[28]	455,017^[28]
2013^[31]	11,773	8,051	409	601,464^[28]	433,654^[28]
2012^[32]	11,531	7,935	386	565,406	415,026	608,283
2011^[33]	10,210	6,780	378	536,604	398,667
2010^[34]	9,507	6,225	378	509,367	368,939	726,331
2009^[35]	9,716	6,243	388	485,500	352,051	750,596
2008^[36]	9,518	6,055	398	495,095	401,392	750,596
2007^[37]	8,913	5,477	404	467,243	394,368
2006^[38]		4,779	413
2005		4,177^[38]	357^[38]
2004		3,681^[38]	286^[38]
2003		3,579^[38]	256^[38]
1998^[39]	5,300
1996^[40]^[41]^[42]				189,979^[41]	200,640^[42]
1995^[43]				221,304	175,307
1994^[44]				186,126	155,376
1993^[44]				174,553	139,735
1992^[44]				172,539	125,237
1986				120,988^[41]	69,253^[42]
1976				101,807^[41]	37,074^[42]

Patent examiners make up the bulk of the employees at USPTO. They hold degrees in various scientific disciplines, but do not necessarily hold law degrees. Unlike patent examiners, trademark examiners must be licensed attorneys.^{[citation needed]}

All examiners work under a strict, "count"-based production system.^[45] For every application, "counts" are earned by composing, filing, and mailing a first Office action on the merits, and upon disposal of an application.

The Commissioner for Patents oversees three main bodies, headed by former Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations, currently^[46] Peggy Focarino, the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, currently^[when?] Andrew Hirshfeld as Acting Deputy, and finally the Commissioner for Patent Resources and Planning, which is currently^[when?] vacant.^[47] The Patent Operations of the office is divided into nine different technology centers that deal with various arts.^[48]

Prior to 2012, decisions of patent examiners could be appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, an administrative law body of the USPTO. Decisions of the BPAI could further be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or a civil suit could be brought against the Commissioner of Patents in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.^[49] The United States Supreme Court may ultimately decide on a patent case. Under the America Invents Act, the BPAI was converted to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or "PTAB".^[50]

Similarly, decisions of trademark examiners may be appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with subsequent appeals directed to the Federal Circuit, or a civil action may also be brought.

In recent years, the USPTO has seen increasing delays between when a patent application is filed and when it issues. To address its workload challenges, the USPTO has undertaken an aggressive program of hiring and recruitment. The USPTO hired 1,193 new patent examiners in Fiscal Year 2006 (year ending September 30, 2006),^[51] 1,215 new examiners in fiscal 2007,^[52] and 1,211 in fiscal year 2008.^[53] The USPTO expected to continue hiring patent examiners at a rate of approximately 1,200 per year through 2012; however, due to a slowdown in new application filings since the onset of the late-2000s economic crisis,^[54] and projections of substantial declines in maintenance fees in coming years,^[55] the agency imposed a hiring freeze in early March 2009.^[56]

In 2006, USPTO instituted a new training program for patent examiners called the "Patent Training Academy". It is an eight-month program designed to teach new patent examiners the fundamentals of patent law, practice and examination procedure in a college-style environment.^[57] Because of the impending USPTO budget crisis previously alluded to, it had been rumored that the academy would be closed by the end of 2009.^[55] Focarino, then Acting Commissioner for Patents, denied in a May 2009 interview that the academy was being shut down, but stated that it would be cut back because the hiring goal for new examiners in fiscal 2009 was reduced to 600.^[58] Ultimately, 588 new patent examiners were hired in fiscal year 2009.^[59]

In 2016,^[60] the USPTO partnered with the Girl Scouts of the USA to create an "Intellectual Property Patch" merit badge, which is awarded to Girl Scouts at four different levels.^[61]

Management

In October 2021, President Joe Biden nominated attorney Kathi Vidal to serve as the USPTO director.^[62] She was sworn in on April 13, 2022.^[63]

