Patent Grant Numbers

The USPTO broke a new record in March 2014 — issuing more than 6,000 utility patents in a single week. Overall, 2014 appears slightly behind the record issuance numbers for 2013, but well above the prior record set in 2012. The projected number of issued design patents (<21,000) is significantly down from its 2008 high of 25,000.

106 thoughts on “Patent Grant Numbers

  1. OT – but anyone not receiving Greg Aharonian’s email blog should really think about sending him an email and getting on his list…

  2. Copyright was protectable at common law, there was no need for Art. I, Sec. 8 to protect copyrights. So, why is it there?

    To limit the right to protection for limited times? I don’t think common law copyrights ever expired.

    To limit federal copyrights to advance science and the useful Arts? But most copyrights have nothing to do with such.

    Assume one has a common law copyright, can he or she still assert it after a federal registration has expired?

    If the purpose of for a copyright does not act as a limit on Congress’s authority, why is it even contemplated that “useful Arts” limits Congress’s authority on patents?

    1. Assume one has a common law copyright

      ?

      Preemption.

      Ned – I am curious as to why you are making so many, well, bizarre posts today. There is a huge multitude of much more on point issues that I have presented to you that you have not addressed. Wouldn’t your time be better spent on addressing these things, given as they are valid points to your oft posted items? Further, would it not be beneficial for you to spend time to overcome your own personal shortcomings in understanding the Nazomi case?

      1. Preemption assumes the Constitution grants congress the power for all copyrightable material. But the grant clause IS limited. Preemption might apply for works that advance science. Otherwise, the common law copyright is not preempted.

        1. works that advance science
          Two points — the clause says “promote,” not “advance.” Different meanings.
          Second point is that I don’t think Congress or SCOTUS cares. Patents/trademarks/copyrights can be covered under the commerce clause. There is a lot of wiggle room there.

          1. There unambiguously was a common law copyright. The grant to congress was limited. There cannot be preemption outside the area of grant.

            But the real point here, if we are going to ignore Science for copyright purposes, why cannot we ignore useful Arts for patent purposes?

            And vis-a-versa, of course.

            1. Again Ned – you are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding about preemption.

              I suggest that you refresh your understanding before posting again.

        2. the clause says “promote,” not “advance.” Different meanings.

          What exactly are the differences in the meanings that you have in mind?

          1. One easy difference (as anyone who has studied innovation would be able to tell you) is that innovation is not linear.

            Innovation (often in the case of disruptive innovation) is at first not an advance. See Christensen.

            Malcolm, pay attention – this notion has been put up on these boards many times now.

    2. Two additional observations:

      Apple’s lawsuit against Samsung is all about look and feel. This sounds in copyright.

      Second, the fact that congress did not limit copyright to “science” in some way indicates it did not think the “purpose” clauses limiting. This to me explains why the Bilski majority came out the way it did on “useful Arts.”

      1. As I have noted to you in the past Ned, if you want a juicy case to chew on in the possible crossover effects between copyright and patent, read the Golan v. Holder case and note the extreme level of deference given to Congress by the Court to write the law (including the notion to take out of the public domain – ask yourself if the Court allows Congress to do that with copyright, why not that power with patents to make your head spin).

        See link to supremecourt.gov

        1. Anon, I don’t think it was just the Golan case that supports his view, but it does support the view as you correctly note. I think the majority in Bilski , having just considered the copyright clause in Golan , was quite aware that the founding fathers viewed the “purpose” clauses in the Constitution as nonlimiting.

          With this understanding, the whole picture changes on “business methods.” At least from my point of view.

          1. With this understanding, the whole picture changes on “business methods.” At least from my point of view.

            Changes to….

            …what?

            .

            (and should we note the pending/potential separation of powers constitutional issue of the Court violating the clear indication as to which branch of the government has been given the authority to write patent law?)

          2. Ned,

            I also fully reserve the argument that business methods fall under the Useful Arts – but it appears that you might think that such a distinction just might be a moot point…

    1. Night, what I found interesting about the article is that Google is now realizing that is best allies in Congress are not Democrats but Republicans who seem a lot more interested in free speech and less regulation than Democrats. One would of thought that the Google chairman who openly campaigned for Barack Obama would have realized this a long time ago. But it will take some sustained effort by Google to convince Republicans that Google is not an enemy but a friend.

  3. Philosophical question: Assume that 85% of the applications in a given area are complete crap. Is it more correct to institute a reject-reject-reject policy that rejects 95% of these applications (thus having a beta error of 10%) or to allow 50% of these applications (thus having an alpha error of 35%)? This isn’t criminal law, there’s no overarching philosophy that we’d rather let 10 criminals go free than jail one innocent man. Is the matter at all affected by a non-publication request?

