Can a Concept Be Patented? Here’s What 86% of Applicants Learn the Hard Way

By Craige Thompson, Patent Attorney

About 36% of patent applications filed in 2023 were ultimately rejected or abandoned, with Section 101 rejections for abstract ideas surging from 17% to 23% of office actions between 2023 and early 2024. Suppose you’ve invested months developing an innovative concept. In that case, these statistics should alarm you. The most common mistake inventors make is attempting to patent an idea rather than a concrete invention.

Patent law draws a hard line that trips up even experienced entrepreneurs: you cannot patent abstract concepts, regardless of their potential. The Supreme Court has long held that “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable”, a principle that has only grown stricter as patent examiners tighten scrutiny on what qualifies as patent-eligible subject matter.

The financial stakes are real. Filing a patent application costs $8,000-$15,000, including attorney fees and USPTO charges, yet approximately 86% of applications receive at least one rejection before allowance. Even more concerning: pro se (self-represented) applicants face an abandonment rate of 76%, compared to just 35% for those with experienced patent attorney representation. Understanding the distinction between unpatentable concepts and patent-eligible inventions before you file can save you substantial money and months of wasted effort.

This guide examines what patent law actually protects, drawing on recent USPTO data and court rulings. Then it provides actionable steps to transform abstract concepts into inventions that meet the specific legal requirements for patent protection. Obtaining patent protection can provide a competitive advantage by granting businesses exclusive rights to their innovations, thereby enhancing growth prospects and industry credibility.

The Direct Answer: Concepts Alone Cannot Be Patented

Can a concept be patented? No, you cannot patent an idea or concept by itself. Patent law requires specific, developed inventions rather than abstract concepts or general ideas. This fundamental principle protects the public domain from overly broad claims while encouraging inventors to create and disclose their innovations entirely.

The numbers tell the story clearly. The overall patent grant rate in fiscal year 2023 was about 64%, meaning roughly 36% of applications were ultimately rejected or abandoned. A significant portion involves subject matter ineligibility under Section 101. About 17% of all examiner office actions in 2023 included a Section 101 rejection, which surged to around 23% by early 2024 as patent examiners tightened scrutiny on abstract ideas. Many applications describing concepts without sufficient technical implementation hit a wall at the patent office.

Of particular note, determining what’s obvious versus non-obvious is the #1 challenge in patent prosecution—a challenge for which experienced patent attorneys with years of training battling USPTO examiners have developed the critical calibration that DIY inventors and novice practitioners simply cannot replicate.

The legal foundation is 35 U.S.C. § 101, which provides that patents may be granted only for a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” This statute explicitly excludes abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature. Courts have consistently reinforced this boundary. In the landmark Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that merely implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer “fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Patent protection is only granted when an invention meets the legal standards for novelty, non-obviousness, and utility.

Patents protect concrete implementations that solve specific problems through technical means. You cannot patent the broad concept of “faster data transmission.” Still, you could potentially patent a particular method and apparatus for faster data transmission, leveraging novel signal-processing techniques and hardware configurations.

Not all patents are created equal. Weak patents don’t just fail to protect your invention—they actively help competitors by creating roadmaps to beat you faster and cheaper. Your missteps become blueprints for competitors to design around your patent, leaving you with worthless paper while they capture the market you pioneered.

What Patent Law Actually Protects

Understanding what qualifies for patent protection requires examining the four statutory categories established under 35 U.S.C. § 101. These categories form the foundation of all patentable subject matter:

• Process: A method or series of steps for achieving a result (e.g., a manufacturing process or a data-processing algorithm)
• Machine: A concrete apparatus with interconnected parts or circuitry (e.g., an engine, computer, or device)
• Manufacture: An article or product made by humans (e.g., a tool, component, or consumer product)
• Composition of matter: Chemical compounds or mixtures (e.g., a new drug, material, or genetic modification)

Each category requires that a patent application describe a specific invention in sufficient detail, not just an abstract idea. The invention must have a concrete, specific implementation that goes beyond mere ideas or abstract thinking. An invention must fall into at least one of these categories to be considered patent-eligible subject matter. Even if your invention fits a category, it must not be entirely directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or law of nature) unless it includes additional inventive features that ensure it amounts to “significantly more” than the excluded concept.

Beyond fitting into a statutory category, inventions by businesses seeking patents must meet three fundamental criteria:

Novelty: The invention must be genuinely new. It cannot have been publicly disclosed or known before your patent application’s effective filing date.

Non-obviousness (Inventive Step): The invention must represent a non-obvious advancement over existing knowledge. Even if novel, it cannot be an obvious variation of prior art in the eyes of a skilled professional in the field.

Utility: The invention must have some identifiable use and be operable (it can’t be a purely theoretical device or inoperative idea).

Recent patent prosecution data reveals the scale of these hurdles. Obviousness rejections (35 U.S.C. § 103) are especially prevalent—about 79% of office actions containing rejections included an obviousness rejection, whereas roughly 35% included a novelty (anticipation) rejection. The trio of obviousness, novelty, and indefiniteness accounts for over 70% of all rejection reasons at the USPTO.

Determining what’s obvious versus non-obvious is the #1 challenge in patent prosecution—and one where experience makes all the difference. DIY inventors and inexperienced practitioners often lack the proper calibration that comes from years of battling USPTO examiners. This calibration helps identify which features will be viewed as obvious combinations and which represent genuine inventive steps worth protecting.

The Types of Patents for Inventions

The patent system offers two main types of protection for inventions:

When considering which patent type to pursue, it’s essential to understand the differences between utility and design patents. Each patent type serves a specific purpose and offers distinct protections for different kinds of inventions.

Utility Patents: These cover functional inventions and processes, protecting how an invention works or is used. Utility patents protect functional inventions, including methods, machines, and compositions of matter. They are granted for inventions that are a new and useful improvement over existing technology. Utility patents last 20 years from filing (for applications filed since June 1995) and encompass everything from mechanical devices to electronics, software algorithms, and chemical compounds. This is by far the most common type of patent.

Design Patents: These protect new, original ornamental designs for an article of manufacture. Essentially, design patents focus on how something looks rather than how it functions; they have a term of 15 years from issuance and cover the aesthetic appearance or shape of a product.

According to USPTO filing statistics, utility patent applications account for a wide margin of U.S. patent activity. In FY2023, the USPTO received about 594,000 new utility patent applications, compared to roughly 53,600 design patent applications. These numbers reflect where different innovation types fall within the patent system.

Abstract Ideas vs. Patentable Inventions: Key Distinctions

The Supreme Court case Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014) fundamentally reshaped how patent examiners evaluate computer-implemented inventions and business method patents. The Alice decision reaffirmed that simply taking an abstract idea—like intermediated financial settlement or binary risk hedging, and implementing it on generic computer hardware does not qualify for a patent unless the claim includes “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself.