Patent examiner pay

An agreement was reached between USPTO Management and the union as early as 2001 to increase general examiner pay over that of the General Schedule (GS)^{[64]: 26,31}; some examiners, such as those covering complex biotechnology were receiving higher pay under Special Salary Rate Table 0419 as early as 1998.^[65] At the time, such examiners were paid 21%, 15%, 8.7%, and 5.6% more at GS 11-1, 12-1, 13-1, and 14-1, respectively, over the General Schedule for the Washington D.C. locality.^[66] All examiners were classified under Special Salary Rate Table 0576 on the first day of the pay period beginning on or after November 21, 2006, when Special Salary Rate Table 0419 was terminated. With the increased authorization, examiners were paid 50%, 50%, 43%, 36%, 30%, 30%, 30%, and 30% more at GS 05-1, 07-1, 09-1, 11-1, 12-1, 13-1, 14-1, and 15-1,^[67] respectively, over the 2006 General Schedule,^[68] and 26%, 28%, 22%, 16%, 11%, 11%, 11%, and 11% more at GS 05-1, 07-1, 09-1, 11-1, 12-1, 13-1, 14-1, and 15-1, respectively, over the General Schedule for the Washington D.C. locality.^[69] Authorization was again increased for the Special Salary Rate Table 0576 on the first day of the pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2009, with the pay supplement increased to 53%, 53%, 46%, 39%, 33%, 33%, 33%, and 33% more at GS 05-1, 07-1, 09-1, 11-1, 12-1, 13-1, 14-1, and 15-1,^[70] respectively, over the 2009 General Schedule,^[71] and 24%, 24%, 19%, 13%, 8%, 8%, 8%, and 8% more at GS 05-1, 07-1, 09-1, 11-1, 12-1, 13-1, 14-1, and 15-1, respectively, over the General Schedule for the Washington D.C. locality.^[72] As of the pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2023, the pay supplement for the Special Salary Rate Table 0576 has not increased, and remains as 53%, 53%, 46%, 39%, 33%, 33%, 33%, and 33% more at GS 05-1, 07-1, 09-1, 11-1, 12-1, 13-1, 14-1, and 15-1,^[73] respectively, over the 2009 General Schedule,^[74] and 15%, 15%, 10%, 5%, 0.4%, 0.4%, 0.4%, and 0.4% more at GS 05-1, 07-1, 09-1, 11-1, 12-1, 13-1, 14-1, and 15-1, respectively, over the General Schedule for the Washington D.C. locality.^[75] As the Special Salary Rate Table 0576 does not receive the locality payment adjustments applied periodically by OPM to the General Schedule tables, examiner pay has been effectively reduced by 9%, 9%, 9%, 8%, 7.6%, 7.6%, 7.6%, and 7.6% at GS 05-1, 07-1, 09-1, 11-1, 12-1, 13-1, 14-1, and 15-1, respectively, over the General Schedule for the Washington D.C. locality since implementation of the 2009 table authorization adjustment. The erosion of special rate pay has been an ongoing and as was cited by the GAO as early as 2005.^[64]: 21

Fee diversion

For many years, Congress has "diverted" about 10% of the fees that the USPTO collected into the general treasury of the United States. In effect, this took money collected from the patent system to use for the general budget. This fee diversion has been generally opposed by patent practitioners (e.g., patent attorneys and patent agents), inventors, the USPTO,^[76] as well as former federal judge Paul R. Michel.^[77] These stakeholders would rather use the funds to improve the patent office and patent system, such as by implementing the USPTO's 21st Century Strategic Plan.^[78] The last six annual budgets of the George W. Bush administration did not propose to divert any USPTO fees, and the first budget of the Barack Obama administration continued this practice,^[79] as well as the second budget of the Trump administration;^[80] however, stakeholders continue to press for a permanent end to fee diversion.^[81]

The discussion of which party can appropriate the fees is more than a financial question. Patent fees represent a policy lever that influences both the number of applications submitted to the office as well as their quality.^[82][83]

Patents

 

First United States patent

 

The National Inventors Hall of Fame is housed in the Madison Building of the USPTO.

• On July 31, 1790, the first U.S. patent was issued to Samuel Hopkins for an improvement "in the making of Pot ash and Pearl ash by a new Apparatus and Process". This patent was signed by then-President George Washington.
• The X-Patents (the first 9,957 (approximately),^[84] issued between 1790 and 1836) were destroyed by a fire; fewer than 3,000 of those have been recovered and re-issued with numbers that include an "X". The X generally appears at the end of the numbers hand-written on full-page patent images; however, in patent collections and for search purposes, the X is considered to be the patent type – analogous to the "D" of design patents – and appears at the beginning of the number. The X distinguishes the patents from those issued after the fire, which began again with patent number 1.
• Each year, the PTO issues over 150,000 patents to companies and individuals worldwide. As of December 2011^[update], the PTO had granted 8,743,423 patents and received 16,020,302 applications.^[85]
• On June 19, 2018, the 10 millionth U.S. patent was issued to Joseph Marron for invention of a "Coherent LADAR [System] Using Intra-Pixel Quadrature Detection" to improve laser detection and ranging (LADAR).^[86] The patent was the first to receive the newly redesigned patent cover. It was signed by then-President Donald Trump during a special ceremony at the Oval Office.^[87]

Trademarks

The USPTO examines applications for trademark registration, which can be filed under five different filing bases: use in commerce, intent to use, foreign application, foreign registration, or international registration.^[88] If approved, the trademarks are registered on either the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register, depending upon whether the mark meets the appropriate distinctiveness criteria. This federal system governs goods and services distributed via interstate commerce, and operates alongside state level trademark registration systems.^[89][90][91]

