U.S. Patent Statistics and Numbers for 2013

The USPTO issued 305,081 patents in 2013, an increase of 10.2 percent over 2012. The agency also published 347,148 utility and plant patent applications, an increase of 4.7 percent over the previous year. The total number of U.S. patent documents published in 2013 increased to 752,229, another all-time high. Table 1 shows the number of documents by type.

Table 1. US Patents by Type Issued in 2013*

Type	Total
Utility patents	279,899
Reissue patents	844
Design patents	23,479
Plant patents	846
SIRs	13
Applications	347,148

*Based on preliminary data from the USPTO website. Totals may change after the fact due to withdrawn patents and published applications. 

On August 6, the USPTO reached another milestone, issuing patent no. 8,500,000. Design patents are rapidly approaching the 700,000 mark; it is likely that D700,000 will be issued in February 2014. 

The USPTO abolished the Statutory Invention Registration (SIR) Program in March. The number of SIRs published during the 28 years the program was in existence was approximately 2,260. The number of SIRs per year has steadily decreased since the USPTO began publishing applications in 2001. Only 13 SIRs were published this year, almost twice as many as in 2012. 

Table 2. US Patent Number Ranges, Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, 2013

Type	First Number	Last Number
Utility patent	8,341,762	8,621,661
Reissue patent	RE43,844	RE44,688
Design patent	D673,356	D696,835
Plant patent	PP23,288	PP24,134
SIR	H2,274	H2,287
Utility application	2013/0000001	2013/347149
Plant application	2013/0007930	2013/347159

US Patent Milestone: 8,500,000

The USPTO reached another milestone on August 6, issuing patent no. 8,500,000 B2 to Elmer Berendas of Germany for a "Device for locking and unlocking the jalousie (rolling shutter) of a container."According to the patent, this type of container is commonly used in ATMs.

So far this year the USPTO has issued 173,546 utility patents, putting on track to issue more than 260,000 this year. At that rate the next milestone, patent no. 9,000,000, could be reached by early 2015.

Patent Milestone in August?

The USPTO is on track to issue patent no. 8,500,000 later this summer. At the current rate of about five thousand new patents each week, no. 8,500,000 should appear sometime in August. Patent no. 8,000,000 was issued on August 16, 2011, just two years ago. It took over 100 years, from 1790 to 1911, for the U.S. to issue its millionth patent. Since that time, the interval has been steadily decreasing. At the current rate patent no. 9,000,000 will issue in 2015.

U.S. Patent Milestones

Year No. Interval
2011 8,000,000 5 years
2006   7,000,000 7
1999 6,000,000 8
1991 5,000,000 15
1976 4,000,000 15
1961 3,000,000 26
1935 2,000,000 24
1911 1,000,000 121

Frisbee False Marking Case

Interesting article in the WSJ about a false patent marking case involving Wham-O, maker of frisbees. The company is the latest defendant in a string of lawsuits against firms accused of marking their products with patent numbers that are long expired. The frisbee or "fying disc" was conceived by Walter F. Morrison in 1938. He patented the design in 1958, D183,626, and then sold the rights to Wham-O. There are over 200 patents classified in USPC 446/46, the main class for flying disc toys.

Patent # 8,000,000 in 2011?

The USPTO is fast approaching another milestone... Patent number 8,000,000 might be less than a year away. The highest numbered utility patent (as of Oct. 19, 2010) is 7,818,816. At the current rate of about 60,000 patents per quarter, the USPTO could reach the 8 million mark as early as next August or September.

Patent 7,000,000 was issued on February 14, 2006 to American chemical company Dupont for a new type of polysaccharide fiber. Patent 7,500,000 was issued on March 3, 2009 to IBM.

Chinese Patent Number System

According to a note on the EPO's Asian Patent Helpdesk, the Chinese patent office has adopted a new numbering scheme for published applications and issued patents. Prior to April 2010, applications and patents were published with different numbers. The new system uses the same number for both stages with the appropriate document kind code, e.g. A, A8 and A9 for published applications and B, B8 and B9 for granted patents.

Ghost of Patents Past

Have you ever noticed old patent numbers printed on new products? I own a pie dough blender that I bought new about 15 years ago. Etched on its blade are three US patent numbers, 1486255, 1645052 and 1724356.

A quick check in a patent database reveals that these were issued in 1924, 1927 and 1929, respectively. All three would have expired between 1941-1946, so what are the doing on a product manufactured almost fifty years later? As it turns out, marking products with expired or fake patent numbers is common.

