Patent Office Implements Changes to Requirements for Admissions Criteria for Patent Bar

“This is part of our effort across the Agency to deploy and keep up with the fast pace of technological change and to lower barriers to our innovation ecosystem.” – Kathi Vidal, USPTO

patent barThe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Federal Register Notice (FRN) today implementing the suggestions it received on expanding the patent bar following its October 18, 2022, request for public input on the topic.

The USPTO last year requested public comment on two FRNs that attempted to expand opportunities to practice in front of the agency. The Office said at the time it planned to “expand the admission criteria of our patent bar to encourage broader participation and to keep up with the ever-evolving technology and related teachings that qualify someone to practice before the USPTO.”

Now, following review of the comments received, the USPTO published an FRN implementing the suggested changes. According to a press release issued today, the changes include:

“(1) requiring the USPTO to review certain applicant degrees in Category B every three years to determine whether they should be moved to Category A,

(2) making a modification to the accreditation requirement for computer science degrees such that all Bachelor of Science in computer science degrees from an accredited university or college will be accepted under Category A, and

(3) providing clarifying instructions to applicants for limited recognition.”

“Expanding the admission criteria of the patent bar will encourage broader participation and keep up with ever-evolving technology,” said USPTO Director Kathi Vidal. “This is part of our effort across the Agency to deploy and keep up with the fast pace of technological change and to lower barriers to our innovation ecosystem.”

Also today, the Office issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on creating a separate design patent bar. The announcements come as part of Vidal’s “year of action” following her first term, which included numerous listening sessions and tours around the country to gather public input on various issues.

The changes to requirements for practicing before the USPTO are reflected in a newly published General Requirements Bulletin.

 

Share

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

6 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Eileen McDermott]
    Eileen McDermott
    May 18, 2023 10:36 am

    Here’s more info on current categories: https://ipwatchdog.com/patent-bar-exam/patent-bar-qualifications/

  • [Avatar for Berris-Dale Joseph]
    Berris-Dale Joseph
    May 18, 2023 10:19 am

    Explain in layman’s languaue, please.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    May 18, 2023 06:31 am

    Is the comment in the article about “creating a separate design patent bar” accurate?

    I do not think I would characterize (what I have heard) that way. Expanding who may engage in the design patent space was expressly not a “separate” per se, as those in the existing patent bar would not be excluded.

    Or is my understanding off?

  • [Avatar for Patent attorney]
    Patent attorney
    May 17, 2023 07:36 pm

    Can we conform our rules to mirror every other country while we’re at it – no foreign practitioners. Why are we the only country that allows non citizen practitioners?

  • [Avatar for jacek]
    jacek
    May 17, 2023 11:59 am

    F22strike, I can not agree more. That’s what I have been telling my friends for some time.

  • [Avatar for F22strike]
    F22strike
    May 16, 2023 08:06 pm

    I recently received inquiries on behalf of two individuals with technical undergraduate degrees who are interested in going to law school and becoming patent lawyers. One person has a BS degree in mechanical engineering. The other person has a BS degree in computer science. I strongly advised both of them against pursuing a career in patent law because, with rare exceptions, U.S. patents are worthless. This is largely due to the passage of the AIA by a U.S. Congress that was, and still is, effectively bought and paid for by big-tech. It is very unlikely that in the foreseeable future Congress will sensibly limit IPRs, restore patent eligibility, reform the USPTO, and undo the disastrous anti-patent decisions of the SCOTUS. U.S. patent prosecution will decline significantly. A cadre of highly experienced patent lawyers will be involved in the cancelation of the infringed claims of the remaining formerly valuable patents until there are no bones left to pick.