Trademark applications have grown substantially in recent years, jumping from 296,490 new applications in 2000,^[92] to 345,000 new applications in 2014, to 458,103 new applications in 2018.^[93] Recent growth has been driven partially by growing numbers of trademark applications originating in China; trademark applications from China have grown more than 12-fold since 2013, and in 2017, one in every nine trademark applications reviewed by the U.S. Trademark Office originated in China.^[94]

Since 2008, the Trademark Office has hosted a National Trademark Expo every two years, billing it as "a free, family-friendly event designed to educate the public about trademarks and their importance in the global marketplace."^[95] The Expo features celebrity speakers such as Anson Williams (of the television show Happy Days)^[96] and basketball player Kareem Abdul-Jabbar^[97] and has numerous trademark-holding companies as exhibitors. Before the 2009 National Trademark Expo, the Trademark Office designed and launched a kid-friendly trademark mascot known as T. Markey, who appears as an anthropomorphized registered trademark symbol.^[98] T. Markey is featured prominently on the Kids section of the USPTO website, alongside fellow IP mascots Ms. Pat Pending (with her robot cat GeaRS) and Mark Trademan.^[99]

In 2020, trademark applications marked the sharpest declines and inclines in American history. During the spring, COVID-19 lockdowns led to reduced filings, which then increased in July 2020 to exceed the previous year. August 2020 was subsequently the highest month of trademark filings in the history of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.^[100]

Representation

The USPTO only allows certain qualified persons to practice before the USPTO. Practice includes filing of patent and trademark applications on behalf of individuals and companies, prosecuting the patent and trademark applications, and participating in administrative appeals and other proceedings before the PTO examiners, examining attorneys and boards. The USPTO sets its own standards for who may practice. Any person who practices patent law before the USPTO must become a registered patent attorney or agent. A patent agent is a person who has passed the USPTO registration examination (the "patent bar") but has not passed any state bar exam to become a licensed attorney; a patent attorney is a person who has passed both a state bar and the patent bar and is in good standing as an attorney.^[101] A patent agent can only act in a representative capacity in patent matters presented to the USPTO, and may not represent a patent holder or applicant in a court of law. To be eligible for taking the patent bar exam, a candidate must possess a degree in "engineering or physical science or the equivalent of such a degree".^[101] Any person who practices trademark law before the USPTO must be an active member in good standing of the highest court of any state.^[102]

The United States allows any citizen from any country to sit for the patent bar (if he/she has the requisite technical background).^[103] Only Canada has a reciprocity agreement with the United States that confers upon a patent agent similar rights.^[104]

An unrepresented inventor may file a patent application and prosecute it on his or her own behalf (pro se). If it appears to a patent examiner that an inventor filing a pro se application is not familiar with the proper procedures of the Patent Office, the examiner may suggest that the filing party obtain representation by a registered patent attorney or patent agent.^[105] The patent examiner cannot recommend a specific attorney or agent, but the Patent Office does post a list of those who are registered.^[106]

While the inventor of a relatively simple-to-describe invention may well be able to produce an adequate specification and detailed drawings, there remains language complexity in what is claimed, either in the particular claim language of a utility application, or in the manner in which drawings are presented in a design application. There is also skill required when searching for prior art that is used to support the application and to prevent applying for a patent for something that may be unpatentable. A patent examiner will make special efforts to help pro se inventors understand the process but the failure to adequately understand or respond to an Office action from the USPTO can endanger the inventor's rights, and may lead to abandonment of the application.

Electronic filing system

The USPTO accepts patent applications filed in electronic form. Inventors or their patent agents/attorneys can file applications as Adobe PDF documents. Filing fees can be paid by credit card or by a USPTO "deposit account".

Patent search tools

 

The lobby of the Public Search Facility, looking out toward the atrium, inside the Madison Building of the USPTO. The bronze bust of Thomas Jefferson is at the far right. Researchers can access patent search databases within the facility.

The USPTO web site provides free electronic copies of issued patents and patent applications as multiple-page TIFF (graphic) documents. The site also provides Boolean search and analysis tools.^[107]

The USPTO's free distribution service only distributes the patent documents as a set of TIFF files.^[108] Numerous free and commercial services provide patent documents in other formats, such as Adobe PDF and CPC.