    An open-ended question – Quote: “I didn’t think it was allowable, but I couldn’t prove it in time.” Thoughts?

    1. I think stacking a hypothetical from the start with the bias of 85% are crap is more than just a little problematic.

      There is NO basis for that (historical or otherwise).

    2. And the right answer is to have neither a Reject-Reject-Reject nor an Approve-Approve-Approve.

      The right answer is do your Fn job.

    3. Clearly Random Examiner does not employ an “exam on the merits” approach, but instead employs a “examine on the clock” approach.

      Another day at the Widget factory awaits Random Examiner…

      (and yes, I do get that you have a quota to meet – but implicit in your post is the notion that you are perfectly willing to sacrifice a true quality examination in order to meet your quota – any nonsense of “I did not have time” is pure B$ on your part – an applicant pays for a quality examination, he does not pay for X hours of an examination, come what may – the fact that you seem oblivious to this paints you as a rather prominent part of the problem)

    4. Hypothetical: what if every single examiner refused to put out CRP examination just to meet quota?

      Would the Office fire everyone? Or would the Office realize that its Widget mentality is part of the problem?

    5. This isn’t criminal law, there’s no overarching philosophy that we’d rather let 10 criminals go free than jail one innocent man

      LOL – it is a lot closer to that than you (obviously [sic]) think:

      35 USC 102: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless

      Your “alpha” and “beta” error tails are not to be equally weighed. You really are being asked to do your job – that really is the critical focal point of the entire “mess.”

      I suggest that you gird yourself up for the task and get it done. Stop the whining. Get to know what it is that you are tasked to do (yes, know this better than the lawyers that are advocating for clients). Is it easy? No, not likely – but it is your job.

      Do the Fn job.

    6. We might safely assume that 85% of office actions in a given area are complete crap, but that would be overly generous.

      But as Seinfeld might observe, not that there’s anything wrong with that! I don’t mind having a job with the difficulty level of shooting fish in a barrel.

    7. Random, perhaps in these special arts that you refer to that you somehow flip the requirements so that if an examiner wants to allow a case, he has to appeal to the Board.

      1. And, perhaps, the other side could be represented by “public advocates,” lawyers hired to represent the people.

    8. Random, until Bilski is clarified, apply the case the way it is written: abstract a well know whatever from the claims (it doesn’t make any difference what it is, just that it be well known), declare the claims abstract because it is well known and because the additional features in the claim are insignificant (forget 103), particularly if computers or computer components are merely recited.

      Absurd? Well Bilski IS absurd.

      1. Ned,

        You are doing that over-reading thing again.

        You cannot complain about Bilski< that "abstract" is undefined (a valid gripe) and then turn around and define "abstract" as you have done in the immediate post.

        Simply being 'well known' is simply not the proper takeaway from Bilski (or even Prometheus). To do so would in fact violate the 9-0 Prometheus decision that explicitly warned against conflation of 101 and the 102/103/112 pantheon.

        So once again, it is not an issue of how a case is written – it is a case of how Ned is misunderstanding how a case is written.

        Further, you jump into this rather undefined and assumed “insignificance.”

        Further, you lay no groundwork whatsoever for this “particularly” notion – which is merely the result of your well-known crusade.

        Lots of absurd in your post – just not what you think it is.

        1. Hey, anon, all I am suggesting is that the PTO go through the same song and dance the Supreme Court did in Bilski, and sprinkle with the same magic dust as did the Court. One cannot then object, can one, that the real inquiry if something is notoriously old is not under 101, but under 103?

          Just think. I file a claim for a new circuit for doing function X. The PTO says function X is notoriously old, and the other elements of the claim are insubstantial, etc.

          Just plain ludicrous, is it not?

          Anon, I am just trying to make fun of Bilski here. That case is and was absurd.

            1. anon, I know you feel the same way about Benson , but at least in Flook they clearly linked “math” into the law of nature exclusion.

              It’s going to be very hard for the Supreme Court to figure out just how to include business methods in a law of nature exclusion.

            2. And what pray tell to make of this quote from Flook:

              Neither the dearth of precedent nor this decision should therefore be interpreted as reflecting a judgment that patent protection of certain novel and useful computer programs will not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, or that such protection is undesirable as a matter of policy.” 437 U.S. 584 at 595.

            3. It’s going to be very hard for the Supreme Court to figure out just how to include business methods in a law of nature exclusion.