In practice, this means a claimed invention must introduce a specific technical solution or improvement, not just an automated version of a fundamental concept. The USPTO’s examination guidelines following Alice require examiners first to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea (or other excluded matter) and, if so, to check whether additional claim elements integrate the idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept.

Classic examples of unpatentable abstractions include mathematical formulas, basic economic or business principles, and purely mental processes. You cannot patent Einstein’s theory of relativity or a basic mathematical equation like E = mc²; you also cannot patent a method for organizing human activity or fundamental legal agreements simply by stating the concept. Scientific principles, such as the laws of physics or mathematical relationships, are also excluded from patent protection. These represent basic building blocks of scientific and economic work. Patents should not monopolize the “basic tools of scientific and technological work.”

However, specific technological applications that implement such concepts in concrete ways may qualify for patent protection if they solve a concrete problem through novel technical means. The courts and USPTO look for a “technical effect” or improvement. For example, a pure idea of “organizing information in a hierarchy” is abstract—but a specific software algorithm that significantly improves database searching or data compression could be patent-eligible if it offers a technical solution. The European Patent Office uses similar reasoning, requiring a “further technical effect” beyond the normal execution of software, such as an improvement in computer operation or the control of a technical process.

Computer-implemented inventions face heightened scrutiny under Section 101 in the U.S. The USPTO’s post-Alice guidance says that software-based patents should focus on specific implementations or improvements in computer functionality, rather than merely automating known human activities. Successful software-related patents often claim specific algorithms, data structures, or system architectures that provide a technical improvement (e.g., faster processing, better memory management, improved network security).

Thompson Patent Law’s proprietary Litigation Quality Patent® services use specialized techniques to overcome Alice rejections, increasing success rates by 25-50% compared to standard approaches. With a track record of 1,500+ issued patents and a 94% allowance rate, this expertise stems from years of specialized prosecution experience working with Fortune 500 companies, including Apple, Google, Intel, and Microsoft—knowledge that enables us to help clients ‘out-patent’ even the most significant competitors.

Real-world examples illustrate these boundaries clearly:

Amazon’s One-Click Ordering: A broad concept for “improving online shopping” is unpatentable on its own, but Amazon’s one-click online ordering system was patentable because it provided a specific technical mechanism for a streamlined purchase transaction. Amazon’s patent (U.S. 5,960,411) claimed a particular client-server interaction in which a single user action triggers an order using previously stored customer credentials. The system involved specific data structures (e.g., a stored address and a payment token linked to the user’s account) and procedural steps to authenticate the user and complete the sale with a single click. It was not the expedited purchase idea that was patented, but the concrete system enabling it.

Apple’s Slide-to-Unlock: You cannot patent the idea of “unlocking a smartphone via gesture,” but Apple successfully patented its specific “slide-to-unlock” feature on early iPhones (U.S. 7,657,849, filed in 2005). Apple’s patent included detailed claims and descriptions of a particular graphical user interface and gesture recognition algorithm that required the user to slide a finger in a predefined manner to unlock the device. The patent defined the coordinates and movement of the sliding gesture, the on-screen feedback (e.g., a moving slider graphic), and the conditions that constitute a successful unlock. By documenting the specific software routine and user interaction, Apple turned an intuitive concept into a protectable invention.

Google’s PageRank: The general idea of “ranking search results by relevance” is abstract and not patentable. But Google’s PageRank algorithm was patented (U.S. 6,285,999) because it claimed a concrete and novel approach to ranking web pages based on the structure of the Web. The patent detailed a method for assigning importance weights to webpages in a linked network by recursively calculating scores based on incoming links and each webpage’s own score. Google’s innovation was to treat a link from Page A to Page B as a “vote,” and weigh votes from more “important” pages higher than others—and the patent spelled out how to initialize, iterate, and converge these scores mathematically. This specific technical method provided “significantly more” than mere ranking, turning it into a concrete invention that solved a practical problem: retrieving useful search results.

The takeaway: abstract ideas must be implemented in a particular, innovative manner to cross into patent-eligible territory. If you have an idea, think about the technical implementation. What new device, system, or process can embody that idea? How is it different from generic computer functions or human activity?

How to Transform Concepts into Patentable Inventions

Converting an abstract concept into a patentable invention requires systematic development and detailed documentation. It’s not enough to have a eureka moment; you need to reduce the idea to a practical form that meets the legal standards. The development process is crucial for transforming an initial idea into a patentable invention, as it involves careful planning, documentation, and refinement to meet legal and technical requirements. Here are the steps:

1. Identify Specific Technical Solutions

Start by analyzing how your concept can be executed tangibly. Ask yourself: What problem does this idea actually solve, and what method or apparatus solves it? Instead of describing general goals or results, define the concrete features that achieve those results.

For example, if your concept is an “improved user experience” for a software app, drill down into specifics: maybe it’s a new user interface workflow, a novel data structure that speeds up processing, or a combination of hardware sensors and software that achieves a new functionality. The patent system rewards specificity. You cannot patent “faster and easier navigation,” but you can patent a GUI with a unique gesture-control scheme that demonstrably reduces steps to navigate.

2. Document How It Works (Enablement)

Patent law requires that you disclose the invention in sufficient detail such that a person of ordinary skill in the field could make and use it (this is the enablement requirement, under 35 U.S.C. § 112). In practice, this means writing a thorough description and, where applicable, providing drawings or flowcharts.

Throughout the development process, it is essential to maintain detailed records of technical decisions, sketches, and specifications. These records not only help in drafting the patent application but also strengthen your ability to protect your intellectual property.

As you develop your concept, keep a notebook or digital log of design decisions, sketches, experimental results, and technical details. If it’s a physical device, create engineering drawings or a prototype. If it’s a software idea, write pseudo-code or actual code, and illustrate the system architecture. This documentation helps in drafting the patent application and forces you to work through implementation challenges.

3. Create Prototypes or Simulations—But Be Careful About Timing

Whenever feasible, build a prototype or at least a functional model of your invention. This could be a physical prototype of a gadget or a software demo of a computer-implemented invention.

Critical timing warning: If you’re working with external manufacturers, be aware that requesting quotes or offers for prototype production can trigger the “on-sale bar” under patent law. The one-year clock starts with a commercial offer or quote—not the actual purchase. This is particularly dangerous in industries such as semiconductors (TSMC tape-outs), medical devices, and custom electrical systems, where long development cycles are typical. To protect your rights, file a provisional patent application before requesting any manufacturing quotes.

For example, electrical engineers requesting quotes for custom PCB manufacturing, medical device developers seeking prototype fabrication, or semiconductor designers submitting tape-out requests to foundries like TSMC can inadvertently trigger the on-sale bar months or even years before they realize it—destroying patent rights before they even file.