Criticisms

The USPTO has been criticized for granting patents for impossible or absurd, already known, or arguably obvious inventions.^[109] Economists have documented that, although the USPTO makes mistakes when granting patents, these mistakes might be less prominent than some might believe.^[110]

Controversial patents

• U.S. Patent 5,443,036, "Method of exercising a cat", covers having a cat chase the beam from a laser pointer. The patent has been criticized as being obvious.^[111][112]
• U.S. Patent 6,004,596, "Sealed crustless sandwich", issued in 1999, covers the design of a sandwich with crimped edges.^[111][113] However, all claims of the patent were subsequently canceled by the PTO upon reexamination.^[114]
• U.S. Patent 6,025,810, "Hyper-light-speed antenna", an antenna that sends signals faster than the speed of light.^[109] According to the description in the patent, "The present invention takes a transmission of energy, and instead of sending it through normal time and space, it pokes a small hole into another dimension, thus, sending the energy through a place which allows transmission of energy to exceed the speed of light."^[115]
• U.S. Patent 6,368,227, "Method of swinging on a swing", issued April 9, 2002,^[116][117] was granted to a seven-year-old boy, whose father, a patent attorney, wanted to demonstrate how the patent system worked to his son who was five years old at the time of the application. The PTO initially rejected it due to prior art, but eventually issued the patent.^[116] However, all claims of the patent were subsequently canceled by the PTO upon reexamination.^[118]
• U.S. Patent 6,960,975, "Space vehicle propelled by the pressure of inflationary vacuum state", describes an anti-gravity device. In November 2005, the USPTO was criticized by physicists for granting it. The journal Nature first highlighted this patent issued for a device that presumably amounts to a perpetual motion machine, defying the laws of physics.^{[119][120][121][122]} The device comprises a particular electrically superconducting shield and electromagnetic generating device. The examiner allowed the claims because the design of the shield and device was novel and not obvious.^[123] In situations such as this where a substantial question of patentability is raised after a patent is issued, the Commissioner of the Patent Office can order a reexamination of the patent.

Controversial trademarks

• U.S. Trademark 77,139,082, "Cloud Computing" for Dell, covering "custom manufacture of computer hardware for use in data centers and mega-scale computing environments for others", was allowed by a trademark attorney on July 8, 2008. Cloud computing is a generic term that could define technology infrastructure for years to come, which had been in general use at the time of the application.^[124] The application was rejected on August 12, 2008, as descriptive and generic.^[125]
• U.S. Trademark 75,215,401, "Netbook" for Psion, covering "laptop computers" was registered on November 21, 2000. Although the company discontinued the netBook line in November 2003 and allowed the trademark to become genericized through use by journalists and vendors (products marketed as 'netbooks' include the Dell Inspiron Mini Series, Asus eeePC, HP Mini 1000, MSI Wind Netbook and others), USPTO subsequently rejected a number of trademarks citing a "likelihood of confusion" under section 2(d), including 'G NETBOOK' (U.S. Trademark 77,527,311 rejected October 31, 2008), MSI's 'WIND NETBOOK' (U.S. Trademark ) and Coby Electronics' 'COBY NETBOOK' (U.S. Trademark 77,590,174) rejected January 13, 2009. Psion also delivered a batch of cease-and-desist letters on December 23, 2008, relating to the genericized trademark.^[126]

Slow patent examination and backlog

Main article: Backlog of unexamined patent applications

 

U.S. patents granted, 1790–2010.^[127]

 

More U.S. utility patents have been issued in the most recent thirty years than in the first 200 years in which they were issued (1790–1990).

The USPTO has been criticized for taking an inordinate amount of time in examining patent applications. This is particularly true in the fast-growing area^{[needs update]} of business method patents. As of 2005, patent examiners in the business method area were still examining patent applications filed in 2001.^{[citation needed]}

The delay was attributed by spokesmen for the Patent Office to a combination of a sudden increase in business method patent filings after the 1998 State Street Bank decision, the unfamiliarity of patent examiners with the business and financial arts (e.g., banking, insurance, stock trading etc.), and the issuance of a number of controversial patents (e.g., U.S. Patent 5,960,411 "Amazon one click patent") in the business method area.

Effective August 2006, the USPTO introduced an accelerated patent examination procedure in an effort to allow inventors a speedy evaluation of an application with a final disposition within twelve months. The procedure requires additional information to be submitted with the application and also includes an interview with the examiner.^[128] The first accelerated patent was granted on March 15, 2007, with a six-month issuance time.^[129]

As of the end of 2008, there were 1,208,076 patent applications pending at the Patent Office. At the end of 1997, the number of applications pending was 275,295. Therefore, over those eleven years there was a 439% increase in the number of pending applications.^[130]

December 2012 data showed that there was 597,579 unexamined patent applications in the backlog.^[131] During the four years since 2009, more than a 50% reduction was achieved. First action pendency was reported as 19.2 months.

