SKGF_Presentation_SKGF Nanotube Patent Study_2004

SKGF Nanotube Patent Study - 2004

Donald J. FeatherstoneMichael D. Specht

Nano Science and Technology InstituteNanotech 2005Anaheim, CaliforniaMay 11, 2005

2

SKGF 2004 Nanotube Study Parameters

• Reviewed 206 United States patents issued in 2004 with “nanotube” in the claims.

• Does not include alternative nomenclatures for nanotubes (e.g., nanocylinder, carbon fibers).

• Reviewed patent prosecution histories.

3

SKGF Nanotube Study Purpose

• Assess the quality of USPTO examination. Confirm or reject industry assumptions.

• Determine prosecution tips to assist clients secure better nanotube patents faster.

• Enhance view of Nanotube patent landscape. (Ongoing)

4

Presentation Overview

• Diversity• Pendancy• Examination Rigor• Landscape

5

Nanotube Patent Growth

Nanotube Patents Issued by Year

0

50

100

150

200

250

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Pate

nts

6

’04 Nanotube Patent Diversity

Nanotube Patent Classes

0

5

10

15

20

2523 33 73 11

813

617

420

420

921

925

226

431

332

033

334

335

936

137

238

542

742

943

544

550

150

852

452

856

8

Patent Classes

Pate

nts

7

’04 Nanotube Patent Diversity

• 56 different patent classes

• Most common patent classes- 250 – Radiant Energy (14)- 257 – Active Solid State Devices (17)- 313 – Electric Lamp & Discharge Devices (17)- 423 – Chemistry of Inorganic Compounds (23)- 438 – Semiconductor Device Manufacturing (23)

• 103 different art units

• 142 different examiners (109 examiners examined only one nanotube patent application)

8

’04 Nanotube Patent Diversity –What the Data Suggests

• Unlikely that USPTO will create an examining group dedicated to nanotechnology.

• Nanotube patent thicket issue is overblown.

• Does limited examiner experience reduce examination quality? More on this later.

• Don’t assume that examiners know subject matter.

• File extensive non-patent literature.

• Aggressively interview cases.

9

’04 Nanotube Patent Pendancy

'04 Nanotube Patent Pendancy(Filing Date to Issue Date)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61

Months

Pate

nts

10


28.122.7206Overall

46.1331PCT

36.616.218Divisional

27.421.511CIP

25.821.411Cont.

28.923.5164First Filed

Pendancy(File – Issue) Average

Claim Average

CountType

11


'04 Nanotube Patent Pendancy(Filing Date to First Office Action)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Months

Pate

nts

AVG: 11.6MED: 10.3MIN: 3.7MAX: 34

12

’04 Nanotube Patent Pendancy –What the Data Suggests

• USPTO pendancy not likely to get better.

• If pendancy too long, options include file petition to make special, conduct search, and file narrow claims.

13

’04 Nanotube Patent Examination Rigor

• 23% First Office Action Allowance

• 77% First Office Action Rejection- 58% Section 102 Rejection- 52% Section 103 Rejection- 20% Section 112, Para. 1 Rejection- 13% Based Rejection on Non-Patent Literature

• Nearly 90% were allowed before a final rejection

14

’04 Nanotube Patent Examination Rigor - What the Data Suggests

• High rates of allowance suggests less rigorous examination.

• Applications spread too widely, may impact quality.

• Rejections readily overcome supports notion of less rigorous examination.

15

’04 Nanotube Patent Examination Rigor - What the Data Suggests

• Take what you can get, and move on.• Minimizes pendancy to optimize patent term• Earlier credentialing of technology• Reduces initial prosecution costs

• Consider searching to supplement record. Supply ample non-patent literature.

• Interview to teach and minimize written record.

• Do “extra” due diligence when considering licensing or investing in nanotube patents.

16

’04 Nanotube Patent Landscape

Claim StatisticsAverage: 23Median: 18Min: 1Max: 206

Government FundingPercent Receiving Gov’t Funding: 16%

Assignee CountryPercent U.S.: 51%

17


Government Funding Sources

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Air Force Army DARPA DOE NASA NAVY NSF

Agency

Pate

nts

18


'04 Nanotube Patent Assignee Country

AustriaAustraliaFranceGermanyGreat BritainIndiaIsraelJapanKoreaNo ListingTaiwanUnited States

19


Most Common AssigneesSamsung: 14Rice University: 12Daiken Chemical Co: 11Hitachi: 08Nakayama Yoshikazu: 08Industrial Tech Res. Inst.: 07Nantero: 06Advanced Micro Devices: 06

20

Nanotube Patent LandscapeNanotube Flow Sensing Device (6,718,834) Issued Patent:

1. A flow sensing device useful for measurement of liquid flow velocities along the direction of the liquid flow and irrespective of a nature of the liquid, said device comprising at least one carbonnanotube, said at least one carbon nanotube being arranged between at least two conducting elements, the two conducting elements connecting the at least one carbon nanotube to an electricity measurement device for measuring electricity generated as a function of a rate of flow of the liquid.

Nanotube Treatments for Medical Devices (20050096509) Pending Application:

1. A medical apparatus comprising: a medical device sized for insertion into a patient, the medical device having a first surface, and a second surface; and, a plurality of nanotubes associated with the first surface of the medical device.

21

Nanotube Patent LandscapePatents Claiming Nanotubes (10)

Patents on Production Methods (38)

Arc (11) Laser (3) CVD (24)

Patents on General PurposeTools & Processes (20)

Application Patents (238)

Materials (52) Circuits (110) Sensors (13) MEMS(8) Energy (37) Manipulation & Probes (18)

Storage (12) Conversion (25)

Hydrogen Storage/Electrochemical (17) Photovoltaics (3) Thermal/Kinetic (5)

Source: The Handbook of Nanotechnology

22

Disclaimers & Contact Information

These materials are not intended and should not be used as legal advice.If you need legal advice or an opinion on a specific issue or factual situation, please

consult an attorney. Answering questions or the use of this material does not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. These material are for information purposes

only and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice

The presentation reflects only the current considerations and views of the authors, which should not be attributed to Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. or any of its

current or former clients.

For More Information, please contact

Donald J. Featherstone202-772-8629 or [email protected]

Michael D. Specht202-772-8756 or [email protected]

SKGF_Presentation_SKGF Nanotube Patent Study_2004

Technology

Transcript of SKGF_Presentation_SKGF Nanotube Patent Study_2004