              One should immediately ask – has the Court been sanctioned by the US Constitution to even attempt to do that?

              I will again point you to the fact that Stevens in Bilski lost on this very point. He was slated to write the majority opinion. His opinion would have created a Constitutional crises by explicitly re-writing the words of Congress.

              And while the fact remains that 4 is not 5, it is incredibly alarming that at least Ginsburg still fails to understand the gravity of the situation.

            4. LOL – I am reminded by a colleague of the humorous World War II clip that came out after the Prometheus decision, dubbing the Hit1er war scene – note the specific consolation being given by one woman to another after everyone has been ushered out of the room.

              It is dead nuts on to the point you indicate at post 9.8.1.1.1.1.

    9. This isn’t criminal law, there’s no overarching philosophy that we’d rather let 10 criminals go free than jail one innocent man.
      A good-looking guy with a lot going for him walks into a bar and gets rejected by the first girl he talks to, the second girl he talks to, the third girl he talks to. By the time he’s done, he has a very low self-opinion and doesn’t want to try anymore.

      This goes to one of the reasons why I don’t mind “crap” patents. There are a multitude of quotes from famous inventors that go pretty much like this: “if you want to have a good idea, have lots of ideas.” The point being is that you’ll have a lot more bad ideas than good but even with your bad ideas, you need to keep trying. If the USPTO is going to reject (good or crappy) ideas for bad reasons, that is going to be very discouraging for the inventors – you don’t want them to give up. Moreover, bad rejections lower the credibility of the USPTO. I cannot tell you how many times I discussed a bad rejection with an inventor who has lost all respect for the Examiner over a lousy rejection.

      If you have ever been around parents of small children, you’ll see the parents encouraging the children even for poor efforts – the important thing is the encouragement. They may not get it right the first or the tenth time, but they’ll eventually get it right – you just need to keep them from giving up. Also, with creative types (and inventors are creative types), you don’t want them to self-edit their ideas. Some of the best ideas are ones that everybody think is crazy. You don’t want to discourage that by being overly restrictive.
      So long as the patent application meets the standard requirements (i.e., 102/103/112), then the application should be allowed – no matter how silly the underlying idea because the next idea may be an earth-shaker.

      1. Oh no: A good-looking guy with a lot going for him walks into a bar and gets rejected by the first girl he talks to, the second girl he talks to, the third girl he talks to. By the time he’s done, he has a very low self-opinion and doesn’t want to try anymore. This goes to one of the reasons why I don’t mind “crap” patents.

        Because an “innovator” trying to get a patent is like a guy trying to get laid. Who doesn’t want that guy to get laid? C’mon, people. We all want that guy to get laid. We all know he’s going to get laid eventually. So just get into bed with him already! After all: he’s “got a lot going for him.” How do we know that? Because this guy “Oh No” just told us so.

        Seriously, you really gotta love the patent teabaggers, folks, especially when the truth leaks out.

      2. ” I cannot tell you how many times I discussed a bad rejection with an inventor who has lost all respect for the Examiner over a lousy rejection.”

        Oh noes!

    10. This isn’t criminal law, there’s no overarching philosophy that we’d rather let 10 criminals go free than jail one innocent man.

      You haven’t spent much time arguing with the patent teabaggers, have you? :)

      1. LOL – key word: arguing.

        Hint: Malcolm, it is not (necessarily) what you say, but how you go about saying it.

        Try intellectual honesty.

    11. LOL – what are the chances that Random Examiner will even attempt any meaningful responses to any of the valid points that I put in front of him?

      What are the chances that he will in the future advance more of the same CRP without having responded (at all) to these valid counterpoints?

      The merry-go-round of “CRP-avoid integrating the valid counterpoints – CRP again” will no doubt have its melody wafting through many future threads here at Patently-O.

      1. I really got nothing meaningful in response and I don’t subscribe so I rarely return to outdated pages, but sure:

        *I have personal experience in a statistically viable number of cases to determine what percentage of patents filed in my art are terrible.

        *Obviously the answer is to get it right every time. The question is what happens if you can’t get it right every time.

        *I have no problem meeting my timing requirements. Other Examiners not so much. Is the solution to pay more so that the office can afford to pay examiners a living wage on less examinations? What about simple notice in the record? Are you willing to allow for a larger backup and waiting time? Are others?

        *”A person is entitled to a patent unless” does not end the debate since 103 requires a judgment call within the role of the Examiner. Is the solution to interpret what is considered obvious more loosely? Methinks you would say no.

