The USPTO is hosting their free virtual conference for inventors, makers, and entrepreneurs next month on Sep. 9-10.
To learn more and sign up, go to https://bit.ly/InventionCon2025.

The USPTO is hosting their free virtual conference for inventors, makers, and entrepreneurs next month on Sep. 9-10.
To learn more and sign up, go to https://bit.ly/InventionCon2025.

Last week, the USPTO issued an order for sanctions against a Chinese company in connection with tens of thousands of trademark applications. The company was accused of exhibiting a “longstanding and widespread pattern and practice of filing submissions with false or misleading information and improperly entered signatures.” Thousands of these trademark applications included falsified evidence including mockups or digitally altered specimens (meant to show use of the trademarks in commerce).
I found this order especially interesting because I’ve had my own run-in with this kind of fraudulent trademark filing. Specifically, I want to talk about a trademark registration for the word TODENG, a name you’ve probably never seen on a product in any store, online or off. That’s exactly the problem.
Last year, I wrote and filed a petition with the USPTO asking them to reexamine the registration for TODENG, a trademark which was granted to a Chinese company called Shenzhen Tuming Juchuang Technology Co., Ltd. Our reason? There’s strong evidence that the trademark was never actually used in U.S. commerce, despite claims to the contrary.
The original application claimed TODENG was used on a wide range of household goods such as furniture, curtain rails, baby pillows, pet kennels, and more. But when we looked for any trace of these products being sold under the TODENG name, we came up empty. No listings on Amazon, Walmart, Target, eBay, Temu, or even Alibaba. No Google results. No real-world presence.
The only “proof” submitted with the application were screenshots of a website (now defunct) and a single invoice. But here’s the kicker: the website domain wasn’t even registered until after the supposed sale took place. That’s not just suspicious, it’s impossible.
Digging deeper, we found that this wasn’t an isolated case. The same attorney who filed the TODENG application had submitted dozens of other trademarks using nearly identical invoices and similarly sketchy websites. Many of these sites followed the same URL structure and were hosted on domains that vanished shortly after the applications were filed (if they even existed at all).
For example, here’s two invoices, one filed by the TODENG trademark applicant, the other filed by a supposedly different individual:

This pattern suggests a coordinated effort to flood the U.S. trademark system with registrations based on fabricated evidence in what we call specimen farms. These fake websites exist just long enough to fool the USPTO into granting a registration, then disappear.
Trademarks are supposed to protect real brands used in real commerce. When foreign entities abuse the system with fake filings, it clogs the registry, blocks legitimate businesses from using marks they actually intend to use, and undermines trust in the system.
The TODENG case is just one example, but it highlights a growing problem. Fortunately, in our case, the petition was granted and the TODENG registration is now dead (check out the petition, linked below, to see what sort of arguments can successfully bring down one of these fraudulent trademark registrations). And as shown in the recent order for sanctions, the USPTO is cracking down on many other fraudulent cases.
Links:
A couple of years ago, the USPTO announced that it would open a satellite office in Detroit. (The Detroit office will open in less than two weeks.) Today, the USPTO announced three additional satellite offices–in Dallas, Denver, and Silicon Valley. It’s too bad that Boise wasn’t selected, but the regions that were selected seem like decent choices as well.
Link:
I’ve blogged multiple times about the 2011 America Invents Act and how it will affect the U.S. patenting system. Now, those of us in or near Boise will be able to learn about the Act from someone inside the Patent Office. Azam Khan, Deputy Chief of Staff of the USPTO, will be speaking at an event on Wednesday, June 20.
The event is titled “Making Business Easier – Improving Access to Capital & Protecting Intellectual Property” and will also feature Patrick Kelley, a senior advisor with the U.S. Small Business Administration. The meeting will go from 7:30 am to 9:00 am and will be held at the Grove Hotel in Downtown Boise.
Related Links:
Title 35, Section 122 of the U.S. Code mandates that every patent application be published “promptly” after 18 months have passed after the filing date (if the application is still pending at that time–that is, it hasn’t issued as a patent nor been abandoned). The publication of pending patent applications in the U.S. is a relatively new concept. This blog post discusses why the Patent Office publishes patent applications and the potential benefits and drawbacks of having your application published.
