Patent Process Overview - Utility Patents
by Marin Cionca
Patent Search (USPTO) and Opinion Letter.
A patent search on the USPTO database, conducted before filing a provisional application for patent, may reveal identical or similar inventions, for which someone else already owns, or has applied for, a US patent. Therefore, the search report and the accompanying patentability opinion letter, drafted by a registered patent attorney, may help you, among other things, (1) assess the patentability of your invention when compared with existing US patents (should you move forward with your application as it stands?), (2) redraft your provisional patent application so that the invention you claim is different than existing US patents, and (3) determine what the direction of your invention development should be.
While we strongly recommend a patent search prior to filing, because of the relatively low-cost associated with the filing of a provisional application for patent, some people prefer to go ahead and file without a prior search. However, without a patent search, the benefits enumerated above are lost, and furthermore, [especially] if skipped now, a patent search will have to be conducted a few months later, before filing the non-provisional application. Also, please note that the patent search is conducted normally only on the USPTO database, which means that, in most instances, 85-90% of the prior art pertinent to your invention will be uncovered. Of course, with additional funding, the search could be expanded, as for example, to EPO and/or technical literature.
Provisional Application for Patent (PAP).
Filing a provisional application for patent (PAP) is optional. The inventor can file directly a non-provisional application. Furthermore, a PAP never matures into a patent. A patent can be obtained only by filing a non-provisional application. The non-provisional application, if not filed directly, has to be filed within 12 months of the PAP filing. However, the filing of a PAP has some benefits some of which are presented below:
- "Patent Pending." For 12 months, it allows the term "Patent Pending" to be used in connection with the description of the invention or products sold.
- Low Cost Filing. Since 1995, the provisional patent application provides a low-cost, first patent filing option in the United States. As of the date of this writing, if the inventor is a small entity, the filing fee is only $110. [In this context, small entity means independent inventor(s), a small business (with less than 500 employees), or a nonprofit organization eligible for reduced patent fees].
- Early Effective Filing Date. The filing of a provisional patent application provides the means to establish an early effective filing date in a later-filed non-provisional [full] patent application. The non-provisional application must be filed within 12 months.
- 12 Months of Additional Patent Term. By filing a provisional application first, and then filing a corresponding non-provisional application that claims the benefit of the provisional application within the 12-month provisional application pendency period, the 20 years utility patent term may be effectively extended by as much as 12 months.
When deciding whether or not to file a PAP, the above benefits, should be balanced against other considerations, such as, the additional cost for obtaining the patent caused by the PAP and the delay in obtaining the actual patent. Furthermore, care should be given when preparing and filing a PAP. Although the PAP's description and drawings can be less formal, a poorly prepared PAP may cause serious problems later, including the loss of the right to a patent.
Non-Provisional Application for Patent (N-PAP).
As noted earlier, the non-provisional application for patent (N-PAP) is the patent application which will eventually mature into a patent. Unlike a PAP, a N-PAP has to have formal drawings, an abstract, at least one claim, and other components, which are not required in a PAP. That's why, the N-PAP is often called the FULL application for patent, and obviously it takes longer to prepare, and consequently, it costs more.
The most important part of the N-PAP is the one containing the claims. The claims are the ones that ultimately define the invention. Therefore, considerable amount of time is generally spent with the drafting of the claims. In addition, in the claims area, more often than not, the "battle" between the patent examiner and the patent attorney takes place. One or more office actions are generally issued, and the patent attorney has to prepare appropriate responses. If the problems cannot be resolved between the examiner and the patent attorney, petitions, and/or appeals have to be filed, further delaying the patent issuance and increasing the cost of obtaining a patent.
Patent Issuance.
If the patent examiner accepts the N-PAP as filed, or, after all the objections and rejections are resolved, the patent is granted. A patent issuance fee is assessed and has to be paid to the USPTO.