Prototyping serves multiple purposes: it tests the viability of your solution, provides proof that the concept can be realized, and often reveals improvements or modifications that become part of the invention. For processes that can’t be easily prototyped, create flowcharts or diagrams that map out each step.

4. Conduct Prior Art Research

As you flesh out the invention, conduct thorough patent searches. It’s important to know what others have done in the space so you can refine your solution to be novel and non-obvious. Evaluating existing solutions and documenting how your invention compares to or improves upon them can significantly strengthen your patent application.

You might discover that one approach is already known, which could inspire you to pivot to a unique one.

5. Follow a Realistic Timeline

For guidance on constructing a realistic timeline for your patent process, consider consulting experienced professionals such as the Thompson Patent Law team.

Realistically, transforming a raw idea into a ready-for-patenting invention can take anywhere from a few months to a couple of years. A practical timeline for development might be:

• Brainstorming and initial concept documentation: 2–4 weeks (including early sketches and identifying key technical hurdles)
• Proof-of-concept development: 1–3 months (writing initial code, breadboarding a device, or synthesizing a small batch of a chemical compound)
• Prototype and testing: 3–6 months for mechanical/electrical devices (shorter for software, where iterative testing is faster). Use this stage to gather data demonstrating that your invention actually achieves its intended result.
• Refinement and preparation for patenting: 1–2 months (finalizing the written description, making formal drawings, and drafting claims, often with the help of a patent professional)

This could easily take 6–18 months in total. Rushing a half-baked idea into a patent filing often backfires—the application might be too broad (drawing a Section 101 rejection for being abstract) or too vague (leading to Section 112 rejections for insufficient description). Taking the time to fully realize the concept as an invention will pay off with a stronger patent and a better product.

Remember: under the first-to-file system, your competitors may already be working on similar ideas. While you’re developing your invention, someone else could file first and secure the rights. Strategic use of provisional patent applications can lock in your priority date while you continue development.

Patent Search and Prior Art Analysis

Conducting a thorough patent search is one of the most critical steps before filing a patent application. A prior art search helps you answer vital questions: Is my invention truly new? Has someone else already patented or published something similar? The results will inform whether you should proceed, pivot, or refine your invention.

Why Search? The patent examiners will perform a prior art search during examination, so it’s wise to do your homework first. Discovering early that your concept has been done before can save you the cost and time of a doomed application. Conversely, if you find prior art that is close but not identical, you can tailor your invention to distinguish it from it, thereby improving your chances of patentability.

Where to Search: The USPTO offers free patent databases (such as the Patent Public Search tool) that include millions of issued U.S. patents and published patent applications. You can search by keywords, classification, inventor names, etc. Another excellent resource is Google Patents, which provides a user-friendly interface and often includes patents from multiple countries, as well as non-patent literature.

For serious searching, consider professional databases like Derwent Innovation, STN, Orbit, or PatBase, which have powerful search capabilities (semantic search, citation mapping, etc.) and global coverage, though these often require a subscription or a search professional’s assistance.

Remember that prior art isn’t limited to patents. Scientific papers, technical standards, product manuals, and even websites or public demonstrations can count as prior art if they predate your filing. So search broadly: academic databases (like IEEE or ACM for technology), product literature, and general web searches may reveal important information.

What to Look For: When analyzing prior art, focus on references that solve the same problem or achieve a similar result as your invention. If you find a single patent or publication that has all the key features of your concept, that’s a sign your idea is already known (and thus not novel). More often, you’ll find pieces of your idea scattered across multiple references. That raises the obviousness issue: could someone knowledgeable have combined those pieces?

Your goal is to either find an aspect of your invention that is completely missing from the prior art or to show a surprising or non-trivial synergy in how your invention’s elements work together. Take detailed notes on the closest prior art. When it comes time to draft the patent, you (or your attorney) can emphasize the differences.

Patent Search Cost: Inventors can do preliminary searches themselves at low cost (essentially your time investment). However, relying solely on DIY Google searches or AI tools like ChatGPT leaves you dangerously exposed. These methods cannot replicate the comprehensive analysis a professional provides.

DIY inventors often make the critical mistake of relying solely on Google searches or AI tools like ChatGPT for prior art searching. These methods cannot replicate the comprehensive analysis a professional patent attorney provides and leave inventors dangerously exposed to invalidating prior art they never discovered.

Professional patent search firms or patent attorneys offer search services typically ranging from $1,000 to $3,000 for a comprehensive U.S. and international search in a particular field. According to industry data, professional prior art searches for complex inventions often run $2,000–$5,000 (and more if worldwide coverage is needed). While this might seem like a significant investment,” it represents essential due diligence that prevents the far costlier mistake of building a business around an invention you cannot actually protect. This is where experienced patent attorneys with technical expertise in your specific field—electrical, mechanical, software, medical devices, or chemical engineering—prove invaluable.

Protecting Ideas Before They Become Patentable

While concepts alone cannot be patented, you might still need to protect your ideas during the development phase, especially if you need to share them with others (partners, investors, manufacturers). A few tools can help safeguard your innovation until it’s fully fleshed out and ready for a patent filing:

Provisional Patent Applications

A provisional patent application is a temporary filing that establishes an early priority date for your invention without starting the 20-year patent clock. It’s often described as a “placeholder” that holds your spot in line. Provisional patent applications are not examined and do not, in themselves, become patents. Still, if you file a non-provisional (regular) patent application within 12 months of the provisional, you can use the earlier provisional filing date for prior art purposes.

Importantly, provisional patent applications don’t count against your 20-year patent term, giving you a full 21 years of potential protection from initial filing to patent expiration.

The USPTO filing fee for a provisional application is relatively low (currently $320 for a small entity, or $160 for a micro entity). However, the real value lies in professional preparation. With experienced attorney assistance, provisional applications represent an exceptional value as an early-stage protection tool—an investment of a few thousand dollars that can secure your competitive position and create immediate monetizable property rights. Note: A provisional application still needs to adequately describe your invention (just like any patent filing). Simply listing an idea in a few sentences won’t suffice; you should include as much detail as possible to support the claims you’ll make in the non-provisional. This is why professional preparation matters—saving money upfront on legal fees often results in wasted time and money, with no patent protection.

Why Provisional Applications Are Superior to NDAs

Many inventors mistakenly rely on non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) for protection during development. However, provisional patent applications provide concrete, legally enforceable rights that vague NDA agreements simply cannot match. Here’s why:

• Corporate Requirements: Most sophisticated companies require inventors to file provisional patent applications before discussing inventions with them. This protects companies from idea-submission lawsuits and demonstrates that you’re serious about IP protection.
• Business Credibility: “Patent pending” status signals to investors, partners, and customers that you have a legitimate, developing IP asset—not just an idea with paperwork.
• Immediate Monetization: Provisional patent applications create immediate monetizable property rights for licensing, using as collateral, or adding to your balance sheet. NDAs create no property rights whatsoever.
• Legal Protection: Once filed, you can label your invention “patent pending” and have concrete legal protection. If someone comes up with the same idea independently, your earlier filing date can prevail.
• Business Credibility: ‘Patent pending’ status signals to investors, partners, and customers that you have a legitimate, developing IP asset—not just an idea with paperwork. This credibility opens doors that NDAs cannot.
• Immediate Monetization: Provisional patent applications create immediate monetizable property rights for licensing, using as collateral, or adding to your balance sheet. NDAs create no property rights whatsoever.