Fraud by remote working employees

In 2012, the USPTO initiated an internal investigation into allegations of fraud by employees taking advantage of its remote work policies. Investigators discovered that some patent examiners had lied about the hours they had worked, but high level officials prevented access to computer records, thus limiting the number of employees who could be punished.^[132]

See also

Directors of the USPTO

1. List of people who have headed the United States Patent Office

...

r. Bruce Lehman (1993–1998)

s. Q. Todd Dickinson (1998–2001)

t. James E. Rogan (December 2001 – 2004)

u. Jon Dudas (2004 – January 2009)

v. John J. Doll (January 2009 – August 2009) (acting)

w. David J. Kappos (August 2009 – February 2013)

x. Teresa Stanek Rea (February 2013 – November 21, 2013) (acting)

y. Margaret A. (Peggy) Focarino (November 21, 2013 – January 12, 2014) (by delegation)

z. Michelle K. Lee (January 13, 2014 – June 6, 2017)

aa. Joseph Matal (June 7, 2017 – February 8, 2018) (acting)^[133]

bb. Andrei Iancu (February 8, 2018 – January 20, 2021)^[134]

cc. Kathi Vidal (2022–present)

• Confederate Patent Office
• Criticism of the United States government § Criticism of agencies
• Electronic Filing System (USPTO)
• Ex Parte Quayle
• Google Patents
• John Ruggles
• Invention Secrecy Act
• NASA spinoff
• National Inventors Hall of Fame
• Office of Independent Inventor Programs (1999)
• Old Patent Office Building
• Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)
• Patent model
• Patent Office Professional Association (POPA)
• Science and technology in the United States
• Technological history of the United States
• Timeline of United States discoveries
• Timeline of United States inventions
• Yankee ingenuity
• 1836 U.S. Patent Office fire
• 1877 U.S. Patent Office fire

