Patent rejection statistics say: “The probability of failing at the patent office is much higher than that of receiving the patent.”
There are 88.6 % chances that you won’t get a patent on your invention.
“Your patent application is rejected!!” – No inventor wants to hear this!
But the hard truth is many inventors face rejection at the patent office. Either because their invention is not new or deemed obvious. The figure below shows patent rejection statistics for patent applications filed between 2017 – September 2020. 21.28% rejections were because the invention was found non-novel or not new (102 Type). 46.95% rejections were because the invention was found obvious due to a combination of two or more prior arts (103 Type).
Let’s Read The Inventor’s Mind
Is my idea new? Maybe…
I need to find out if someone has created a product like my invention…
Let me do a quick check on google.
……. Search in progress……..
After 15 minutes……
…….No matching results found!……
So cool, no one thought about it until now!! Yayyyy!
Let me get a patent on my invention.
Hopefully I can sell it for a good price $$$$
Let me take some help from an IP community on the internet.
……after some googling and help……
Yay! Patent application filed.
“Your patent application is rejected!!”
Oh No :(, all $$$$ went for a waste.
Would you apply for a patent if you knew that there are 88.6% chances that you won’t get it?
Probably not, alternatively, you would want to look for ways to succeed at the patent office! A few ways could be checking if:
something similar to your invention already exists in the market.
someone has already patented that invention.
someone has described an invention like yours in public.
With all this information either you would drop the idea of patenting or refine your invention.
Finding this information could be challenging. In this post we have shared a solution that can increase your chances of success at the patent office.
Before that let’s take a look at the data about issuance rate at the patent office.
Deepak Hegde, Associate Professor of Management at Yale University,
Dr. Alan Marco, Chief Economist at the USPTO, &
Michael Carley, Senior Data Analyst at T-Mobile.
The authors dived into the issuance rate at the USPTO.
Deepak et al studied 2.15 million utility patent applications filed between 1996 and 2005 and examined until June 30, 2013. The key highlight of their study is the continuous decline in allowance rate with each year.
In 1996 about 70% patent applications turned to a patent which by 2005 fell to 40%.
Further, their study points out that the chances of a patent application to get pogranted in the first go – First-Action Allowance – is only 11.4%. In other words, there are 88.6% chances that a patent application will be rejected by the examiners at the USPTO.
You might be wondering what’s the first action allowance? Don’t let the jargon bother you. The first-action allowance means the patent got granted in the first go itself.
To top it off, the situation is even worse for the inventors at small companies – companies with less than 500 employees. Their first-action allowance rate for inventors from small US companies or individual inventors was only 9.3% during the period while the inventors from large US companies had a slightly better first-allowance rate of 10.7%. Their foreign counterparts fared well, however, due to a possible reason that they file only most important patent applications in the US.
Further, there is a considerable gap of 15.8% in the allowance rate between Large (75.3%) and Small corporations (59.5%) in the US. Another striking finding of the study is that the application filed by small inventors in the biomedical domain has bleak chances of receiving a grant.
Reasons For Rejection Of The Patent Application
One plausible reason for the high rejection rate is that inventors are not aware of the existing prior art. By prior art we mean that the invention like yours exists. Either as a product in the market or as a concept disclosed in a patent or in a non-patent document. The patent rejections statistics where the popular rejection is USC 35 103 confirms this.
102 Type Rejection
The examiner gives 102 type rejections when he finds an exact prior art invalidating claims of a patent application.
103 Type Rejection
The examiner gives 103 type when he combines two or more references to prove an invention disclosed in a patent application as obvious.
Is It The Time To Rescue The Rescuer?
Increase in number of rejections shoot up the time to get a patent and also the patent filing cost. This discourages small companies, and especially startups and individual inventors that don’t have a big budget. To top it off, even if a patent is granted, its chances to make money remains slim.
Thus, if there exists a smart tool that is capable of making an inventor aware of other solutions/references that already exist and could lead to his invention deemed obvious or non-novel, he would be in a better position to make a go or no–go decision. He may share this detail with his attorney for consultation which may lead to a claim amendment before filing an application or other similar strategy.
Such an intelligent tool could have capability to clear the cloud of uncertainty from the patent filing sky. It could facilitate well-informed data backed patent filing strategies which have potential to bring down the patent prosecution cost, time, and number of rejection.
Inventors get so many queries like: Can I get a patent on my invention? What is prior art? Can a YouTube video count as prior art? We have prepared this guide to prior art to help inventors succeed in their patent seeking journey.
Can I Get A Patent On My Invention?