Many inventors file a provisional application once they’ve nailed down the core concept, then use the 12-month window to develop further and refine while maintaining their priority date. In our first-to-file system, this strategy prevents competitors from beating you to the patent office while you perfect your invention.

Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs)—Limited Use

An NDA is a contract that binds parties to keep certain information confidential and not misuse it. A confidentiality agreement can also be used to protect trade secrets and confidential information during the early stages of invention development. If you need to discuss your idea with someone (who isn’t yet under any obligation of secrecy), it’s prudent to have them sign an NDA first. For example, if you approach a manufacturer to prototype your device, an NDA can legally prevent them from sharing your design or using it for their own purposes.

Keep in mind that an NDA is only as good as the party’s willingness to abide by it and your ability to enforce it. When dealing with investors, note that many venture capitalists won’t sign NDAs (as a policy, because they see many ideas), but service providers and individual contractors usually will. For serious protection, always file a provisional patent application rather than relying solely on NDAs.

Trade Secret Protection

Some ideas may not end up patented at all, but could be kept as trade secrets. Trade secrets are protected by secrecy rather than by a patent grant. If you have a valuable formula, recipe, algorithm, or business method that cannot be easily reverse-engineered, you may keep it secret indefinitely.

The classic example is the Coca-Cola formula—it’s not patented (patents expire, and then the invention becomes public domain). Still, as a secret, it has remained proprietary for well over a century. During the development phase, treat sensitive know-how as a trade secret: share it only on a need-to-know basis, use NDAs, and implement security measures (both digital and physical).

Documentation and IP Assignments

Keep dated records of your inventive activities (hardbound notebooks, timestamped files, etc.). While the U.S. is now a “first-to-file” system (meaning whoever files first generally wins priority, not who invents first), documentation can help in other ways, such as proving derivation or invention dates if needed.

Also, if you work with others (co-inventors, consultants), have clear agreements in place that assign IP ownership to you or your company. This way, there’s no confusion about who owns the concept if it evolves into a patentable invention.

Protection Method	Purpose/Benefit	Duration	Cost (approx.)
Provisional Patent Application	Early filing date; “Patent Pending” status; monetizable asset	Expires after 12 months (must convert to full application)	USPTO fee ~$320 (small entity); professional preparation represents exceptional value for early-stage protection
Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA)	Limited confidentiality for discussions	As specified in the agreement (often 2–5 years or until disclosure is made public)	Low (a few hundred dollars to draft, or template)
Trade Secret	Protection by secrecy (no public disclosure)	Indefinite (as long as kept secret)	Low direct cost, but requires security measures to maintain secrecy
Utility Patent (non-provisional)	Complete patent protection (exclusive rights)	20 years from filing (if granted)	USPTO fees $1k+; attorney fees represent investment in enforceable protection

Be mindful of public disclosure rules. In the U.S., you have a one-year grace period from the time you first publicly disclose or offer for sale your invention to file a patent. But in most other countries, any public disclosure before filing destroys patentability. So if your concept isn’t yet patented or isn’t in a provisional application, avoid publishing or presenting it in any way that isn’t under NDA. It’s safest to file first (even a provisional) before revealing your invention to the world.

The Patent Application Process: From Concept to Grant

Once you have a fully developed invention and have done preliminary due diligence, the next big step is filing a patent application and navigating the USPTO examination process. Here’s an overview of what to expect:

The patent filing process typically involves choosing the appropriate patent type, conducting a patent search, and preparing and submitting the application. Inventors should seek patent protection only for fully developed, practical implementations of their concepts.

1. Preparation of the Application

This stage involves writing the patent specification and drafting claims. The specification is a detailed written description of the invention, often with sections like Background, Summary, Detailed Description, and figures (drawings). You need to clearly describe how to make and use the invention, and highlight what is novel about it. Any unique terminology should be explained.

The claims are the legal definitions of your invention; the most critical part of the application. Drafting claims is an art: they must be broad enough to cover variations of your invention (so competitors can’t easily design around it) but narrow enough to be novel and non-obvious over prior art. An experienced patent attorney’s expertise is invaluable here, as they know how to phrase claims and anticipate how an examiner might read them. Working with a patent lawyer can help ensure your application is prepared correctly and submitted.

This is where the obviousness strategy must be ‘baked into the cake’ from the start. Thompson Patent Law’s experienced attorneys understand which claim elements trigger obviousness rejections and structure applications to address them preemptively using proprietary Litigation Quality Patent® services. This level of strategic preparation—developed through years of experience battling Patent Office bureaucrats and refined across 1,500+ issued patents—simply cannot be replicated by DIY inventors or inexperienced practitioners.

2. Filing with the USPTO

Today, almost all patent filings are done electronically via the USPTO’s Patent Center system. When filing, you’ll include the specification, claims, any drawings, an abstract, and various forms. The USPTO charges filing fees that depend on the type of application and the applicant’s size. As of 2024, a basic utility patent filing fee for a small entity is about $1,760 (which includes the filing, search, and examination fees). Micro-entities pay half of that.

Upon filing, your application is assigned an application number and a filing date. Patent offices are responsible for reviewing applications and ensuring that only eligible inventions are granted patents. You can now legitimately label the invention “Patent Pending.”

3. The Waiting (Pendency)

After filing, there is usually a wait before an examiner takes up your case. The average time to first examiner review (first Office Action) was about 20.5 months in FY2023 for utility applications—though this varies by field. By late 2024, the USPTO reported a growing backlog of over 800,000 unexamined applications, pushing first-action pendency to nearly 2 years.

There are ways to jump the queue (like filing a petition to make special, or using the USPTO’s Track One prioritized examination for an extra fee) if fast examination is crucial. Otherwise, be prepared to wait roughly 1.5 to 2 years after filing to hear substantive feedback.

4. Examination and Office Actions

When your application comes up, a patent examiner will review it. The examiner checks formalities and then the substance: patentability over prior art and compliance with patent laws. Very often, the first communication from the examiner is an Office Action listing rejections or objections.

Don’t be alarmed—it’s actually normal to get at least one rejection. In fact, about 86% of patent applications receive at least one rejection before allowance. The examiner will cite prior art references (patents or publications) to argue that your claims are not new or are obvious. They might also raise 101 (eligibility) issues if your claims seem abstract, or 112 issues if something isn’t clear or supported.