        *Well I suppose we would all get fired or the office would drop the production requirements. That has the effect of hurting every applicant as well as the public, since longer pendancy creates uncertainty. Where are we on that scale? Is the bigger danger the pendancy or the current quality of examination? Your problem is you want better examination with a higher quality and faster. You cannot have all three. Further, there’s a maximum level of quality one can achieve while still engaging in compact prosecution and twice-rejection rules because by definition some issues require the resolution of other issues. But by all means, keep repeating that we should do our jobs, cause that solves stuff.

        *I again want to point out that you as a prosecutor have no interest in Examiners doing their jobs, as the vast majority of patent allowances are due to an examiner being unable to do his job for one reason or another (some within the persons control, some within the office’s, some within the applicant/counsels, and some outside of all).

        If you want to respond feel free in the next blog post, I generally don’t return to posts after they go stale. I was hoping there would be decent responses to this one. I see not, just everyone pushing an agenda of trying to tear something down.

        1. I really got nothing meaningful in response

          Lol – nailed it – just not in the way that you may have been thinking.

          *I have personal experience in a statistically viable number of cases to determine what percentage of patents filed in my art are terrible.

          I highly doubt that such is even close to a correct statement.

          *Obviously the answer is to get it right every time. The question is what happens if you can’t get it right every time.

          That’s a different question than making the system better. All you are doing is asking which side of making an error is less problematic. There is no way to address this question on a micro scale since it is such a fact dependent question. If you are merely talking about close cases, then clearly, as I have indicated the error tales needing to be weighed differently, the error in the benefit of the applicant is clearly better.

          Is the solution to pay more

          How the heck do you wrap in more pay to the question of timeliness? Are you saying that you will do a better job – all things being equal – if you are paid more? So, now we have a exam on the clock aspect as well as a slacking ‘you don’t pay me enough to do the best job I can do” aspect. You are just digging that unprofessional view of examiners deeper.

          *”A person is entitled to a patent unless” does not end the debate since 103 requires a judgment call within the role of the Examiner.

          103 has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion. The “judgment” that you wish to slide into the discussion is not the judgment of the examiner per se, but a judgment in the eyes of PHOSITA. The law is not written as EHOSITA. You appear to be seriously not understanding your own job.

          *Well I suppose we would all get fired or the office would drop the production requirements. That has the effect of hurting every applicant as well as the public,

          Pure B$. To even try to use pendency as an excuse is pathetic.

          Your problem is you want

          More pure B$. You try to blame me for the problem and shift it as something “I” want. I want you to do the Fn job.

          You are already paid to examine properly.

          Do it.

          You want to impute to me the “do it faster” idea and this is false. I have often stated that the hurry up and do SHT current method is taking LONGER given that B$ rejections simply load up the deck chairs on the other decks of the Titanic, and that (albeit it may seem counter intuitive), more time up front would result in LOWER overall examination time. It does you poorly to claim a position as mine, but even more so when what you claim is bogus and what you claim I have already refuted.

          But by all means, keep repeating that we should do our jobs, cause that solves stuff.

          I have done more than that. Pay attention. And regardless, my repeating where the emphasis should be is perfectly reasonable, seeing as people want to look everywhere else but where we should be looking.

          *I again want to point out that you as a prosecutor have no interest in Examiners doing their jobs,

          I want to again point out that you are full of SHT. I have also talked many times on why I really do want an Examiner to do their jobs. You are not paying attention, and you are compounding that error by trying to maintain something that I have expressly said otherwise. You are only wrecking your already abysmal credibility by repeating such obviously false CRP.

          I was hoping there would be decent responses to this one

          So was I. Yours does not make that grade.

        2. Random, I thought about your post long and hard but could come up with nothing that was really satisfactory. Things that are fair to the public may not be fair to the examiners, unless the rules for examiners in this particular art were changed.

          When I said, “Let the Examiner appeal if he wanted to allow the claims,” was not far off the mark. A way to stop issuing bad patents would be to have a single panel of senior examiners have to approve all allowances in a problem area so as to create a backlog that would take years to get through. It would be the rare exception that any case was allowed.

          1. Ned,

            You appear ready to violate the due process rights of those most directly affected: the inventors that just happen to fall into that class that aligns with your well known crusades.

            On its face, your views here are reprehensible.