You came up with a breakthrough idea, say a cot that can put babies to sleep using a particular vibration pattern and soothing music. A lot of parents can’t catch enough sleep if their babies don’t sleep well at night. You have solved a problem that a lot of parents face. A lot of parents might be interested in buying such a cot. You see a possibility of a great revenue stream. And because you feel your invention is novel, you see that it has the potential to be patented.
However, there is a possibility that someone else has already come up with a similar invention and received a patent on it. Now that patent is a “prior-art” that can stop you from receiving a patent on your invention.
Hope this example gave you the basic idea of prior art. In this post, we have brought to you a detailed, visual, and very clear explanation of everything you need to know about it. We have also shared how you can conduct a “Zero Budget Prior Art Search”.
What is Prior Art?
Prior art is any evidence that an invention is already in existence or publicly available prior to the filing date of the patent application. The invention does not need to be commercially available or exist physically to be prior art. It suffices that the invention has been previously described or shown to be something that contains the use of technology that is like your invention.
So, if you file a patent without the searching for prior art and the patent examiner finds that your invention is not novel (new), you receive ‘§102 type rejection’: “Non novel or not new”.
“21.28% of patent applications got rejected over a period of ~4 years from 2017 to September 2020 because they did not meet the ‘novelty’ criterion.”
There is one more common reason for rejection: ‘§103 type rejection’: “Obvious improvement over the prior-art”.
“46.95% of patent applications got rejected over a period of ~4 years from 2017 to September 2020 because they did not meet the ‘non-obviousness’ criterion.”
Note: Stats are based on the rejections (Final +Non Final) given by the Patent Examiners, for the US applications from 2017 to September 2020
The §102 and §103 constitute 68.23% of the total rejections. This indicates that either an examiner found a prior art questioning the novelty of an invention disclosed or an examiner combined two or more references to prove that an invention disclosed is obvious.
It is critical that inventors invest in a thorough search of past and present products and patents before they conclude on the novelty and non – obviousness of their invention.
Does this count As Prior Art?
A very similar invention is available in a video on Youtube, does this mean we cannot obtain a patent for that invention?
It certainly can depending on the similarity with your invention.
Inventors often have queries about what counts as a prior art and if a certain public information can be the reason for rejection of their patent application. Such disclosures can definitely act as a prior art depending upon the level of similarity with your invention.
Any invention that has been publicly disclosed or made publicly available in any language or in any part of the world may count as prior art.
It can be a:
product that was available for sale,
an invention used commercially,
printed or electronic forms of articles,
publications, texts, journals,
presentation at a public event,
or any form of public use of the invention.
An existing product or patent is the most obvious form of prior art. Inventors often assume that because they cannot find an existing commercial product containing their invention, their invention must be novel.
This assumption is far from reality. Inventions often never become products, yet there may be public records showing their existence. That record counts as prior art.
Does This Not Count As A Prior Art?
Generally, information that is disclosed or becomes available to the public after the ‘effective’ filing date (or priority date) of your patent application would not qualify as prior art.
Also, patent applications that are filed after yours generally would not qualify as prior art.
#sidenote: A trade secret does not count as a prior art.
What Is Prior Art Under AIA: §102, §103?
The America Invents Act (AIA) is a complex bill that includes a significant change to U.S. patent law The AIA relates fundamentally to whether or not an invention can be classified as prior art with arguably the most impactful change being the shift from a “first to invent” system to a “first inventor to file” system on March 16, 2013.
Section 102: First to Invent Vs. First Inventor to File
Pre-AIA Sections 102(a) and 102(e): Patents were granted using the “first to invent” system. The section provides that an inventor is not entitled to a patent if the claimed invention was already patented, described in a patent or is in public use by another inventor before the claimed invention.
For example, under old U.S. patent law, an inventor could rely on the earliest documented date of the invention and obtain priority to another inventor with an earlier-filed application.
AIA Section 102(a): Prevents a patent if the claimed invention was described in a patent or patent application filed before the effective filing date of the invention.
For example, under the AIA, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will award a patent to an inventor who has the earliest effective filing date. The earliest effective filing date is the original date that the application was filed.
Section 103: Obviousness
Pre-AIA Section 103: Prevents patenting of an invention if it would have been obvious at the time the claimed invention was made.
AIA Section 103: A patent may not be obtained if the invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Example: Prior-art reference (1) teaches encryption. Prior-art reference (2) teaches how to send an email. Then sending an encrypted email would not be novel. It would be ‘obvious’ because there is a motivation to send emails in a form that would allow them to be read only by the intended recipient.
How To Conduct A Prior Art Search?
The easiest way to do the search should be like:
telling your innovative idea to a friend,
and asking the friend if he has heard or seen something like it.
assuming that the friend knows it all, if he says he has not heard of it;
your invention is new and there is a possibility to get a patent over it.
Because you just want to determine if your invention is new or novel enough to get a patent on it.