References

1. "Records of the Patent and Trademark office". National Archives and Records Administration. August 15, 2016.
2. An act to promote the progress of the useful arts, and to repeal all acts and parts of acts heretofore made for that purpose, ch. 356, 5 Stat. 117 (1836)
3. "FY 2022 Agency Financial Report" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2023. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
4. "Derrick Brent". U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Retrieved September 13, 2022.
5. "Vaishali Udupa". U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
6. "David S. Gooder". U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Retrieved February 8, 2023.
7. Bohle, Shannon (February 2014). . Nature.com. Archived from the original on February 19, 2014. Retrieved February 19, 2014.
8. (PDF). United States Patent and Trademark Office. February 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 22, 2014. Retrieved February 19, 2014.
9. . The U.S. National Archives. January 2014. Archived from the original on January 25, 2014. Retrieved February 19, 2014.
10. . usptocareers.gov. Archived from the original on 14 October 2012. Retrieved 6 May 2018.
11. Public Information Services Group (September 27, 2009). "Visiting the USPTO – Map – Alexandria Headquarters". USPTO. from the original on January 8, 2015. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
12. "USPTO Alexandria Campus". USPTO. from the original on April 29, 2017. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
13. "Silicon Valley wins in securing U.S. patent office". SFGate. July 4, 2012. from the original on November 13, 2017. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
14. "Patent Reform Act of 2011 Amendment" (pdf). Congressional Record 112th Congress (2011–2012). (PDF) from the original on November 6, 2012. Retrieved March 5, 2011.
15. "USPTO to Open First Ever Satellite Office in Detroit" (pdf) (Press release). U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. December 16, 2010. from the original on June 30, 2012. Retrieved July 14, 2012.
16. Anders, Melissa (July 13, 2012). "Detroit beats Silicon Valley in opening first-ever patent office outside Washington, D.C." MLive.com. from the original on July 19, 2012. Retrieved July 13, 2012.
17. Markowitz, Eric (March 1, 2012). "What Does a Patent Office Mean For Detroit?". Inc.com. from the original on May 22, 2012. Retrieved July 10, 2012.
18. "Patent office prepares to open Detroit location". The Detroit News. Detroit, Michigan. Associated Press. July 11, 2012. Retrieved July 11, 2012.^{[permanent dead link]}
19. . NPR. Associated Press. Archived from the original on September 22, 2013. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
20. Office, Silicon Valley Regional. "Silicon Valley U.S. Patent and Trademark Office". United States Patent and Trademark Office. from the original on January 8, 2015. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
21. (PDF). United States Patent and Trademark Office. p. 140. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 3, 2011. Retrieved January 16, 2010.
22. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 17" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on January 15, 2019. Retrieved January 14, 2019.
23. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2021" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on June 22, 2022. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
24. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2020" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on March 22, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
25. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2019" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
26. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2018" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
27. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2017" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
28. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2016" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
29. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2015" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on April 5, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
30. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2014" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
31. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2013" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
32. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2012" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
33. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2011" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on April 1, 2022. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
34. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2010" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on February 16, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
35. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2009" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
36. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2008" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
37. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2007" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
38. "Performance & Accountability Report FY 2006" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
39. "PTO at a glance / Acknowledgements". USPTO. from the original on July 4, 2022. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
40. "1996 Annual Review - Additional Information". USPTO. from the original on March 31, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
41. "Table 2. Patent Applications Filed". USPTO. from the original on March 23, 2021. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
42. "Table 17. Trademark Applications Filed". USPTO. from the original on March 23, 2021. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
43. "Setting The Course For Our Future - A Patent and Trademark Office Review - Fiscal Year 1995" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
44. "Working for Our Customers - A Patent and Trademark Office Review - Fiscal Year 1994" (PDF). USPTO. (PDF) from the original on May 16, 2023. Retrieved June 22, 2023.
45. "1705 Examiner Docket, Time, and Activity Recordation [R-5] – 1700 Miscellaneous". United States Patent and Trademark Office. from the original on May 28, 2010. Retrieved January 29, 2010.
46. . United States Patent and Trademark Office. Archived from the original on April 23, 2012. Retrieved January 12, 2012.
47. "Patent Organization". United States Patent and Trademark Office. from the original on September 25, 2009. Retrieved January 29, 2010.
48. "Office of the Commissioner for Patents". United States Patent and Trademark Office. December 30, 2009. from the original on May 28, 2010. Retrieved January 29, 2010.
49. 35 U.S.C. § 145.
50. Kappos, David (September 18, 2012). "PTAB Submissions Have Commenced". USPTO. from the original on May 13, 2017. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