Under U.S. law (35 U.S.C. 292) such false marking can result in a fine of up to $500. Historically, courts have limited damages in such cases to $500 per offense. This may change due to a recent ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the case of Forest Group, Inc. v Bon Tool Company. The CAFC ruling, if it stands, would apply the penalty to each falsely marked item, which could quickly add up to a significant sum. What's even more interesting is that the statute allows any person to bring suit and, if successful, receive 50 percent of the penalty.

So my little $2 dough blender might be worth a couple hundred dollars. Hmmm... In fact, there might be a small fortune of falsely marked gadgets in my kitchen. Certainly enough to pay for a new HDTV.

New Series Codes for Utility/Plant and Provisional Applications

According to the USPTO website, there are new series codes for utility/plant and provisional application serial numbers. The new codes are "12" for utility/plant applications and "61" for provisional applications. The first applications of 2008 were 12/5,841 and 61/9,389, so the new series must have been implemented in December 2007.

In a related development, the USPTO has implemented a new electronic filing system for reexamination proceedings. Reexamination request filed electronically are assigned control numbers starting at 10,000 for inter partes and 1,000 for ex parte requests. Paper filings will continue to receive numbers in the normal sequence. The series codes for ex parte and inter partes reexaminations are 90 and 95, respectively.

Review: Japanese-English Chemical Dictionary

Japanese-English Chemical Dictionary: Including a Guide to Japanese Patents and Scientific Literature. Edited by Markus Gewehr. Wiley-VCH, 2007. 680 p. $230 ISBN 978-3527312931

My library just received a copy of this very impressive reference work. The bulk of the book consists of a dictionary of more than 60,000 Japanese scientific and technical terms. I don't read Japanese, but it appears very comprehensive and useful to anyone attempting to read Japanese patents and journal articles. The first part of the book consists of a half dozen chapters. Chapter 1 is an overview of the Japanese language. Chapter 2 describes the characteristics of Japanese scientific and technical publications. Chapter 3 covers naming chemical compounds. Chapters 4 and 5 focus on Japanese patent documentation and patent law. For me, these were the most interesting and useful sections. Chapter 4, Patent Documentation, was written by the editor, Markus Gewehr, and Irene Schellner of the Japanese Patent Information unit in the European Patent Office. This chapter has a tremendous amount of detailed information about the history and evolution of Japanese patent documents, search systems and numbering systems. Numerous tables provide details about kind codes, INID codes, headlines, etc. There's also a good overview of the Japanese special classification systems known as the File Index (FI) and File Forming Terms (F-terms).

Baby Products, Patent Numbers and a Puzzle

My wife and I are going to be new parents any day now, so our house has been filling up with all kinds of cool baby-related products. (We're having twins, so that means two of everything.) Of course, I can't resist examing all these amazing products for patent numbers. One product that piqued my interest was a rubber diaper fastener called the Snappi. It's a rubber T-shaped cord with plastic teeth that's supposed to be safer than safety pins. I thought it looked like a trap for miniature beavers, but it worked well enough in practice trials on Winnie-the-Pooh.

The back of the Snappi label had a patent application number that looked odd to me. It said "Pat. Appl. 2005/01115". U.S. published application (aka PGPubs) have publication numbers in the format "YYYY/nnnnnnnn", so I went to the USPTO website and keyed in 20050001115. No luck. US 2005/0001115 is an application for a collapsible dishwashing stand. I then tried searching it as an application number in both the USPTO and esp@cenet databases. Again no luck. It didn't look like a Canadian, European or Japanese patent number, so I was quickly becoming stumped. Pooh was too busy admiring his first-class diaper job to offer any helpful advice.

Luckily, the Snappi label also carried the number of a registered trademark, 1,773,066. I switched over to the USPTO trademark database and quickly retrieved the trademark registration for SNAPPI, owned by Snappi Holdings of Pretoria, South Africa. Searching Snappi as the assignee in the USPTO patent database then led me to inventor Hendrik Visser and his patent on a "Diaper or babies napkin fastener", (5,077,868) and two design patents (D321,673 and D320,575) for diaper fasteners invented by Japie Crafford. All three patents closely resemble our Snappi fasteners, but I never did find a patent document numbered 2005/01115. Visser has several other patents and patent applications for related products.

I did notice that the three U.S. patents listed South African applications as priority documents, and the numbers were in a "YY/nnnn" format. So my best guess was that "2005/01115" is a new South Africa application filed by Snappi. It might be too recent to have been loaded in the esp@cenet database (if it's even been published). As I slumped back into my chair, it occured to me that patent numbers are not always as straightforward as you might think.