Figure 1: Breakdown of USPTO Patent Rejections by Category (FY 2023): Obviousness under Section 103 accounted for the largest share of rejections, followed by subject matter eligibility (Section 101), novelty (Section 102), and specification issues (Section 112). Understanding these categories helps inventors draft stronger applications and avoid common pitfalls.

Common scenarios in a first Office Action:

• § 102 Rejection (Anticipation): The examiner says claim 1 is fully met by Patent X. You’ll need to argue that Patent X doesn’t actually show something (point out differences) or amend the claim to include a feature that’s not in X.
• § 103 Rejection (Obviousness): The examiner might say claim 1 is basically in Patent X, except for one feature which Patent Y teaches; therefore, claim 1 would be obvious by combining X + Y. This is very common—roughly 40% of initial rejections are obviousness-based combinations. You’d respond by explaining why the combination isn’t obvious or by amending to include a distinguishing limitation.
• § 101 Rejection (Ineligible subject matter): If you have a software or business-related invention, the examiner might say it’s an abstract idea without more. You’d then argue that your invention has a practical application or technological improvement, or amend to clarify the technological steps.
• § 112 Rejection (Enablement/Written Description or Indefiniteness): The examiner might find your claims unclear (“indefinite”) or say you claimed something not fully supported by the description. Fixing this usually involves adding a definition or a basis to the spec, or slightly rewording.

You (typically through your patent attorney) will have an opportunity to respond in writing to each Office Action, usually within a 3-month deadline (extendable, with fees, up to 6 months). In the response, you can amend claims and/or make arguments against the rejections. This back-and-forth is known as patent prosecution.

The examination process often involves multiple rounds. Prosecution might go through 2–4 rounds over the course of a year or more. The USPTO statistics indicate an average total pendency (from filing to final disposition) of around 25–30 months (just over 2 years), but with significant variance.

Thompson Patent Law’s experienced patent attorneys who understand the sophisticated legal doctrines for overcoming rejections can spare clients 1-2 years and five figures in prosecution costs by getting applications allowed faster with fewer Office Action responses. Our 94% allowance rate demonstrates that strategically engineered patents are allowed on first- or second-office actions, resulting in stronger, more valuable patents.

Experienced patent attorneys who understand the sophisticated legal doctrines for overcoming rejections can spare clients 1-2 years and five figures in prosecution costs by getting applications allowed faster with fewer Office Action responses.

5. Allowance and Grant

If you overcome the examiner’s rejections, either by argument or acceptable claim amendments, the examiner will issue a Notice of Allowance. This is the happy news that your claims are considered patentable. You’ll then pay an issue fee (and publication fee if not already paid). A few months later, the USPTO will issue the patent and assign it a patent number.

From application to grant, the timeline in the U.S. is often about 2 to 4 years (assuming you don’t use expedited procedures). Once granted, maintenance fees will be due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years to keep the patent in force.

Throughout this process, it’s crucial to engage proactively. Patent prosecution is a bit like negotiating with the examiner. You can even have interviews (phone, video, or in-person) with the examiner to discuss the case, which often helps clarify issues and move toward allowance.

Common Rejection Reasons and How to Avoid Them

Even well-prepared applications can face rejection. Knowing the common rejection reasons in advance lets you steer around them when drafting and prosecuting your patent. Here are some frequent rejection types and strategies to avoid or overcome them:

Subject Matter Eligibility (35 U.S.C. § 101)

This is about whether your invention fits one of the four statutory categories and is not entirely an abstract idea, natural phenomenon, etc. Applications related to software, business methods, or medical device software often get Section 101 rejections, especially post-Alice.

To avoid these, draft your application to emphasize technical applications. Frame your invention in terms of technical problems and solutions. For example, instead of claiming a method of “marketing to a user based on their location” (which sounds like a business idea), claim “a system comprising [hardware] configured to perform [steps]” where the steps involve particular sensors, data processing techniques, or improvements to computer operation (like less bandwidth usage or improved accuracy).

Use the USPTO’s own guidance examples if applicable. The USPTO has noted that specific AI-based inventions can be patent-eligible if they improve technology. By concretizing your claims, you make it harder for an examiner to label them as “directed to an abstract idea.”

Lack of Novelty (35 U.S.C. § 102)

A novelty rejection means some prior art reference has every element of your claim. This is a complete overlap. To preempt this, do a thorough prior art search and don’t claim what’s already out there. If you find something very close, adjust your claims to include an additional feature that addresses the deficiency (assuming that feature is part of your invention).

When writing the application, include various optional features and fallback positions in the description, so that if an examiner later cites a reference that knocks out your broad claim, you have support to narrow the claim. If you do get a novelty rejection, analyze the cited reference carefully. The examiner may have interpreted a term too broadly or made an error.

Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103)

This is the most common substantive rejection, and determining what’s obvious versus non-obvious is the #1 challenge in patent prosecution. An examiner might combine two, three, or even more references to show that, collectively, they cover all your claim elements, and assert that it would have been obvious to put them together.

Determining what’s obvious versus non-obvious is the #1 challenge in patent prosecution, and proper calibration only comes from years of experience battling USPTO examiners. DIY inventors and inexperienced attorneys often lack this calibration—they either under-estimate obviousness (claiming obviously old combinations) or over-estimate it (assuming their invention is obvious when it’s actually not). This calibration gap is why Thompson Patent Law’s track record of 1,500+ issued patents and 94% allowance rate matters—it represents years of specialized training in overcoming obviousness rejections that cannot be replicated through self-study or general legal practice.

To avoid obviousness issues, highlight in your application any unexpected results or advantages of your feature combination. If your invention is a combination of known parts, what synergy or unsolved problem does it address? Including comparative data or a story of a technical challenge overcome can later be used as arguments for non-obviousness.

If you do get an obviousness rejection, attack it on multiple fronts:

• Distinguish the references: One of the references doesn’t teach what the examiner says it does.
• Lack of motivation: Examiners must explain why someone would combine references. If that rationale is weak or based on hindsight, call it out.
• Results of combination: Argue that even if one were to combine A and B, the result wouldn’t be the invention, or it would be inoperable.
• Secondary considerations: If applicable, bring up real-world indicators of non-obviousness, such as the invention’s commercial success or long-felt but unsolved needs.

Keep in mind, obviousness rejections are often broad on first action—around 79% of applications with rejections have a § 103 cited. It usually takes a sophisticated understanding of legal doctrines to convince the examiner of the non-obvious aspects, expertise that experienced patent attorneys develop over years of prosecution work.

Insufficient Description or Indefiniteness (35 U.S.C. § 112)

A § 112(a) rejection (written description or enablement) means the examiner thinks your disclosure doesn’t support what’s claimed or isn’t enabling. To avoid this, ensure your application has ample details and examples. Don’t just describe an outcome; describe how to achieve it, especially if you’re considering international patent protection, which involves additional challenges.