51. . United States Patent and Trademark Office. Archived from the original on April 23, 2007.
52. (PDF). United States Patent and Trademark Office. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 10, 2009. Retrieved April 23, 2009.
53. (PDF). United States Patent and Trademark Office. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 10, 2009. Retrieved April 23, 2009.
54. Crouch, Dennis (April 12, 2009). "Economic Downturn => Downturn in Patent Filings". Patently-O. from the original on April 15, 2009. Retrieved April 13, 2009.
55. Quinn, Gene (March 23, 2009). "Patent Academy Closing, USPTO Budget Crisis Deepening?". IPWatchdog. from the original on July 21, 2011. Retrieved April 13, 2009.
56. Quinn, Gene (March 2, 2009). "PTO Hiring Freeze and Budget Problems". IPWatchdog. from the original on July 21, 2011. Retrieved April 13, 2009.
57. . USPTO. Archived from the original on May 11, 2009. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
58. Quinn, Gene (May 12, 2009). "An Interview with the Acting Commissioner for Patents". IPWatchdog. from the original on May 17, 2009. Retrieved May 24, 2009.
59. (PDF). United States Patent and Trademark Office. p. 14. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 3, 2011. Retrieved January 16, 2010.
60. "Girl Scouts' IP Patch is helpful program for encouraging STEM education". IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law. January 6, 2017. from the original on January 15, 2019. Retrieved January 14, 2019.
61. "USPTO Kids". USPTO. from the original on January 9, 2019. Retrieved January 14, 2019.
62. Brittain, Blake (October 26, 2021). "Biden nominates Winston & Strawn partner Kathi Vidal to lead USPTO". Reuters.
63. "USPTO Welcomes New Director Kathi Vidal". United States Patent and Trademark Office. April 13, 2022. Retrieved April 13, 2022.
64. "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY USPTO Has Made Progress in Hiring Examiners, but Challenges to Retention Remain" (PDF). www.gao.gov. (PDF) from the original on August 31, 2023. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
65. . Office of Personnel Management. December 1997. Archived from the original on October 31, 2020.
66. . Office of Personnel Management. December 31, 1997. Archived from the original on December 9, 2018.
67. . Office of Personnel Management. Archived from the original on December 3, 2006.
68. (PDF). Office of Personnel Management. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 16, 2013.
69. (PDF). Office of Personnel Management. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 16, 2013.
70. . Office of Personnel Management. Archived from the original on December 19, 2008.
71. (PDF). Office of Personnel Management. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 27, 2017.
72. (PDF). Office of Personnel Management. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 3, 2021.
73. "SPECIAL RATE TABLE Number 0576". Office of Personnel Management. from the original on May 31, 2023.
74. "Salary table 2023-GS" (PDF). Office of Personnel Management. (PDF) from the original on March 25, 2023.
75. "Salary table 2023-DCB" (PDF). Office of Personnel Management. (PDF) from the original on March 31, 2023.
76. "President's proposed budget ends USPTO fee diversion in FY 2005" (Press release). United States Patent and Trademark Office. February 2, 2004. from the original on January 6, 2007. Retrieved November 24, 2006.
77. Interview With Chief Judge Paul R. Michel On US Patent Reform 2011-08-20 at the Wayback Machine, Intellectual Property Watch, July 19, 2011. Consulted on August 8, 2011.
78. . United States Patent and Trademark Office. February 24, 2006. Archived from the original on December 25, 2006. Retrieved November 24, 2006.
79. Zuhn, Donald (May 20, 2009). "Docs at BIO: Panel Offers Suggestions for Fixing the USPTO – Updated". PatentDocs.org. from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved May 24, 2009.
80. "USPTO gets $3.6 billion in President's FY 2018 budget, avoids fee diversion". IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law. May 23, 2017. Retrieved May 27, 2022.
81. "Diversion of USPTO user fees is a tax on innovation". IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law. May 17, 2016. Retrieved May 27, 2022.
82. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan; van Pottelsberghe, Bruno (2012). "On the price elasticity of demand for patents" (PDF). Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 74 (1): 58–77. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2011.00638.x. S2CID 43660064. (PDF) from the original on August 9, 2017. Retrieved February 16, 2021.
83. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan; Jaffe, Adam (2018). "Are patent fees effective at weeding out low-quality patents?" (PDF). Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. 27 (1): 134–148. doi:10.1111/jems.12219. S2CID 158435358.
84. "Anniversary of the First Patent Issued in the United States".
85. "U.S. Patent Activity Calendar Years 1790 to the Present". United States Patent and Trademark Office. December 12, 2012. from the original on December 2, 2012. Retrieved December 12, 2012.
86. "United States Issues Patent Number 10,000,000". June 19, 2018. from the original on June 19, 2018. Retrieved June 21, 2018.
87. @uspto (June 19, 2018). "Today, @POTUS signed patent ten..." (Tweet) – via Twitter.
88. Trademarks. "Basis for Filing". USPTO. from the original on January 15, 2019. Retrieved January 14, 2019.
89. "State Trademark Information". FindLaw For Small Business. February 11, 2008. from the original on March 2, 2008. Retrieved February 11, 2008.
90. "Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)". United States Patent and Trademark Office. February 11, 2008. from the original on September 3, 2010. Retrieved February 11, 2008. Note: click on "Trademarks" then click on "TESS" tab.
91. "Trademark FAQs". United States Patent and Trademark Office. from the original on September 12, 2015. Retrieved September 14, 2015.
92. "USPTO Annual Report FY2000" (PDF). USPTO.gov. (PDF) from the original on April 24, 2018. Retrieved January 14, 2019.
93. Erik (January 6, 2019). "USPTO received more than 458,000 trademark applications in 2018 – a new record, but slower growth". Erik M Pelton & Associates, PLLC. Retrieved January 14, 2019.
94. Gershman, Jacob (May 5, 2018). "Flood of Trademark Applications From China Alarms U.S. Officials". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved January 14, 2019.
95. Trademarks. "About the USPTO's National Trademark Exposition". USPTO. from the original on January 15, 2019. Retrieved January 14, 2019.
96. Trademarks. "2014 National Trademark Expo". USPTO. from the original on January 15, 2019. Retrieved January 14, 2019.
97. Trademarks 1532700000 to 1532813400. "2018 National Trademark Exposition". USPTO. from the original on January 15, 2019. Retrieved January 14, 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