  4. The patent system exists to advance innovation–it is not innovation. Although we state this with hyperbolic generality our first hand experiences saw in commerce a vibrant and diverse new product development environment in entities of every size with much less cynicism, ten – twenty plus years ago. Lots of it you wouldn’t always see in your offices because much stuff was not patented until actually developed. The lab books, sketch pads, alternate CAD models, and the innovative and multi-purpose softwares, was a documented history of alternative inventive stuff with more pre AIA value. Even then patents held IP asset value as IP and in product positioning, but they also were viewed with pride as a measure of exclusive high level Invention. Now it is an early run to the office, and more fear of stepping or being stepped with uncertainty . That is not an innovation rich description. In a perception is reality view innovation contrived is just blathering to argue over incomprehensible terms on something that is alleged to disclose and teach. It is your failure when patents fail to do so.

    There is and has been some incredible innovations and advances, we think there should be more, and we need more from this country. Patents are part of healthy competition, but thePeople need a good common space too, where service, quality and doing the same thing better can make competitive sense. Society holds its truth in naive ways but it recognizes the differences in spirit and kind of what should be awarded and what is journeyman.

    Why we have not seen more considered view towards a sweet spot of quality vs quantity baffles us the most.

    1. The patent system exists to advance innovation–it is not innovation.

      A valid point.

      But are you aware that innovation is non-linear and unknowable a priori? That innovation often comes in the form of an item that is a backwards step from the current state of the art? That innovation often has as its building blocks only those things that already exist (and some would say -incorrectly – since they are already out there, that everything is obvious)?

      our first hand experiences saw in commerce a vibrant and diverse new product development environment in entities of every size with much less cynicism, ten – twenty plus years ago

      Pure B$.

      They also were viewed with pride as a measure of exclusive high level Invention.

      More pure B$.

      Now it is an early run to the office

      The patent office always wanted a quicker run to itself. The patent system always worked best with both a carrot and a stick.

      innovation contrived is just blathering to argue over incomprehensible terms on something that is alleged to disclose and teach.

      Same as it ever was – no more and no less (notwithstanding your effort to rewrite history in some romanticized ‘it used to be so much better” vapidness).

      but thePeople need a good common space too

      LOL – so there’s the aim… tell you what – you give the patent protection that is due, and then after the limited time, those items join the “good common space.” How about that in stead of simply taking things for the commune?

      Society holds its truth in naive ways

      Is that a plea to allow naive views to triumph over reality? Sorry, but no matter how idyllic Jane’s view may have been, that system simply did not work in reality. The commune will get theirs, but not at the expense of the Quid Pro Quo. To any Jane-like naivete I would counter with some Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

      1. “Science and the useful Arts.”

        Why are we granting copyrights on novels?

        If we can, is the constitution really a limit on government power to grant copyrights and patents?

        Recalls the debate about “militias” and the Second Amendment.

    2. The ignorant “thepeople” that don’t bother to understand anything past that patent doesn’t allow me to do what it claims without a license think like you. Those that —like the founders–understand that rewarding innovation creates more for all of us in return for a short period of exclusivity want a strong patent system.

      Remember tool boy that the founders also said that education was the only way to keep a democracy. Educate yourself and then make your ridiculous pronouncements. You are probably a tool of big corporations or dopey liberal crusader like Lemley that also wants to get rich burning down the system like a lot of Republicans.

      What a shameful post. Action with ignorance is a duck. So, we’ll call you “thepeople” duck, or just “theduck.”

      OK, duckie boy?

  5. Mere shame is not the same thing as dishonesty.

    Nobody here ever suggested that they were the same thing. Shame is an emotion. Dishonesty is a trait.

    Just explain your own beliefs to everyone, Tr0llb0y. Why should Dennis feel shame? What did he do that he deserves to feel shame?

    1. LOL – your massive CRPfest is wiped out and you are immediately back at it.

      First order of business is on you Malcolm: defend your accusation.

    2. Nobody here ever suggested

      You have moved your spinning goal post from “I never said” (no doubt said in a pedantic word-for-word manner) to now “suggested” – but alas, clearly your um, “observation” is exactly that type of suggestion that I called you out for.

      Yes, one is an emotion and the other is a trait. But it was you that lumped them together and made the accusation against me. LOL – don’t blame me for your English usage.

      It is still your accusation that stands as the first order of business here – and explicitly not my invoking shame for the Professor.

      I would be happy to discuss the instances of shame – but the order of business needs to be dealt with first is the original false accusation made by you.

      Stop dodging stop deflecting and defend your “observation” or withdraw it.

  6. Back to the point of what would be helpful with data like this:

    What is this grant level like in comparison to the number of applications reviewed in the similar time periods?

    What is this grant level like in comparison to the number of rejections made in the similar time periods?

    How many of the grants are occurring on first actions on the merits? from successful appeals? from RCEs? and related, is the distribution of age per grant shifting?