PATENT and IP Law Blog
-
Marin Cionca9/13/2023 2:06:32 PM
So, who owns the “X” trademark? Is it Facebook or is it Elon Musk and his Twitter?
More -
-
Marin Cionca6/1/2023 11:29:01 PM
CIONCA IP WINS AT TTAB CANCELATION OF TRADEMARK REGISTRATION FOR ORANGE COUNTY CLIENT
More -
CIONCA IP - MC4/1/2023 5:21:45 PM
UNICOLORS, INC. v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ L. P. – A Synopsis of a Copyright Infringement Case
More -
CIONCA IP - MC1/14/2023 2:21:06 PM
Broad specification or broad claims in a patent application?
More -
-
-
CIONCA IP (MC)7/13/2022 5:27:56 PM
Who is the owner of the trademark? Priority and Senior User Disputes
More -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
CIONCA IP TEAM (JM)10/8/2020 2:57:24 PM
Royal Crown Company Inc., Dr. Pepper/Seven Up Inc., v The Coca-Cola Company
More -
CIONCA IP TEAM (SG)10/6/2020 2:42:35 PM
Apple, Inc., v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.: Sanction Orders and Obviousness
More -
-
CIONCA IP Team9/15/2020 5:11:49 PM
Comparing Apples to Apples: TTAB on In re Horizon Group USA, Inc.
More -
-
CIONCA IP Team8/31/2020 12:09:17 PM
Blackbird Tech LLC, DBA Blackbird Technologies, v. Fitbit, Inc., Wahoo Fitness LLC: Obviousness
More -
-
CIONCA IP Team7/20/2020 7:40:21 PM
Fitbit Inc. v. Valencell Inc.: Joint Parties in IPR Proceeding
More -
-
CIONCA IP 5/19/2020 7:36:30 PM
Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc.: “Obvious to Try” Rationale
More -
-
-
CIONCA IP3/16/2020 8:43:10 PM
GS CleanTech Corporation v. Adkins Energy, LLC: Inequitable Conduct
More -
CIONCA IP3/10/2020 7:45:30 PM
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Mobile Inc.
More -
Marin Cionca2/9/2020 7:46:10 PM
Analogous Prior Art or Not? A critical patent obviousness question
More -
-
CIONCA IP 1/9/2020 4:43:58 PM
The Bigger Picture: TTAB’s Decision in In re James Haden, M.D., P.A.
More -
-
-
-
CIONCA IP10/16/2019 1:28:13 PM
To Use or Not to Use: The Statutory Period of Trademark Nonuse Prior to Presumed Abandonment
More -
-
-
CIONCA Team Member9/4/2019 7:20:46 PM
Guangdong Alison Hi-Tech Co. v. International Trade Commission: Objective Boundaries
More -
CIONCA Team Member8/19/2019 7:46:17 PM
In re Yarnell Ice Cream, LLC: Trademark Descriptiveness and Acquired Distinction
More -
CIONCA Team Member8/5/2019 2:29:33 PM
Is Speculation Enough Evidence for an Appeal?: General Electric Company v. United Technologies Corporation
More -
CIONCA Team Member7/5/2019 2:22:42 PM
In re: Global IP Holdings LLC: Broadening Claims Through Reissue Applications
More -
CIONCA Team Member6/27/2019 7:41:52 PM
Obviousness in a Single Prior Art Instance: Game and Technology Co., LTD., v. Activision Blizzard INC., Riot Games, INC.
More -
-
-
-
Marin Cionca4/17/2019 3:48:33 PM
What Qualifies as Proper Use in Commerce Claim in a USPTO Trademark Application?
