A patent examiner (or, historically, a patent clerk[1]) is an employee, usually a civil servant with a scientific or engineering background, working at a patent office.
Patent examiners review patent applications to determine whether the invention(s) claimed in each of them should be granted a patent or whether the application should instead be refused. One of the most important tasks of a patent examiner is to review the disclosure in the application and to compare it to the prior art. This involves reading and understanding a patent application, searching the prior art (including prior patent applications and patents, scientific literaturedatabases, etc.) to determine what contribution the invention makes over the prior art, and issuing office actions to explain to the applicants and their representatives (i.e., patent attorneys or agents) any objections that may exist against the grant of a patent. In other words, an examiner reviews a patent application substantively to determine whether it complies with the legal requirements for granting of a patent. A claimed invention must meet patentability requirements of novelty, inventive step or non-obviousness, industrial application (or utility) and sufficiency of disclosure.
Examiners are expected to be efficient in their work and to determine patentability within a limited amount of time. Some patent applications are easy for an examiner to assess, but others require considerably more time. This has given rise to controversy: On April 13, 2007, a "Coalition of Patent Examiner Representatives" expressed concern that
in many patent offices, the pressures on examiners to produce and methods of allocating work have reduced the capacity of examiners to provide the quality of examination the peoples of the world deserve [and that] the combined pressures of higher productivity demands, increasingly complex patent applications and an ever-expanding body of relevant patent and non-patent literature have reached such a level that, unless serious measures are taken, meaningful protection of intellectual property throughout the world may, itself, become history.[2]
Offices
European Patent Office
Patent examiners at the European Patent Office (EPO) carry out examination and opposition procedures for patent applications originating anywhere in the world and seeking protection in any of the member states of the European Patent Organisation. The process involves a search for existing documentation in the technical area of the application (prior art) and communication with the applicant in order to bring the application in line with the legal requirements of the European Patent Convention. For every patent application, a division formed by three examiners must decide whether the application is granted or not, and in which scope.
EPO examiners are organized in a branched structured by their technical field of expertise and examine patent applications in three official languages, English, French, and German. They are recruited among nationals of the member states and work in one of the EPO offices in Munich, The Hague and Berlin.
Candidates for examiner positions must meet certain minimum requirements:
EPO member state nationality;
degree in engineering or in science;
good knowledge of two languages out of German, English and French with a willingness to learn the third.[3]
Some examiners have work experience in industry, but such experience is not required.[3] EPO examiners are also reportedly required to speak three languages fluently.[4][5]
Most EPO examiners are represented by SUEPO, a trade union.[6]
Responsibilities for a patent examiner at the USPTO include:
reviewing patent applications to determine if they comply with basic format, rules and legal requirements;
determining the scope of the invention claimed by the inventor;
searching for relevant technologies to compare similar prior inventions with the invention claimed in the patent application; and
communicating findings as to the patentability of an applicant's invention via a written action to inventors/patent practitioners.
Biweekly Production Report
Examiners are hired at the GS-5, GS-7, GS-9 or GS-11 grade levels.[7][8]
Patent examiners in the U.S. have responsibilities that are commensurate with their GS level. Promotions from GS-7 to GS-14 are non-competitive. At GS-13 they are eligible to start the "Partial Signatory Authority" program, a testing phase to see if an examiner can apply patent concepts (e.g. obviousness and novelty) and laws (35 USC). Upon passing the "Partial Signatory Program", a patent examiner is given signatory authority to sign all of their own non-final rejections and other non-final communications to applicants. After a waiting period a patent examiner may take part in an additional testing phase known as the "Full Signatory Authority" (FSA) program. When a patent examiner has passed the FSA program, they are given "Full Signatory Authority" and can sign all of their own "office actions" (e.g. allowances, rejections) without review and approval by a supervisor. Such examiners are also able to review and sign actions of "junior examiners" (patent examiners without signatory authority). Upon completion of the "Full Signatory Authority program", an examiner is advanced from GS-13 to GS-14 and is referred to as a "primary examiner".[9]
Supervisors at the USPTO are GS-15 employees who are necessarily primary examiners now called Supervisory Patent Examiners (formerly Supervisory Primary Examiners) (SPE, colloquially called "spee"). They apply for positions competitively and receive management training inside the office. They are responsible for an Art Unit of patent examiners, typically 8-15 examiners who examine cases in the same area of technology (e.g. GPS devices and aircraft are handled by different art units). Responsibilities include training new examiners, reviewing and signing office actions of junior examiners and acting as an advocate of the examiners they are responsible for to a variety of parties (e.g. other managers in the office, patent applicants and their attorneys). They are the lowest rung of the USPTO's management chain of command, and the only part of management that is paid as part of the general schedule (GS). Higher paid managers are part of the Senior Executive Service and are technically political appointees. For example, a primary examiner (GS-14) and her SPE (GS-15) are part of the general schedule and cannot be fired as part of an administration change, but the SPE's boss (a "technology center" director paid at SES-1), can be asked to resign by the president, at his pleasure.
According to the USPTO, an examiner is measured entirely by his own performance, without regard to the performance of others.[10] The two most important performance statistics are referred to as "production" (the number of applications processed in the allotted time) and "docket management" (compliance with goals for responding to applicant communications within the allotted time). Legal, technical and automation training is provided to examiners at the USPTO.
To work as an examiner at the USPTO, a person must be a U.S. citizen and pass a background investigation.[11] Examiners also must have a college degree in engineering or science.[11] The Technology Centers at the USPTO are divided into chemistry, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering, so college degrees in these areas are typically preferred. In recent years,[when?] however, new technologies have been important areas of innovation, so the USPTO employs people with training in biotechnology, business methods, geology, mathematics, and many other disciplines.
Experienced examiners have an option of working primarily from home through a hoteling program implemented in 2006 by the USPTO.[12]
A 2023 study looked into how political preferences of USPTO examiners affect their propensity to allow patent claims.[13] They found no statistically significant difference except for the case when the most politically active examiners (i.e. those who donate to political campaigns) examine software patents (i.e. in the Art Units where the examiners have the most discretion). In this case Republican-leaning examiners are more likely to issue patents than Democratically-leaning examiners.
The first person to record the work of Black American inventors, Henry E. Baker Jr. entered the U.S. Naval Academy in 1874 as only the third Black person to ever attend. He later became Second Assistant at the U.S. patent office and published several works on Black inventors and their societal contributions.
↑ Partisan patent examiners? Exploring the link between the political ideology of patent examiners and patent office outcomes. 2023. Res Policy. 52/9. J. Raffiee, F. Teodoridis, D. Fehder. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104853.
↑ "TRIZ was invented and structured by Genrich Altshuller, a patent examiner for the Russian navy." in Praveen Gupta, The Six Sigma Performance Handbook: A Statistical Guide to Optimizing Results, McGraw-Hill Professional, 2004, page 278, ISBN0-07-143764-9
↑ "In 1946, a 20-year-old Soviet patent clerk in Russia named Genrich Altshuller..." in Peter Middleton, James Sutton, Lean Software Strategies: proven techniques for managers and developers, Productivity Press, 2005, page 159, ISBN1-56327-305-5
↑ "Clara Barton, the founder of the Red Cross, held a regular civil service appointment as a patent clerk as early as 1854." in B. Zorina Khan, The Democratization of Invention: patents and copyrights in American economic development, 1790-1920, Cambridge University Press, 2005, page 136, note 25. ISBN0-521-81135-X
↑ "Called the “Angel of the Battlefield,” Clara Barton was a former teacher and patent clerk..." in Alan Axelrod, The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Civil War, Alpha Books, 2003, page 147, ISBN1-59257-132-8
↑ "Clara Barton, a former teacher and patent clerk, ..." in Fred D. Cavinder, More Amazing Tales from Indiana, Indiana University Press, 2003, page 79, ISBN0-253-21653-2
↑ Thomas P. Hugues, Einstein, Inventors, and Invention in R. S. (Robert Sonne) Cohen, Mara Beller, Jürgen Renn, Einstein in Context: A Special Issue of Science in Context, Cambridge University Press, 1993, page 25, ISBN0-521-44834-4
↑ Thomas T. Gordon, Arthur S. Cookfair, Patent Fundamentals for Scientists and Engineers, CRC Press, 2000, page 13, ISBN1-56670-517-7
↑ Healey, Tim (1983). Extraordinary Inventions. Reader's Digest Association Limited. pp.44–46.
↑ Baker, Henry E. (January 1, 1917). "The Negro in the Field of Invention". The Journal of Negro History. 2 (1): 21–36. doi:10.2307/2713474. ISSN 0022-2992. JSTOR 2713474.
↑ Baker, Henry E. (1913). The Colored Inventor: A Record of Fifty Years. New York City: The Crisis Publishing Company.
↑ Baker, Henry E. (1902). "The Negro as an Inventor". In Daniel Wallace Culp (ed.). Twentieth Century Negro Literature; Or, A Cyclopedia of Thought on the Vital Topics Relating to the American Negro. Naperville, Illinois; Toronto: J.L. Nichols & Company. pp. 398–413. ISBN 9780598621122.
Report to Congressional Committees 2005 "USPTO Has Made Progress in Hiring Examiners, but Challenges to Retention Remain" " "
Related Research Articles
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.
Prior art is a concept in patent law used to determine the patentability of an invention, in particular whether an invention meets the novelty and the inventive step or non-obviousness criteria for patentability. In most systems of patent law, prior art is generally defined as anything that is made available, or disclosed, to the public that might be relevant to a patent's claim before the effective filing date of a patent application for an invention. However, notable differences exist in how prior art is specifically defined under different national, regional, and international patent systems.
A person having ordinary skill in the art, a person of (ordinary) skill in the art, a person skilled in the art, a skilled addressee or simply a skilled person is a legal fiction found in many patent laws throughout the world. This hypothetical person is considered to have the normal skills and knowledge in a particular technical field, without being a genius. This measure mainly serves as a reference for determining, or at least evaluating, whether an invention is non-obvious or not, or involves an inventive step or not. If it would have been obvious for this fictional person to come up with the invention while starting from the prior art, then the particular invention is considered not patentable.
Within the context of a national or multilateral body of law, an invention is patentable if it meets the relevant legal conditions to be granted a patent. By extension, patentability also refers to the substantive conditions that must be met for a patent to be held valid.
Under United States patent law, a continuing patent application is a patent application that follows, and claims priority to, an earlier-filed patent application. A continuing patent application may be one of three types: a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part. Although continuation and continuation-in-part applications are generally available in the U.S. only, divisional patent applications are also available in other countries, as such availability is required under Article 4G of the Paris Convention.
Patent prosecution describes the interaction between applicants and their representatives, and a patent office with regard to a patent, or an application for a patent. Broadly, patent prosecution can be split into pre-grant prosecution, which involves arguing before, and sometimes negotiation with, a patent office for the grant of a patent, and post-grant prosecution, which involves issues such as post-grant amendment and opposition.
In most patent laws, unity of invention is a formal administrative requirement that must be met for a patent application to proceed to grant. An issued patent can claim only one invention or a group of closely related inventions. The purpose of this requirement is administrative as well as financial. The requirement serves to preclude the possibility of filing one patent application for several inventions, while paying only one set of fees. Unity of invention also makes the classification of patent documents easier.
Under United States patent law, a provisional application is a legal document filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), that establishes an early filing date, but does not mature into an issued patent unless the applicant files a regular non-provisional patent application within one year. There is no such thing as a "provisional patent".
Sufficiency of disclosure or enablement is a patent law requirement that a patent application disclose a claimed invention in sufficient detail so that the person skilled in the art could carry out that claimed invention. The requirement is fundamental to patent law: a monopoly is granted for a given period of time in exchange for a disclosure to the public how to make or practice the invention.
The United States is considered to have the most favorable legal regime for inventors and patent owners in the world. Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting from a patented technology without the consent of the patent holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.
In patent law, an inventor is the person, or persons in United States patent law, who contribute to the claims of a patentable invention. In some patent law frameworks, however, such as in the European Patent Convention (EPC) and its case law, no explicit, accurate definition of who exactly is an inventor is provided. The definition may slightly vary from one European country to another. Inventorship is generally not considered to be a patentability criterion under European patent law.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) is published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for use by patent attorneys and agents and patent examiners. It describes all of the laws and regulations that must be followed in the examination of U.S. patent applications, and articulates their application to an enormous variety of different situations. The MPEP is based on Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which derives its authority from Title 35 of the United States Code, as well as on case law arising under those titles. The first version of the MPEP was published in 1920 by the Patent and Trademark Office Society.
A patent application is a request pending at a patent office for the grant of a patent for an invention described in the patent specification and a set of one or more claims stated in a formal document, including necessary official forms and related correspondence. It is the combination of the document and its processing within the administrative and legal framework of the patent office.
This is a list of legal terms relating to patents and patent law. A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention claimed therein, but a territorial right to exclude others from commercially exploiting the invention, granted to an inventor or their successor in rights in exchange to a public disclosure of the invention.
In former United States patent law, a statutory invention registration (SIR) was a publication of an invention by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The publication was made at the request of the applicant. In order for an applicant to have a patent application published as an SIR, the following conditions had to be met:
The application must disclose the invention in sufficient detail that another person of ordinary skill in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation ;
The application complies with the requirements for printing, as set forth in regulations of the Director of the patent office;
The applicant waives the right to receive a patent on the invention within such period as may be prescribed by the Director; and
The applicant pays application, publication, and other processing fees established by the Director.
In the United States, an Office action is a document written by an examiner in a patent or trademark examination procedure and mailed to an applicant for a patent or trademark. The expression is used in many jurisdictions.
An information disclosure statement refers to a submission of relevant background art or information to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by an applicant for a patent during the patent prosecution process. There is a duty on all patent applicants to disclose relevant art or background information that the applicant is aware of and that may be relevant to the patentability of the applicant's invention, as established by the United States Code title 35 and related sections of 37 CFR and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). If a patent applicant, with deceptive intent for art known to the applicant, fails to submit material prior art to the USPTO, then any patent that later issues from the patent application may be declared unenforceable because of inequitable conduct. Furthermore, the duty to submit such relevant information to the USPTO lies not only on the applicant or inventor, but also on any patent attorney or other legal staff employed by the applicant.
Title 35 of the United States Code is a title of United States Code regarding patent law. The sections of Title 35 govern all aspects of patent law in the United States. There are currently 37 chapters, which include 376 sections, in Title 35.
A patent application or patent may contain drawings, also called patent drawings, illustrating the invention, some of its embodiments, or the prior art. The drawings may be required by the law to be in a particular form, and the requirements may vary depending on the jurisdiction.
Although not clearly defined, the backlog of unexamined patent applications consists, at one point in time, of all the patent applications that have been filed and still remain to be examined. The backlog was said to be 4.2 million worldwide in 2007, and in 2009 it reportedly continued to grow. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) alone had a backlog of ca. 700,000 patent applications in 2009. By May 22, 2024 this number grew to 783,134 applications.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