98. Thu, Dec 4th 2014 1:38pm-Tim Cushing (December 4, 2014). "USPTO Acts Like A Three-Letter Agency, Redacts A Bunch Of Stuff About Its Kid-Friendly 'T. Markey' Character". Techdirt. from the original on January 15, 2019. Retrieved January 14, 2019.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
99. "USPTO Kids". USPTO. from the original on December 3, 2018. Retrieved January 14, 2019.
100. "USPTO Director Andrei Iancu speaks on pandemic's effect on intellectual property". americanbar.org. American Bar Association. October 30, 2020. from the original on October 11, 2020. Retrieved October 2, 2020.
101. "General Information Concerning Patents: Attorneys and Agents". United States Patent and Trademark Office. from the original on January 23, 2010. Retrieved January 29, 2010.
102. "Becoming a trademark practitioner". United States Patent and Trademark Office. USPTO. from the original on December 6, 2018. Retrieved December 5, 2018.
103. "37 CFR 11.7 – Requirements for registration". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
104. (PDF). May 9, 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2010. Retrieved January 29, 2010.
105. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Chapter 400 2005-11-27 at the Wayback Machine
106. "Patent Attorney/Agent Search". Office of Enrollment and Discipline, United States Patent and Trademark Office. from the original on October 15, 2011. Retrieved October 17, 2011.
107. Nowotarski, Mark, "Searching the USPTO patent database", Insurance IP Bulletin, February 2012 2012-03-09 at the Wayback Machine
108. "PatFT Full-Text Images". USPTO. from the original on September 1, 2013. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
109. Philip E. Ross, Patently Absurd 2017-07-29 at the Wayback Machine, Forbes.com, May 29, 2000.
110. de Rassenfosse, Gaetan; Griffiths, William; Jaffe, Adam; Webster, Elizabeth (2020). "Low-Quality Patents in the Eye of the Beholder: Evidence from Multiple Examiners". Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 37 (3): 607–636. doi:10.1093/jleo/ewaa026.
111. Hal H. Varian (October 21, 2004). "Patent Protection Gone Awry". The New York Times. from the original on May 28, 2015.
112. Lauren Weinstein (October 21, 2002). "Stop the Patent Process Madness". Wired News. from the original on January 19, 2014.
113. Sara Schaefer Muñoz (April 5, 2005). "Patent No. 6,004,596: Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich". The Wall Street Journal. from the original on July 10, 2017.
114. Reexamination certificate no. US 6,004,596 C1, September 25, 2007, retrieved from USPTO Public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) 2009-01-14 at the Wayback Machine, December 1, 2008 (request PAIR entry for Reexamination Control Number 90/005949 as "Application Number").
115. U.S. Patent 6,025,810, col. 1, lines 30–34.
116. Jeff Hecht (April 17, 2002). "Boy takes swing at US patents". New Scientist. from the original on May 14, 2011.
117. Teresa Riordan (May 13, 2002). "Patents; The Patent Office faces huge backlogs, extremely technical inventions, and absurd ones". The New York Times. from the original on March 16, 2017.
118. Reexamination certificate no. US 6,368,227 C1, July 1, 2003, retrieved from USPTO Public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) 2009-01-14 at the Wayback Machine, August 22, 2008
119. Ball, Philip (November 10, 2005). "Antigravity craft slips past patent officers". Nature. 438 (7065): 139. Bibcode:2005Natur.438Q.139B. doi:10.1038/438139a. PMID 16280998.
120. United Press International (2005). "Patent issued for anti-gravity device". Phyorg.com. from the original on December 10, 2006. Retrieved November 24, 2006.
121. Brian Handwerk (November 11, 2005). . National Geographic News. Archived from the original on November 14, 2006. Retrieved November 24, 2006.
122. An untraceable link was also included here as an additional reference.^{[full citation needed]} December 4, 2005, at the Wayback Machine
123. Ramon M Barrera (examiner) (June 7, 2005). "Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)" (PDF). 11/079,670 Space Vehicle Propelled by the Pressure of Inflationary Vacuum State. United States Patent and Trademark Office. p. 2. (PDF) from the original on February 1, 2016. Retrieved September 5, 2014. Note: Navigate to the 'Image File Wrapper' to find the file; download and open with a PDF reader. The specific passage from the document follows: "The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: None of the prior art of record taught or disclosed the claimed superconducting shield and electromagnetic field generating means structure."
124. Shah, Agam. "Dell Tries to Trademark 'cloud Computing'". cio.com. from the original on April 16, 2014. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
125. "Dell Cloud Computing Trademark Rejected". eweek.com. August 19, 2008. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
126. . Archived from the original on February 5, 2009.
127. "U.S. Patent Activity 1790 to the Present". USPTO. from the original on December 2, 2012. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help).
128. "Accelerated Examination". USPTO. from the original on September 16, 2009. Retrieved May 6, 2018.
129. USPTO grants first patent under accelerated review option 2007-04-28 at the Wayback Machine Press Release
130. Gene Quinn, How to Fix the USPTO 2009-03-27 at the Wayback Machine, IPWatchdog, November 21, 2008. Consulted on December 6, 2008.
131. "United States Patent and Trademark Office". from the original on February 20, 2013. Retrieved February 23, 2013. December 2012 Patents Data
132. Rein, Lisa (August 10, 2014). "Patent office filters out worst telework abuses in report to its watchdog". The Washington Post. from the original on August 12, 2014.
133. "Joseph Matal". from the original on June 26, 2017. Retrieved June 15, 2017.
134. Fucito, Paul (February 8, 2018). "Andrei Iancu Begins Role as New Director of United States Patent and Trademark Office". U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. from the original on February 10, 2018. Retrieved February 16, 2018.

Further reading

• Dobyns, Kenneth W. (November 1994). The Patent Office Pony: A History of the Early Patent Office (1st ed.). Fredericksburg, Virginia: Sergeant Kirkland's Museum and Historical Society. p. 249. ISBN 0-9632137-4-1. ISBN 978-0-9632137-4-7.
• Schacht, Wendy H. (January 6, 2011). "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Appropriations Process: A Brief Explanation" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved April 22, 2011.

External links

 

Wikimedia Commons has media related to United States Patent and Trademark Office.

• Official website
• USPTO in the Federal Register
• Searches (USPTO)
• Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) search by trademark serial number or registration number (USPTO)
• Office of Enrollment & Discipline (OED)
• Patent and Trademark Depository Library Program
• Stopfakes.gov Small Business Resources
• Patent Full-Text and Full-Page Image Databases (USPTO)
• Works by United States Patent Office at Project Gutenberg
• Works by or about United States Patent and Trademark Office at Internet Archive