A § 112(b) rejection (indefiniteness) means a claim is unclear. Avoid legalese or purely functional claiming that isn’t anchored to structure. Define any term that might be ambiguous. Should you get an indefiniteness rejection, it’s usually solved by clarifying the wording.

Avoiding Pitfalls Upfront

A lot of headaches can be saved by preparation:

• Before filing, do a mock examination yourself: look at your claims and imagine what an examiner might cite. If you see obvious weaknesses, address them in the spec or narrow the claim preemptively.
• Use the USPTO’s Examiner Guidance documents as a checklist.
• Have an experienced patent professional review your application before filing—the USPTO itself recommends experienced legal counsel for serious protection.

Remember that almost every rejection is surmountable if the invention is solid and you have experienced representation. However, saving money upfront on legal fees often results in wasted time and money, with no patent protection.

International Patent Considerations

Patents are territorial rights—a U.S. patent gives you rights in the United States only. It’s also important to note that U.S. patents have a 6-year statute of limitations for enforcement actions, which can extend beyond patent expiration in some cases. This extended enforcement window makes strategic international filing even more valuable for inventions with global market potential.

If you have a global market in mind, you’ll need to consider seeking patent protection in other countries or regions. International considerations include understanding how different countries interpret patent law principles and the strategic implications for global patent filing. Each jurisdiction has its own patent laws and procedures, though there is some harmonization on basic principles.

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)

If you’re interested in multiple countries, a common strategy is to file an international application under the PCT. The PCT process does not, in itself, grant a patent, but it streamlines the initial filing. You file one application (within 12 months of your first filing, to preserve priority), designating all PCT member countries (153 of them).

The application is searched, and a preliminary examination report is issued, which can give you an idea of patentability. By 30 months from your priority date (in most cases), you then enter the national phase in the specific countries you want (paying their fees and providing translations as needed). The PCT buys you time and a single initial process, delaying the high cost of multiple national filings.

Europe (EPO)

Through the European Patent Office, you can get a patent effective in up to 40 countries in Europe via a single application. The EPO has some notable differences in standards. Before applying, it is crucial to determine the patentability of your invention through a prior art search. One key concept under the European Patent Convention is “technical character.” The EPO will only grant patents for innovations that have a technical character or technical effect.

Software and business method inventions must solve a technical problem to be patentable at the EPO. A pure software algorithm improving a business outcome might be rejected as a computer program “as such,” whereas the same in the U.S. might slip through if framed well. The EPO also uses a problem-solution approach for obviousness.

China (CNIPA)

China is the world’s largest filer of patents by volume—Chinese residents filed 1.64 million patent applications in 2023, accounting for about 47% of all filings worldwide. China has become very important for patent strategy, especially for manufacturing-related inventions or as a large consumer market.

Chinese patent law has evolved; a significant amendment in 2021 strengthened enforcement (e.g., higher damage awards for infringement, punitive damages for willful infringement) and improved some procedures. However, foreign applicants should be aware of practical considerations: translation into Chinese is required (technical accuracy is crucial), and the examination process may raise additional issues. The average examination time in China is relatively short, often around 20–22 months.

Japan (JPO)

Japan’s patent system is rigorous and somewhat similar to Europe in some respects. The Japan Patent Office emphasizes industrial applicability and technical advancement. One difference: after filing in Japan, you must file a separate request for examination (within 3 years), or the application will be abandoned.

Once you request examination, the average time to first decision has been improving—currently around 10–12 months to first action, and an overall pendency of around 14 months to grant. Japanese examiners tend to readily combine multiple references for obviousness, and all communication will be in Japanese (so you’ll need a Japanese patent attorney or agent).

Cost Consideration

International patents require significant investment. Filing in Europe, China, and Japan, the three other major markets, will likely each cost several thousand dollars in filing and translation fees, plus ongoing attorney fees and maintenance fees. That’s why many applicants use the PCT route to defer those decisions and costs to the 30-month mark, when you might have secured funding or decided which markets are truly key.

A rough estimate: a patent family covering US, EP, CN, JP might cost on the order of $50,000–$100,000 over the life of the patents (including filing, prosecution, and maintenance). This represents a substantial but worthwhile investment for inventions with global market potential.

Global Strategies

Consider where your competitors operate, or where the biggest customer base is. Also consider the enforcement climate—patents are only valuable if you can enforce them. The U.S. and Europe have well-established enforcement. China’s enforcement has historically been tricky but is improving; in fact, many foreign companies have successfully enforced patents in China in recent years.

Remember: a U.S. patent has a 6-year statute of limitations for enforcement actions. Strategic international filing ensures you can enforce your rights across the major markets where your invention will have commercial value.

Costs and Financial Planning for Patent Protection

Pursuing a patent is not only a technical and legal journey, but also a financial one. It’s essential to go in with eyes open about the costs involved, from application drafting to maintenance fees years down the road.

Here’s a breakdown of typical patent-related costs in the U.S.:

Preparation and Prosecution Costs

These are often the most significant components. If you hire a patent attorney to draft and file your application, the cost can range depending on complexity. Simple mechanical inventions might be in the several-thousand-dollar range, whereas complex electrical systems, software implementations, or chemical engineering processes could be $15k or more.

A frequently cited range for a quality utility patent application by an experienced firm is $8,000 to $12,000 in attorney fees. This investment includes drafting the specification, claims, drawings, and initial filing—work that forms the foundation of your entire patent protection strategy. Budget additionally for prosecution: each Office Action response might cost $1k–$3k in attorney time. If your case goes through multiple rounds or appeals, those costs add up.

However, it’s crucial to view these as investments in protection rather than expenses. Not all patents are created equal. Weak patents don’t just fail to protect—they actively help competitors by creating roadmaps to beat you faster and cheaper. Your missteps become blueprints for competitors to design around your patent, leaving you with worthless paper and a lost market opportunity.

Experienced representation with proprietary Litigation Quality Patent® services can spare you 1-2 years and five figures in prosecution costs while delivering patents that actually deter competitors. When evaluating costs, ask yourself: would you rather pay for patent preparation once, or pay for failed prosecution attempts, redesigns, and lost revenue forever?

Thompson Patent Law’s proprietary Litigation Quality Patent® services focus on engineering patents that withstand scrutiny and deter competitors. With our 94% allowance rate and experience helping clients out-patent the Fortune 500, we deliver more valuable patents, faster, for less total investment—by getting applications allowed on the first or second office action rather than through extended, expensive prosecution battles.

USPTO Filing Fees

As of the current fee schedule, a basic utility patent filing fee for a large entity (over 500 employees) is about $3,020 (including search and exam fees). For a small entity (under 500 employees, or an individual), it’s 50% off, so roughly $1,510. Micro entities pay 25% of the large, around $755.