Before the year 2000, patent applications were not published by the USPTO. Publication only occurred upon granting of the patent. However, the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 added the requirements of Title 35, Section 122 so that unless the applicant opts out, the patent application will be published.
At filing of a patent application, the applicant can specify that he does not want his application published. For the nonpublication request to be valid, the applicant must certify that: 1) the application has not been the subject of a foreign or international application filed in another country, and 2) the applicant’s intent is that the application will not be the subject of a foreign or international application filed in another country. If the applicant is not sure whether she will file a foreign patent application covering the same subject matter, she may not file a nonpublication request–she has to have the intention of not filing the foreign or international patent application to properly request nonpublication.
In cases where the applicant has submitted a nonpublication request, the patent application will not be published, but will be held confidential by the patent office until the patent is granted.
A nonpublication request can later be rescinded. In fact, if the applicant later decides to file a foreign or international application claiming the same subject matter, she must rescind the nonpublication request before the foreign filing date–or she must file a notice of foreign filing to the patent office. If the notice of foreign filing is not filed within 45 days after the foreign patent application is filed, the applicant’s U.S. patent application will be deemed abandoned.
Besides patent applications for which the applicant has filed a nonpublication request, the USPTO will not publish the following types of applications:
The patent office provides applicants the projected publication date of the application by sending the applicant a filing receipt with that projected date–a paper copy of the patent application publication is not mailed to the applicant (the publication is available for viewing by anybody at the USPTO website, www.uspto.gov).
The publication process takes about fourteen weeks. Publication occurs on Thursday of each week. The applicant is charged a publication fee of $300 (per the USPTO fee schedule effective September 26, 2011). If the applicant desires early publication (earlier than the typical 18 month schedule) he can submit a request for early publication, which is normally granted if the patent application has all the necessary parts (in other words, an executed oath or declaration was filed and the filing fee was paid). Redactions to the application can also be requested under certain conditions.
The patent application publication may also include amendments made to the application–including amendments to the specification, abstract, claims, or drawings, provided that such amendments are submitted roughly four months prior to the projected publication date. If the patent application has been assigned and the assignee would like the published application to reflect the current ownership, the assignment information must be provided on the application transmittal letter or the application data sheet filed with the application.
If the applicant spots errors in the published application or wants the published application to reflect subsequent amendments, he may file a request for republication, which must include:
During my time as a patent professional, I have been able to gain a fair amount of experience conducting patent searches. Although searching through the USPTO database for a specific disclosure can be more of an art than science, I have come up with a relatively easy method that takes advantage of the USPTO’s patent index system. In this post, I’m going to briefly describe the index that the US Patent and Trademark Office uses to classify all patents. Then I’ll provide my method for using that system to conduct a patent search.
Keep in mind that patent search results are never conclusive. The patent database has over 8 million patents, so even when you find a needle in the haystack, it is impossible to know that there is not another, better (i.e. more relevant) needle in the stack. The process just has some inherent uncertainty built into it.
The USPTO indexing system is called the U.S. Patent Classification (USPC) System. The USPC System is a classification system of U.S. patents organized by subject matter. During examination, each patent application is classified into one or more class/subclass classifications based on the claimed subject matter of the application. When searching for patents related to a specific technology area, one can limit a search to a specific relevant class/subclass, which is a more reliable way to narrow a search than just using keyword searching.
The simplest way to conduct a patent search is keyword searching. It involves:
There are two main problems with keyword searching:
As a result of these two problems, keyword searches result in a much larger haystack that still probably doesn’t include all relevant results. To manage the size of the haystack while (at least, attempt to) including relevant results, we should use the USPC System.
The USPC System Index is an alphabetical list of the various technological subject matters and their respective class and subclass numbers. The index has up to six levels of indentation, corresponding to up to six levels of subclasses under each class. Each subclass drills down in further detail. Class definitions, lists, and other information on the classification system can be found at http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/index.htm. That webpage is the main menu for the USPC System.