More -
CIONCA Team Member4/3/2019 7:25:37 PM
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Designates Three Decisions Precedential
More -
CIONCA Team Member3/21/2019 3:49:43 PM
Defining Inherency: A Decision in Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
More -
-
CIONCA Team Member2/19/2019 7:12:46 PM
Revised Guidance by USPTO on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility and Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claims
More -
CIONCA Team Member2/5/2019 7:22:27 PM
TiVo Puts Tivoli on Pause: TTAB’s Decision in TiVo Brands LLC v. Tivoli, LLC
More -
Marin Cionca1/23/2019 9:45:30 PM
Patent Law Alert: All Sales of the Invention, Including Secret Sales May Invalidate a Patent
More -
CIONCA Team Member1/4/2019 4:12:21 PM
In re: Tropp: New Matter in a Continuation Can Be Relevant to Written Description Requirement
More -
CIONCA Team Member12/18/2018 6:12:48 PM
Schlafly v. The Saint Louis Brewery: The Registration of Merely a Surname
More -
-
-
CIONCA Team Member10/16/2018 6:50:31 PM
A Double-Edged Sword: Benefit of Priority or Longer Patent Term
More -
-
CIONCA Team Member9/17/2018 4:33:20 PM
Trademarks and Likelihood of Confusion: Federal Circuit’s Decision in In re: Detroit Athletic Co.
More -
Staff8/31/2018 7:26:58 PM
Patent Claim Interpretation By Federal Circuit's on Facebook's Contiguous Image Layout
More -
Staff8/16/2018 4:24:01 PM
Correcting or Changing a Patent After Issue Through the Central Reexamination Unit
More -
-
-
-
-
CIONCA Staff4/20/2018 5:25:25 PM
USPTO Changes Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility in View of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.
More -
CIONCA Staff4/13/2018 9:10:04 PM
It Take Two to Tango: Knowles v. Iancu, a Standing Dispute in a PTAB Decision
More -
-
3/8/2018 1:25:46 PM
Proceed with Caution: Consider Carefully when Narrowing Claims for Allowance
More -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
staff9/27/2017 5:00:12 PM
Claim Indefiniteness During Patent Pre-Issuance: Define Your Invention, Not Just Your Audience
More -
-
CIONCA Staff8/20/2017 3:16:11 PM
CIONCA on Patents: Think Twice Before Suing for Patent Infringement and Fight Back when Unreasonably Sued
More -
CIONCA - Staff8/9/2017 5:39:58 PM
Patent Case Study: The Novelty Of An “Invention” Is NOT Enough To Make It Patentable
More -
CIONCA - Staff6/28/2017 8:26:07 PM
Patent Law: Conditions Precedent May Expose Method Claim to Broad Interpretation During Prosecution
More -
CIONCA - Staff6/15/2017 5:32:14 PM
Patent Law: Challenging the Patent Claim Definiteness Requirement
More -
-
Marin Cionca2/21/2017 12:30:52 AM
Software Patent Law Update: Federal Circuit Finds Graphical User Interface Patentable
More -
Marin Cionca9/15/2016 9:47:39 PM
Patent Law Alert: Federal Circuit Opens Door for More Software Patents
More -
Marin Cionca9/6/2016 9:26:12 PM
Patent Case Law: New Example of Software as Patentable Subject Matter
More -
Iris Kim, PhD6/1/2016 7:04:50 PM
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates Five More Decisions as Precedential
More -
-
Iris Kim, PhD3/25/2016 8:34:14 PM
Challenging a Claim’s Validity with Different Standards of Claim Construction
More -
I. Kim PhD2/26/2016 8:47:51 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court Will Review Claim Construction Standards and Institution Decision Reviewability.
More -
Marin Cionca2/16/2016 6:34:53 PM
In IPRs, patentees have to show that substitute patent claims are patentable
More -
-
Marin1/28/2016 9:15:16 PM
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Designates Two Decisions as Precedential
More -
-
-
-
Marin11/18/2015 6:15:40 PM
Covered Business Method Claims Are Not Required to Particularly Target Financial Industry
More -
CONTACT INFO
TOLL FREE 800-454-1360-
GET IN TOUCH - SEE MORE CONTACT INFO