There are additional fees if your application is long (over 100 pages) or has many claims (over 20 total or more than three independent claims). If you want a faster examination, the Track One prioritized exam fee is $2,000 (small entity). Provisional applications are cheaper—$150 small entity fee.

After Allowance – Issue Fee

When your patent is allowed, there is an issue fee (currently $600 for a small entity). Pay that, and the patent will be issued.

Maintenance Fees

For U.S. utility patents, maintenance fees are due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years from issuance. For a small entity, these fees are currently around $800, $1,800, and $3,700, respectively. They increase over time because the idea is that if your patent is valuable enough to keep, you pay more later in its life. Failure to pay a maintenance fee can cause the patent to lapse.

Design patents have no maintenance fees (one advantage over utility patents).

International Costs

If you plan to go international, budget significantly more. Filing in Europe might cost ~$5k, plus $2-4k in European attorney fees and translation if needed. China requires translation of the entire application into Chinese—that alone could cost $1k+, plus a filing fee of several hundred, and attorney charges. Japan and others similarly need translations.

It’s easy to see a scenario: U.S. ($10k) + Europe ($6-8k) + China ($5-6k) + Japan ($5k) could total $25k+ just to get initial filings in those four regions, not counting ongoing prosecution in each.

Financial Planning Strategies

• Staggering Filings: Use that first year after a U.S. filing wisely. You might file U.S. first, then a PCT at 12 months (cost ~ $4k) to buy another 18 months, and only then enter EU, CN, JP if the invention still looks promising commercially.
• Portfolio Focus: If you have multiple ideas, prioritize. File patents on core innovations and consider trade secrets for others.
• ROI Analysis: Ask yourself, what’s the potential market or licensing value of this patent? If it’s a key product worth millions, a $20k investment in strategic protection is a wise business decision. The question isn’t whether you can afford quality patent protection; it’s whether you can afford to lose market control by skimping on it.
• R&D Tax Credit Coordination: Consider coordinating your patent protection strategy with R&D tax credits. Enhanced R&D tax credits under the current tax policy can help offset patent costs. Thompson Patent Law partners with Paychex to offer free R&D tax credit assessments, helping clients maximize both tax benefits and IP value from their innovation investments.
• Using Small Entity Status: If you’re a small business or individual, definitely claim the small entity discount on fees.

In summary, a rough cost timeline for a small entity for a single U.S. utility patent might look like:

• Year 0-1: $10k (prep and filing)
• Year 1-3: $2k (prosecution actions)
• Year 2-4: Issue fee $600
• Year 4: Maintenance $800
• Year 8: Maintenance $1,800
• Year 12: Maintenance $3,700

Total about $19k over 12 years—again, this is an estimate; actual can vary.

Think of a patent as an investment in a defensive business asset. It’s not just about getting a patent—it’s about getting a patent that withstands scrutiny and deters competitors. The upfront investment in quality preparation pays dividends through stronger protection, faster allowance, and patents that competitors actually respect.

Real-World Examples: Concepts That Became Successful Patents

Sometimes the best way to understand the journey from concept to patent is to study success stories.

Amazon’s “One-Click” Ordering (U.S. Patent 5,960,411)

In the late 1990s, the concept of making online shopping frictionless was in its infancy. Amazon conceived the idea of letting returning customers buy an item with a single click, bypassing the usual checkout process. As a pure idea (“just one click to buy!”), This sounds abstract, but Amazon’s team implemented it within a specific system.

The patent, granted in 1999, detailed how a server could securely store a customer’s payment and address information, and how clicking a “Buy Now” button would create an order using a predefined address and payment method without further input. It described the underlying data flow: the client-side cookie or ID that identifies the user, server-side retrieval of their info, and the step of automatically generating an order and sending a confirmation.

This was not just a business idea but a networked solution to a usability problem. The one-click patent was so significant that Apple licensed it from Amazon in 2000 for use on the iTunes store (reportedly paying Amazon royalties), and it gave Amazon a competitive edge in e-commerce for many years. The patent finally expired in 2017, after which one-click became ubiquitous.

Apple’s “Slide to Unlock” (U.S. Patent 7,657,849)

When the iPhone was introduced in 2007, one of the memorable features was the slide-to-unlock gesture; an elegant solution to prevent accidental pocket dials while making unlocking intuitive. The concept of a gesture-based lock was not entirely new, but Apple’s particular implementation was novel.

The patent claims a method of moving an image on a touch screen from one location to another (along a predefined path) to transition a device from a locked to an unlocked state. Notably, Apple’s patent included details such as the graphical slider image, detection of continuous contact moving to a target region, and visual feedback (the slider moving with the finger).

Apple aggressively enforced this patent in courts around the world as part of its smartphone wars. Apple’s early filing granted it exclusivity, during which competitors had to devise alternative unlocking mechanisms.

Google’s PageRank Algorithm (U.S. Patent 6,285,999)

PageRank was the foundational innovation that set Google apart in search. Larry Page and Sergey Brin’s insight (as Stanford students) was to rank webpages not just by content and keywords, but by how important they were, which they measured by the web’s link structure.

The concept alone (“use backlinks to rank pages”) could be seen as an abstract idea or mathematical method. But their patent laid out a precise method: constructing a matrix of links, initializing rank values, iteratively updating the ranks using a damping factor, and so on. It even provided example calculations.

Interestingly, this patent was owned by Stanford University and exclusively licensed to Google, which, in hindsight, was an incredibly valuable deal (Stanford received 1.8 million Google shares, which they sold in 2005 for $336 million). This underscores that patents can be valuable IP assets that outlive the original context.

These examples illustrate a common theme: specificity and technical substance make the difference. Each started with a cool idea, but it was the enabling technology, carefully documented and strategically claimed, that got patented and created defensible competitive advantages.

Working with Patent Professionals

The patent process can be navigated solo (pro se), but it is complex and unforgiving. The risks of going it alone extend far beyond simple rejection—improperly drafted patents may be unenforceable, vulnerable to invalidation during infringement disputes, and impossible to license or monetize effectively. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 allows defendants to challenge patent validity through summary judgment, and poorly drafted pro se patents routinely fail under this scrutiny. Most successful patents, especially those of high value, require guidance from an experienced patent attorney—someone who can engineer patents that withstand litigation challenges and deter competitors. Consulting a reputable law firm with expertise in intellectual property can provide comprehensive legal assistance throughout the patent process.

The Essential Role of Patent Attorneys

A patent attorney is someone with a technical/scientific background who has passed the USPTO’s patent bar exam and who is a licensed attorney (member of a state bar). This dual qualification is essential for serious business owners because patent attorneys can:

• Draft patent applications that anticipate and prevent legal challenges under Rule 56 and other procedural rules.
• Represent you in infringement litigation and defend your patent against validity challenges.
• Advise on licensing agreements and IP transactions to maximize patent monetization.
• Provide a comprehensive legal strategy across all IP matters, from prosecution through enforcement.
• Navigate complex corporate transactions involving IP assets.