The index can be found on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s website at http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspcindex/indextouspc.htm. The US Patent and Trademark Office provides the following steps to find a target classification:
The Index to the USPC System includes definitions and examples for classes and subclasses. Viewing these definitions can help guide a classification search.
Let’s say you want to identify the class (and subclasses) associated with a carabiner used in rock climbing. You first click on the “C” on the index page, and search the “C” page for “carabiner”–but do not locate it there. You then broaden the scope of your search to “rock climbing”–click on the “R” to see that index page. You are unable to find “rock climbing,” so you think of a synonymous/broader term and decide to search “fasteners.” You click “F,” search for that term, and find that the closest category listed is “Separable-fastener, two part,” which links to “24 / 572.1+”–which refers to Class 24 (“Buckles, Buttons, Clasps, etc.”) and subclass 572.1 (“Separable-fastener or required component thereof (e.g., projection and cavity to complete interlock)
“). The plus sign means that additional subclasses within 572.1 are also relevant. By scrolling through the subclasses within subclass 572.1, you can figure out if any subclasses are relevant for your search.
The problems that the above example illustrates is that correctly coming up with the search term “Separable-fastener, two part” had a low likelihood of success at the outset of the search. The search terms one would most likely use, “carabiner,” “rock climbing,” etc. are not in the index. Thus, my searching method (below) is a more efficient alternative classification search method.
Instead of searching through the USPC Index, my method involves looking for patents in a similar field and noting that patent’s classification. The USPTO patent database can be accessed here: http://patft.uspto.gov/ then click on “quick search” under the heading “PatFT: Patents”. Here are the steps:
Let’s try to do the same search for the class/subclasses which include a carabiner. First, you go to the patent keyword search and type in “carabiner.” The results page contains many hits. The first result that looks relevant is Patent No. 8,001,663 for “Safety Carabiner” (your results will vary as newer patents are granted). Click on that patent and look at the information under “Current U.S. Class”: “24/599.5” and “24/600.1” You can view the class descriptions by searching for those classes from the USPC main menu (http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/index.htm) typing in the class/subclass numbers, clicking the radio button for “Class Schedule (HTML)”, and clicking “Submit.” You will see a listing of subclasses, including your selected subclass. Clicking on a subclass will open a new window that depicts a hierarchical view of the subclass. A reading of what the subclass is should start at the top of the hierarchy and continuing down each step–each subclass includes and further details the description of its parent subclass. By clicking on the “Definition View,” you can get more information on the meaning of each subclass description to determine whether you’ve found the class/subclass you were looking for.
Once you determine the target class/subclass, it is a trivial matter to open a list of all patents within the class and review each one. Because you used the index, your haystack is smaller and better focused than if you had just done a keyword search.
The USPC System is a useful tool to use when searching for prior patents because it is organized by subject matter. Although navigating the search tools can be tricky, this article provides an easy shortcut to finding your target class/subclass. Once one knows the classes and subclasses her invention falls under, she can conduct a (more) thorough prior art search of the relevant technology classes.
The United States Patent Office prioritizes certain application types. The USPTO’s priorities are manifest in its “Petition to Make Special” program, which will be described in this post. The Petition to Make Special is a program that allows patent applicants to get special status and skip ahead of other applications waiting in line–the result being that the “special” application can issue as a patent much quicker than it otherwise would.
Normally, when a patent application is assigned to a USPTO examiner, it is placed at the back of the line, and will only be examined after all preceding applications have been examined first. If a patent application is “made special,” it essentially bypasses the other applications so it can be examined sooner.
The relevant laws provide that if certain conditions are met, a patent application will be made special–and no fee is required from the patent applicant. Under other specific conditions, the application could still be made special, but the applicant would be required to pay a fee.
The following types of conditions will allow the applicant to petition to make special without needing to pay the fee:
Under the following circumstances, the applicant may petition to make special but would be required to pay a fee (as of the date of this post, this fee is $130):
To file a petition to make special, a patent applicant fills out a simple form and files it with the USPTO for the corresponding application. Any fee and supporting documents, if required, are filed at the same time. The petition to make special can be filed electronically through the USPTO’s Electronic Filing System.
