Bill Overview
Title: Patent Examination and Quality Improvement Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress on how to improve the patent examination process and the quality of issued patents. Within a year after the report is submitted to Congress, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office must develop guidance for its patent examiners that take into consideration the report’s findings and recommendations.
Sponsors: Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals or entities engaged with the US patent system
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The primary target population includes individuals or entities that utilize or rely on the patent system, including inventors, companies, and legal professionals.
- Because the bill pertains to the patent examination process in the United States, its direct impact is on stakeholders within the US patent system.
- Global inventors and companies that file for US patents will also be indirectly affected as changes in patent examination could influence decisions to apply for US patents.
Reasoning
- The Patent Examination and Quality Improvement Act of 2022 is primarily focused on those engaged in the patent system in the U.S., including domestic inventors, companies that depend on patent filings for their business model, and patent professionals like lawyers and consultants.
- Each interview aims to provide insights into the subgroups of this population and their perspectives on the reform efforts, as well as how the reforms might impact their well-being over time.
- The policy's limited budget indicates a measured impact likely focused on systemic improvements rather than large-scale direct assistance programs, meaning the impacts on individuals may be indirect or intertwined with other industry trends.
- We need to account for individuals who might not see any significant change because they are far removed from the immediate effects of patent examination processes, such as foreign inventors or small firms that rarely engage with the patent system.
- Given the stakeholder process involved in such reforms, well-being improvements are likely grounded in less tangible outcomes such as increased clarity or efficiency in patent processing rather than immediate financial benefits.
Simulated Interviews
Patent Attorney (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvements to patent examination quality are welcome as they reduce the burden of poorly issued patents on legal services.
- Guidance based on thorough investigation can increase my clients' trust in patent applications, though actual changes might be slow.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Independent Inventor (Austin, TX)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might streamline getting clearer responses from examiners, speeding up my development timelines.
- I hope this reduces vague rejections that make patent refiling hard, though I'm unsure how soon I will feel any changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Tech Startup Founder (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect clearer guidance from the USPTO to make filing less daunting, possibly shortening time to market for features.
- Budget constraints of the policy mean any immediate impact on my business could be limited, but welcome nonetheless.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
University Researcher (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better patent quality can reinforce funding paths reliant on intellectual property, though the policy's financial scope suggests incremental change.
- The reassurance from expected improvements keeps us likely to maintain or increase patent filings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Patent Examiner (Detroit, MI)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy suggests an imminent review of our workloads to align with quality more than quantity, which can be a positive shift in focus.
- Any situation where my work is valued for its impact on patent quality excites me, as it supports my career development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Corporate IP Executive (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act appears promising in instilling confidence in the US patent system, optimizing resources spent defending patents.
- This might only reflect in minor adjustments unless broader economic factors coincide with the reform's aims.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Patent Litigator (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Renewed focus on patent quality might reduce frivolous litigation, directly impacting my workload.
- I am hopeful but cautious as the policy ties quality to examiner guidance rather than broader legislative action.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While potential quality improvement in patents is appealing, the budgetary constraints might limit direct effects on my current plans.
- If patent examiners have clearer guidance, it might lower costs tied to application uncertainty over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A focus on patent quality might enhance collaboration between academia and industry.
- Though the incremental nature means it aligns with the academic timeline more than immediate business impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Patent Consultant (Denver, CO)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act potentially streamlines consultant efforts as higher quality patents reduce wasted time on flawed applications.
- Policy expectations need budget alignment to have a more widespread effect across sectors relying on startups.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $3500000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The cost of creating and implementing recommendations from the GAO report will not be indefinite and should be completed within a 2-year timeline.
- Improvements in the patent examination process can lead to more efficient business operations and reduce unnecessary legal disputes.
- Engagement with stakeholders throughout the patent system is crucial to ensure the recommendations are effectively implemented and address practical challenges.
- Potential long-term impacts on GDP and tax revenues result from improved innovation outputs.