    Finally, the true measure – what is the grant rate and how does it compare to the historical grant rate and the famous “Quality = Reject” (per the Dudas Administration) Cliff graph? Is the number of grants being seen directly related to any suppression efforts of the Office to not allow past applications? Have we really entered an era of Allow-Allow-Allow?

    What is the rest of the story? (said in the best Paul Harvey tones)

    1. All very good questions.
      Purely anecdotal response: I believe this is a lagging indicator that reflects very high volumes of patent application filing (new applications + continuations) during peak years of the patent boom over the last decade. USPTO has a lot of inventory > 2 years old, so we might see spikes in issuances now and then until that clears. But literally nobody I know in the IP profession thinks 2014 is an era of allow-allow-allow compared to e.g. 3 or 5 years ago. Allowance rates are lower, costs are higher, typical allowed claims are significantly narrower on average, enforcement of issued patents is much more difficult. I expect we will soon begin to see flat or declining volumes of new patent applications, and in another year or two we will see a decline in number of issuances.

  7. Interesting quote: It will not come as a shock to observers of the U.S. businesses that manufacturing is no longer the focal point of the economy. Indeed, the continuous trend is toward an innovation and technology-based economy where intellectual property rights, particularly patents, rule the day.

    Hooray!!! How marvelous! Nobody will make stuff in the future. We’ll all just sit around and “innovate” patents. It’s sound like some sort of patent-luvvers paradise! I suppose everybody will be trained to become a patent attorney from a very young age. We’ll want to be prepared to cash in just in case somebody does foolishly try to make something. Seems like we’re going to need a lot more lawyers, very quickly!

    That reminds me of this recent story about the University of Kansas efforts to pump up the super awesomeness of taking out giant loans to get your law degree a.s.a.p.:

    link to lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com

    1. LOL – “even though none of the comments were inappropriate in tone or substance, unless of course harsh criticism of one’s arguments is considered inappropriate per se.

    2. This in turn probably helps explain why it took so comparatively long for the legal academy to notice the disaster that was overtaking so many of our graduates. Under the circumstances, developing something other than a flypaper-thin skin in regard to criticism might be in order (especially given that we’re supposed to be training future lawyers).

      pretty funny link Malcolm.

  8. What concerns me is the data produced in the Alice case that fully half of all patents now issued are of the “computer-implemented” variety. This probably explains the significance spike in the late 90s that have to do with Alappat and with State Street Bank. We know about Dudas. Then along comes director Kappos of IBM, a great champion of the computer-implemented inventions. And what do we see?

    1. We know about Dudas.

      What does that mean to you Ned?

      Can you say Reject-Reject-Reject?
      Can you say illegal power grab?

      1. From the chart, it looks like Mr. Dudas said “Allow” about 150,000 times per year. That’s 410 times per day, or 17 times per hour if he never sleeps. I guess that would make your chant a bit longer, though.

        1. Thanks Numbers, now compare that to the number of times Mr., Dudas said “Reject” and then compare to the historical averages of the rates of the two.

          Do you get the picture pumpkin?

          Where are those funny gifs you used to supply?

    2. fully half of all patents now issued are of the ‘computer-implemented’ variety

      Have you, by chance, noticed that “computer-implemented” things are a rapidly growing part of the US economy? What a coincidence.

      1. “computer-implemented” things are a rapidly growing part of the US economy?,

        Right. And it’s mostly junk.

        Classic example: I got a piece of unsolicited advertisement via snailmail that contained a little LED display. I was supposed to go to some webpage and type it in to see if I had won $10,000, a new car, or a gift certificate at the Olive Garden. No doubt I’d have to “register” at the site before I’d be allowed to “claim my prize”.

        Would anybody be surprised if some m0r0n at the PTO granted a patent on that method of advertising? I wouldn’t. That’s exactly the kind of junk that’s been flowing in and out of the PTO for years.

        Promote the progress? LOL. Bottom-feeding and grifters, folks. It’s broken system and the patent teabaggers like it that way. Does anybody need to know why they like it that way?

        1. Right. And it’s mostly junk.
          Why don’t you give up your “computer-implemented” stuff for a week?

          Would anybody be surprised if some m0r0n at the PTO granted a patent on that method of advertising? I wouldn’t. That’s exactly the kind of junk that’s been flowing in and out of the PTO for years.
          One man’s junk is another man’s treasure. If there is money to made off it, then it isn’t junk. A million dollars from “junky software” spends just the same as a million dollars from the sale of gold bullion.