A petition to make special may be filed at any time. Generally, it is advantageous to file it when the application is first filed (or soon after) since the whole point is to speed up the application process, and the application process will not be accelerated until after the petition is filed.
The USPTO has a goal of reaching final disposition of the patent application within one year of filing. Past data show that on average, applications made special are first examined roughly 4 months after the filing date. (Compare this number to an average of about 28 months for non-special applications.)
According to data provided by the USPTO, approximately 60% of petitions to make special are granted. The USPTO generally grants or denies a petition within two months after it is filed.
The USPTO previously accepted patent applications claiming certain environmentally-friendly technologies into its Green Technology Pilot Program, which gave special priority to those applications. However, the USPTO has now reached its quota and is no longer accepting petitions under this pilot program. It remains to be seen when (or if) the USPTO will bring back the Green Technology Program.

I’ve posted several times about the America Invents Act, which was passed last September by Congress. Soon, you can attend a discussion forum with USPTO officials about the rules the Office has proposed to implement the legislation. Although the attendees may be mostly patent attorneys and other legal professionals, I think it is commendable that the USPTO is making itself available to the the general public to discuss the upcoming sweeping changes to the patent system.
The roadshow will hit the following cities between February 15 and March 9:

A couple of years ago, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released its Patent Pendency Model (PPM) Simulation Tool, a spreadsheet that outputs the predicted total number of unexamined patent applications in inventory at the end of each fiscal year and the predicted ratio of first actions compared to filings (a number which shows if/how much the patent application backlog has been reduced that year). I thought it would be interesting to compare the predictions to the USPTO’s actual performance over fiscal year 2011.
The USPTO has used similar models since the 1980s, but only recently has it made any such predictions public. The model includes results through 2016. The main inputs into the model are: current patent application backlog, number of patent examiners, examiner productivity, and predicted number of patent filings. The most useful outputs (to a practitioner, at least) are the pendency numbers–how long, on average, it will take for an applicant to receive both his first office action, and how long until the application will issue as a patent. (The “ideal” application backlog for the USPTO is 10 months–or with the current examiner workforce, around 290,000 applications in the queue.)
The model predicted that at the end of fiscal year 2011 (end of September), the UPR patent application backlog (defined as the total number of unexamined utility, plant, and reissue applications–design patent applications are not figured in) would be 632,647 applications. This prediction was based on a predicted 456,344 application filings during the year.
In reality, according to the USPTO Performance Dashboard for September 2011, there was a backlog of 669,625 patent applications at the end of September, with a total of 505,557 UPR applications filed in FY 2011. Thus, even though patent application filings exceeded the expectation by about 10%, the resulting application backlog was only 6% greater than expected.
The model predicted that the fourth quarter first office action pendency (the time from application filing to the USPTO’s first office action) would be 20.8 months, with a total pendency (time from application filing to final disposition of the application) would be 36.3 months. According to the Dashboard, pendency during the fourth quarter was 28.0 and 33.7 months, respectively. Thus, first office action pendency was 35% higher than expected, while total pendency was 7% percent lower. The USPTO has set goals of 10 and 20 months, respectively, for first office action pendency and total pendency.
For the upcoming year, the model predicts that backlog will continue to decrease year-to-year until 2016, when it will hover around approximately 350,000 applications (a ten-month inventory for the anticipated workforce of almost 5500 examiners) and pendency will decrease to 8.9 months (first office action pendency) and 18.8 months (total pendency). Whether these lofty goals can actually be met remains to be seen. It may be helpful to see that the pendency numbers have not improved over the previous three years.


Links:
The US Patent and Trademark Office recently announced a new pilot program it is sponsoring with the National Science Foundation. Through this pilot program, the USPTO provides educational services and its IP Awareness Assessment tool. The pilot program will “provide additional services” in the future.
The pilot program is available to awardees of the Small Business Innovation Research program. The USPTO Small Business Innovation Research Pilot Program has the stated purpose of “improv[ing] the transfer of research from . . . labs to the marketplace.”
Since its inception, the Small Business Innovation Research program has granted over 112,500 awards totaling more than $26.9 billion. Here are some additional statistics from the Small Business Innovation Research program:
Link: