2. Yes, You Can Learn to Apply for a Patent

​Get affordable patents in the US as an inventor- applicant

If you are an inventor, especially, if you are an engineer or  engineering student engaged in inventing, you need to know about affordable patenting in the US. 
     I was granted four US patents. You can click here to visit the website for three of my patents.
​     In my working with engineering students and engineers, I find them disinterested in inventing because they ASSUME it is not worth spending effort and time on inventing because they think they cannot afford to patent their invention, anyway.
​    Because the cost of getting patents using the services of patent attorneys is out of reach of a typical college student, I give them the following advice:
     I tell engineering students, “When you reach a point in your life, when you can afford the cost of a patent attorney’s services, I encourage you to use an attorney’s services. In the meantime, when you cannot afford the services of a patent attorney, I recommend applying for, and securing AFFORDABLE patents from the US Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO) as a pro se patent-applicant (that is, without the services of a patent attorney).”
     The very thought of applying for patents is intimidating to engineers and engineering students. However, some students, especially the potential serial inventor in my class, readily accept my suggestion, and are eager to learn the process and apply for patents without delay, sometimes before the end of the semester.

---

USPTO is serious about helping you
A little known fact about the USPTO is the requirement that all patent examiners at the USPTO must assist the pro se applicant to obtain a deserving patent, as described in the Manuel of Patent Examining Procedure’s (MPEP) Section 707.07(j).
​
Read Section 707.07(j) of the MPEP
Parts of the MPEP section are reproduced below:

​Qouted from MPEP
​
707.07(J)    STATE WHEN CLAIMS ARE ALLOWABLE [R-11.2013]
I.    INVENTOR FILED APPLICATIONS

When, during the examination of a pro se application it becomes apparent to the examiner that there is patentable subject matter disclosed in the application, the examiner should draft one or more claims for the applicant and indicate in his or her action that such claims would be allowed if incorporated in the application by amendment.
​
This practice will expedite prosecution and offer a service to individual inventors not represented by a registered patent attorney or agent. Although this practice may be desirable and is permissible in any case deemed appropriate by the examiner, it is especially useful in all cases where it is apparent that the applicant is unfamiliar with the proper preparation and prosecution of patent applications.

II.    ALLOWABLE EXCEPT AS TO FORM
When an application discloses patentable subject matter and it is apparent from the claims and applicant’s arguments that the claims are intended to be directed to such patentable subject matter, but the claims in their present form cannot be allowed because of defects in form or omission of a limitation, the examiner should not stop with a bare objection or rejection of the claims. The examiner’s action should be constructive in nature and, when possible, should offer a definite suggestion for correction. Further, an examiner’s suggestion of allowable subject matter may justify indicating the possible desirability of an interview to accelerate early agreement on allowable claims.

If the examiner is satisfied after the search has been completed that patentable subject matter has been disclosed and the record indicates that the applicant intends to claim such subject matter, the examiner may note in the Office action that certain aspects or features of the patentable invention have not been claimed and that if properly claimed such claims may be given favorable consideration.

If a claim is otherwise allowable but is dependent on a canceled claim or on a rejected claim, the Office action should state that the claim would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
​
III.    EARLY ALLOWANCE OF CLAIMS
Where the examiner is satisfied that the prior art has been fully developed and some of the claims are clearly allowable, the allowance of such claims should not be delayed.

​What can we conclude about pro se patent applications from reading the above Section of MPEP?
In unambiguous terms, this section of the MPEP requires the following seven actions from USPTO patent examiners in conducting fair and fast examination of pro se applications for patents:

1. Draft one or more claims for the applicant, when justified
2. Indicate such claims will be allowed if incorporated
3. Do not stop with bare rejections of claims but office actions [examiner’s communications to the applicant] should be constructive
4. Offer definite suggestions for correction
5. Indicate desirability of an interview at USPTO headquarters
6. Note in communications to the applicant that certain features of the invention have not been claimed (i.e., application is missing some allowable claims)
7. State in the letter to the applicant that dependent or cancelled claims will be allowed if written as independent claims.

The above quote from the MPEP and its implications are friendly to pro se applicants—it is the policy of the USPTO. The author, in his conversations with patent attorneys found that some are not aware of this section of the MPEP. Further, the author, during his successful pro se applications for four granted patents from the USPTO since 2009, found that some USPTO examiners were not aware of this section.
      Therefore, I recommend the covering letter addressed to the Commissioner of Patents accompanying patent applications from pro se applicants to include these sentences:
     “Please examine this application in the context of MPEP Section 707.07(j). I look forward to working with you in the spirit of this Section of the MPEP. If any of my claims need a revision, I look forward to receiving your version of the allowable revised claim.”
    Student patent applications may not result in 100% perfect patents sometimes, but it is likely to be better than no patent at all, because even a patent issued to a pro se applicant enables the inventor to license the patent for a royalty, or use it to start a business. With each patent application, and interaction with the patent examiner, the pro se inventor gets better at preparing future patent applications. The author's book has extensive material to familiarize engineering students with the patenting system and the USPTO.
​     My students are encouraged to search the millions of published patents and patent applications on the USPTO website and/or Google Patents, and become educated about similar patents granted by the USPTO, and become savvy before writing their patent application including patent claims. 

​Patent affordability and learning by doing
Patent application filing cost in the US for a college student with no significant income (a micro-entity classification by the USPTO) without any attorney services, may cost about $350 in USPTO fees (2017 prices), and another USPTO fee of about $700 at issue.
    If the inventor-applicant is not a student and has significant income, this fee would double to about $2,000 (small entity classification by the USPTO) for a simple issued patent.  
     For comparison purpose, the cost of getting a simple patent using the services of patent attorneys in the USA may be around $10,000.
     Serial inventors in my class recognize that, if they were to apply as pro se applicants, and get five patents for $1000 each, for a total of about $5,000, in the course of the getting 5 patents, they could become better at patent application preparation and prosecution. 
​     According to the USPTO website, the qualification for their examiners of engineering content in patent applications is:
     “Successful completion of a full 4-year professional engineering curriculum leading to a bachelor’s degree or higher degree in engineering in an accredited college or university.”
     Therefore, students in the author’s class are reminded that an engineering degree holder is qualified to serve as an USPTO examiner after the training provided by USPTO.
   There is good news for all students and others classified as micro-entities on the basis of income.  The new pro-bono program introduced by the USPTO encourages participating patent law firms to provide cost-free legal services to micro-entities to obtain patents.
    

Click for "Patent Process Overview"

Click to see the book on Amazon.com