          Promote the progress? LOL. Bottom-feeding and grifters, folks. It’s broken system and the patent teabaggers like it that way. Does anybody need to know why they like it that way?
          Do you cut and paste from a script? Or do you make this up on the fly?

          I bet someone could design a computer program that reads the keywords form somebody else’s post and automatically inserts your reply based upon the keyword. Given how much you post, it would probably save you a thousand hours a year and nobody would notice the difference. Time = money, and thus, this ‘junky’ software program would probably be pretty valuable to you.

          1. LOL.

            The invitation to Malcolm (and 6) to abstain from the innovations they wish not to provide protection to has been made several times.

            Apparently, having the integrity to act in accord with their beliefs is not going to be there and even Malcolm listening, well,…

            Well, what I’ve got to say, you really don’t wanna hear ‘cuz honesty ain’t too high upon your people’s priorities.” said in the best Big Ju tones.

            1. The invitation to Malcolm (and 6) to abstain from the innovations they wish not to provide protection to has been made several times.

              Oh, you’ve issued your “invite” more than “several” times, Tr0llb0y. And each time you were given an invitation in return, a very special one. Do you remember it?

              Tr0llb0y’s “invitation”, of course, rests on his bizarre belief that if we get rid of computer-implemented junk that somehow Tr0llb0y and his fellow “innovators” are going to take all our shiny toys away and we won’t see anymore of that awesome “shove-an-ad-in-your-face” technology that our society now depends on.

              Nobody really believes that’s what will happen, of course. But the patent teabaggers love to repeat that self-pleasing garbage. Go figure.

            2. Another Malcolm AOOTWMD: “rests on his bizarre belief that if we get rid of… that somehow… we won’t see anymore…

              Sorry Malcolm, but that bizarre view is your view that a patent system exists solely for those types of things that would not exist “but for” the patent system.

              It is pretty funny that you want to project that belief onto me and at the same time call it bizarre, when the “but for” rationale is deeply ingrained in your own views.

            3. that bizarre view is your view that a patent system exists solely for those types of things that would not exist “but for” the patent system.

              Please explain to everyone what is “bizarre” about a patent system that exists to promote technology that otherwise wouldn’t be developed or would take much longer to develop without that patent system.

            4. “But for” has never been the sole reason for a patent system.

              Hmm. So this is some point of about historical accuracy you’re trying to make here?

              Are you suggesting it’s “bizarre” to believe that a patent system might have ever existed that was designed “solely” to promote the invention of technology that otherwise wouldn’t be developed or would take much longer to develop without that patent system? Even if it’s inaccurate (a point I suspect is quite open to debate) it hardly seems “bizarre.” It’s also not a view that I can ever recall expressing.

              Or are you suggesting that a patent system designed “solely” to promote technology that otherwise wouldn’t be developed or would take much longer to develop without that patent system is itself “bizarre”? If so, why do you believe that? i.e., what’s “bizarre” about that view?

              Maybe you can let everyone know what other purposes for the patent system are so important to you, and why that should matter to everyone else.

            5. Hmm. So this is some point

              It is a point that your posts that smack of “but for” as the only reason why patents should be granted is a fallacy.

              What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

              And yes as a sole reason, such has never happened in recorded history and it would very much be bizarre to do so.

              You really do not understand how innovation works, do you? You appear to be absolutely clueless concerning the foundations of the patent system – of the historical aspects of the patent system.

            6. It is a point that your posts that smack of “but for” as the only reason why patents should be granted is a fallacy

              I don’t think that’s a sentence. Nice try, though.

              as a sole reason, such has never happened in recorded history and it would very much be bizarre to do so.

              So doing new things is “bizarre”? Or is there some other reason that such a patent system as the one we’re discussing would be “bizarre”?

              You appear to be absolutely clueless concerning the foundations of the patent system

              You appear to be a path0l0gical liar with s0ci0path tendencies.

              [shrugs]

              People are going to innovate with or without patents. That’s indisputable. Patents are designed to reward certain kinds of innovation. That’s also indisputable. The question is: what kinds?

              It hardly seems “bizarre” to suppose that the kinds of innovation to be promoted are the kinds that otherwise would not occur or that would take much longer to occur.

              Is the requirement than an innovation be non-obvious also “bizarre”, in your opinion?

          2. One man’s junk is another man’s treasure. If there is money to made off it, then it isn’t junk. A million dollars from “junky software” spends just the same as a million dollars from the sale of gold bullion.

            LOL! The patent teabaggers just can’t help themselves, can they? Sometimes their beliefs just leak out like that.

            We’re talking about patent claims and promoting progress in the useful arts, not how much you love to spend money regardless of how you obtained it. Try to keep up.