However that’s the ideal scenario and far from reality.
Free Prior Art Search Resources
For an inventor who is (often) not skilled to conduct a prior art search it can be quite challenging to do so. Although there are many free resources for patent or prior art searching available, most of them do not understand natural language queries. To name a few:
Besides that many times companies use deceptive language in patents to hide their IP activity from competitors. That makes it further difficult to find the relevant prior art.
Look at the snapshot below, we have picked this from reddit (r/patents). Clearly the inventor tried to look for prior art in USPTO and Google patents but faced difficulty with language and search navigation.
“Bendable”, “Foldable”, “Flexible” are some synonyms that can be used to refer to the same aspect of an invention. Different patent drafters would have used different terms. However you don’t want to miss out on any relevant result and hence it would be needed to take care of synonyms while searching.
The Complex Search Queries
The patents databases are a huge set of information. Thousands of results are received for a single query. complex search queries are the only way to narrow down the results. These queries are nothing but keywords arranged with a specific logic (Boolean (AND/OR) search string) to get relevant prior art results.
The Patent Language
The patents are usually drafted in a very specific language, difficult for a person with the non-ip background to comprehend. For example: a computer might be written as “an information exchange system” to cover any other similar devices like phone, tablet etc.
How Much Does It Cost To Get A Prior Art Search Done?
Professional Search Fees
According to upcounsel if you hire a professional to conduct an in-depth prior art search, it shall cost you anything between $1000 to $3000 based on the complexity of the invention.
$1,000 to $1,250 for simple inventions
$1,250 to $1,500 for slightly complex inventions
$1,500 to $2,000 for moderately or relatively complex inventions
$2,000 to $3,000 for highly complex inventions or software
Government Search Fees
The USPTO fee for conducting a patent search or prior art search varies according to the entity size. The fee is less for small and micro entities, so to say it’s less for individual inventors like yourself. ($40 to $700)
The snapshot presented below is from USPTO’s website that shares complete details of patent related fees.
Depending on the type of patent, the fee is different: Utility, Design or Plant.
Here are quick definitions for different types of patents based on which you can decide which category does your invention fall in.
It protects process, manufacture, composition of matter and a useful machine.
It protects the shape, appearance, patterns, design, layout or looks of the product.
It protects a new and unique plant’s key characteristics from being copied, sold or used by others.
How To Conduct A Prior Art Search Yourself With Zero Budget?
To conduct a comprehensive prior art search you either need money or skill. With money you can hire an IP research firm to conduct the prior art search for you. With skill you can use other prior art search engines that require you to create sophisticated keyword search strings and go through hundreds of documents to find relevant prior art.
However if you just want to determine the novelty aspect of your invention, you neither need money nor skill.
Yes you read it right!
We would say, don’t go by our words, try it out yourself!
A quick search on PQAI (An Initiative by AT&T ) is enough for you to determine the novelty of your invention.
3. Let’s try a sample query. How about – “A machine learning based system to sort out the waste based on the images captured by the camera in the past”?
Now, let’s take a look at the snapshot presented above. We actually found a prior art similar to the invention query we entered.
4. The best part is each result shows the claim mapping. That means, the relevant section in the prior art document that matches with the invention query. This makes it super easy for the researcher to look for matching elements between invention and the result.
5. Each result is accompanied with the following options:
Save – Just like you bookmark the webpages, you can save the results. Saved results are available for your future reference.
Find Similar – This option helps in further refining the search results. As the name suggests you get to see 10 more similar results matching that selected result.
View Document – With this option, you can view the selected result document in a new tab. Example: If it’s a US patent, you will be directed to the Google patents link for the selected patent.
Feedback – With a thumbs up or thumbs down, you can give feedback on the relevancy of the result.
Once you establish the novelty of your invention, the next step is to fill the invention disclosure form. An up-to-date invention disclosure form shall help you prepare for a meeting with a patent attorney.
Let’s Sum It Up
You don’t want USPTO to reject your patent application because someone else has already patented an invention like yours. To ensure the same it’s necessary to find out if your invention is new before you file a patent over it. The easiest and the most cost-effective way to do so is using PQAI Prior Art Search Engine.
Besides determining the novelty of your invention, you need to check your invention for patentability. You need to make sure that your invention is a patentable subject matter.
Conducting prior art search benefits you in many other ways than just novelty determination. To name a few:
Conducting a prior art search early in the process shall help you save resources which would have been otherwise used in pursuing it for patenting. As it won’t make financial sense if someone else has already patented it.
When you read the patents on the invention like yours, you shall be in a better position to refine your idea. And refine it in a manner that it’s new and non-obvious.
If you have any queries around prior art search using PQAI, feel free to write to us “firstname.lastname@example.org”.