            Why don’t you give up your “computer-implemented” stuff for a week?

            I’ll give up when the junk stops flowing out of the USPTO in record numbers. In the meantime, you might work on your own “script”. I’m pretty sure that bragging about how “A million dollars from “junky software” spends just the same as a million dollars from the sale of gold bullions” is not what Eric Guttag had in mind when he suggested that your team needed to do a better job of communicating your dreams to the public.

            LOLOLOL!!!

            1. We’re talking about patent claims and promoting progress in the useful arts
              We’ve seen no advances in software the last decade or so — patents have been a big drag. Yeah right ….

              not how much you love to spend money regardless of how you obtained it. Try to keep up
              I see your reading comprehension skills need a tune up — scratch that, a complete overhaul.

              your team needed to do a better job of communicating your dreams to the public
              The public LOVES inventors. Regardless, the people making money off of software are entrepreneurs, coders, and engineers — with a very small percentage going to the lawyers. However, the lawyers get a percentage of most businesses that involve complex legal transactions.

              fully half of all patents now issued are of the “computer-implemented” variety
              You and Ned are just jealous — plain and simple. That is a lot of work for us that understand that technology. Too bad you wasted your time going into biotech — not much work to be had there.

              Your side needs a better catch phrase than “junky software.” People love their computers, tablets, and mobile devices … all made possible by your “junky software.” Nothing is going to change that … in fact, software is becoming more and more integrated into everybody’s life. You are fighting a losing battle if you are trying to convince people that software has no value (i.e., junk).

          3. Only Sooper Dooper chemical inventions based on the same immutable ten dozen or so elements are worthy of Sooper Dooper patents.

            This is because chemistry was around in Ned Ludd’s day, the golden age of the halcyon past, whereas these funky junky computer thingamabobs are nothing but a passing fad.

            1. LOL – it’s not so imaginary given your other posts within the hour Malcolm. Or is it only you that gets to determine what is imaginary and what is not, what is bizarre and what is not?

              Malcolm the RQ/HD has arrived, all bow to her majesty.

        2. MM so you think that advertisement is a typical example of an information processing invention? I don’t.

          Let’s see Dept. of Labor says computers to replace 50,000,000 jobs over next 20 years and the best your little APE mind can come up with is an advertisement.

          Try. Again.

        3. You know if you don’t think much of that advertisement why would care if they patented it?

          You really don’t care about the law or the facts. Do you?

          You just blather out whatever you can and hope that something sticks.

          1. You know if you don’t think much of that advertisement why would you care if they patented it?

            “If you think that AK-47s are too dangerous, then don’t buy one.”

            More of that sooper dooper deep thinking we’ve come to expect from the patent fluffin patent teabaggers.

  9. As is typically noted when a graph like this is presented, some type of norming effect would be nice.

    What is this grant level like in comparison to the number of applications reviewed in the similar time periods?

    What is this grant level like in comparison to the number of rejections made in the similar time periods?

    How many of the grants are occurring on first actions on the merits? from successful appeals? from RCEs? and related, is the distribution of age per grant shifting?

    Finally, the true measure – what is the grant rate and how does it compare to the historical grant rate and the famous “Quality = Reject” (per the Dudas Administration) Cliff graph? Is the number of grants being seen directly related to any suppression efforts of the Office to not allow past applications? Have we really entered an era of Allow-Allow-Allow?

    What is the rest of the story? (said in the best Paul Harvey tones)

    1. …and btw, I believe that the number of applications still in the various different sections of the Titanic deckchair queues is still above a million applications…

      1. EPO had record number of grants last year.

        link to info.articleonepartners.com

        According to the EPO Annual Report for 2013, EPO patent filings grew by 2.8% – hitting a record-setting high point last year.

        The EPO also granted 66,700 patents last year, resulting in a 1.6% increase over 2012. This was the highest number of patent grants in EPO history, with the EPO noting that “Europe continues to be a key market for innovation.”

        Pretty sure the EPO meant “patent filing”, not “innovation”, as the majority of patent filings come from non-member states.

        1. Non-sequitur attempt Malcolm, to spin the phrase from what was actually said to what you wanted it to say.

          Pretty sure the EPO did not mean patent filing when it said innovation.

  10. Is there any way that you could control for continuation and divisional applications? I’m doing more of those now it seems, and when you’re recycling the point of novelty in different forms, you can really inflate those numbers.

    1. More Quid Pro Quo is always better.

      (but be ready for Malcolm attempting to move the goalposts by trying to change what “Quo” means…)

Comments are closed.