Patent agents have passed the USPTO patent bar but are not licensed attorneys. They are legally prohibited from providing any legal advice beyond filing paperwork with the USPTO. They cannot advise on licensing, infringement strategy, enforcement actions, or any legal matters. Patent attorneys are the essential choice for serious business owners—they’re licensed lawyers (state bar + USPTO bar) with comprehensive legal training who can advise on licensing, litigation, corporate transactions, and all IP matters. While patent agents may be suitable when budget constraints make attorney representation impractical, they represent a limited option that lacks the comprehensive legal authority essential for strategic patent protection, enforcement, and monetization.

Why Professional Representation Matters

Statistics demonstrate the value of professional representation dramatically. Pro se (self-represented) applicants face an abandonment rate of approximately 76%, compared to just 35% for attorney-represented applicants—more than double the failure rate. But the risks don’t end with rejection. Even patents that successfully issue without professional guidance often prove worthless when challenged in court, fail under Rule 56 summary judgment motions, or cannot be effectively licensed because the claims lack commercial applicability or adequate defensive positioning.

The USPTO itself recommends experienced legal counsel for serious patent protection, and for good reason. Patent prosecution requires:

• Years of experience battling Patent Office bureaucrats to develop proper calibration.
• Technical expertise in your specific field (electrical, mechanical, software, medical devices, chemical engineering).
• Legal expertise in patent law, litigation strategy, Rule 56 defense, and comprehensive IP strategy.
• Business expertise to align patent protection with enforcement capabilities and monetization goals.

Experienced patent attorneys add value by conducting effective prior art searches, writing claims that give you broad coverage while avoiding prior art, and knowing how to argue with examiners persuasively using sophisticated legal doctrines. They also help prevent fatal rookie mistakes—like missing deadlines, inadvertently limiting rights through poor word choices, or failing to build in the obviousness strategy from the start. More critically, they draft patents with enforcement and monetization in mind, creating claim structures that withstand validity challenges, survive Rule 56 motions, and attract licensing interest.

Thompson Patent Law has a track record of over 1,500 issued patents and a 94% allowance rate. We’ve worked with Fortune 500 companies, including Apple, Google, Intel, and Microsoft, developing proprietary methodologies that help clients “out-patent” even the most significant competitors. Our Litigation Quality Patent® services focus on engineering patents that withstand scrutiny and deter competitors—patents built for enforcement, licensing, and long-term commercial value, not just checking boxes to get paperwork filed.

Cost of Professionals as Investment

As discussed in the cost section, hiring an experienced patent attorney requires an investment, but it’s an investment that pays off with stronger protection and faster allowance. Attorneys’ hourly rates vary by region and experience (anywhere from $200/hour to $700/hour for top specialists).

However, the real question isn’t the cost of good legal representation; it’s the cost of poor representation or DIY attempts. Saving money upfront on legal fees often results in wasted time and money, with no patent protection. A weak patent doesn’t just fail to protect; it actively helps competitors by giving them a roadmap to design around your invention.

Many practitioners offer initial consultations where you can discuss your invention broadly and get a sense of fit and cost. Use these consultations to evaluate experience, technical understanding, and strategic thinking, not just price.

Choosing the Right Professional

Look for someone with comprehensive experience in your technology area. If you have an electrical system invention, a patent attorney with an electrical engineering background and expertise in prosecuting similar inventions is essential. For software implementations, someone who understands software architecture and post-Alice eligibility strategies is crucial. For medical devices that combine hardware and software, you need someone who understands both domains.

Questions to ask when hiring:

• Have you worked on patent applications in this specific technology domain?
• What’s your technical background and prosecution experience?
• What is your approach to drafting? Do you collaborate closely with inventors?
• How do you handle obviousness rejections and build a strategy from the start?
• Can you provide examples of successfully prosecuted applications in similar fields?
• What are the expected costs, and what does that investment deliver?
• Have you worked with companies like mine (startups, Fortune 500, individual inventors)?

Strategic Patent Counsel

A good patent attorney does more than write applications. They become your IP strategist, advising on:

• What to patent vs. what to keep as a trade secret.
• How to build a patent portfolio that maximizes protection.
• How to monitor and respond to competitors’ patent activities.
• How to coordinate patent protection with R&D tax credits and business strategy.
• How to license or monetize your IP assets.

Keep in mind that your involvement is still crucial. A patent professional can’t pull a great invention out of thin air; your knowledge and input are needed to describe and claim it fully. The best outcomes come from close collaboration between inventor and attorney.

Your Next Steps to Patent Protection Success

Transforming a concept into a patent-protected reality requires more than just a great idea; it demands strategic execution, proper timing, and experienced guidance. Understanding the distinction between unpatentable abstractions and patent-eligible inventions is the foundation, but achieving strong, enforceable patent protection requires professional preparation that goes far beyond surface knowledge.

The Bottom Line on Patent Quality

Not all patents are created equal. Weak patents don’t just fail to protect your invention—they actively help competitors by creating roadmaps to beat you faster and cheaper. Your missteps become blueprints for competitors to design around your patent, leaving you with worthless paper while they capture the market you pioneered. The difference between weak patents and strong patents comes down to experienced patent prosecution with proprietary Litigation Quality Patent® services—methodologies that engineer patents to withstand scrutiny and deter competitors, which DIY inventors and novice attorneys simply cannot replicate.

The Business Consequences of Poor Patent Decisions

Every day you hesitate or pursue inadequate protection, competitors gain ground. Under the first-to-file system, someone filing before you can lock you out entirely, even if you were first to invent. Poor patent strategy leads to:

• Lost revenue as competitors freely copy your innovations.
• Loss of market share to companies that move faster with proper protection.
• Loss of control over how your ideas get monetized.
• Difficulty raising investment capital without credible IP protection.
• Inability to enforce rights or license technology profitably.

Your competitors are already working on similar innovations. The question isn’t whether to protect your invention—it’s whether you’ll do it right or waste time and money on protection that doesn’t actually protect.

Take These Immediate Action Steps

1. Schedule a Free Patent Needs Assessment with Thompson Patent Law to evaluate your invention’s patentability, identify key protectable features, and develop a strategic filing plan tailored to your specific technical field and business goals.
2. Conduct or Commission Professional Prior Art Analysis – Don’t rely on Google searches or AI tools. Get comprehensive prior art searching from experienced professionals who understand your technical field and can identify both obstacles and opportunities.
3. Document Your Invention Systematically – Create detailed technical descriptions, engineering drawings, flowcharts, and prototypes that demonstrate how your concept works in concrete, specific terms. This documentation serves as the foundation for a strong patent application.
4. File a Provisional Patent Application BEFORE External Discussions – Secure your priority date before discussing your invention with manufacturers, investors, or potential partners. This creates monetizable property rights and satisfies corporate requirements that serious companies demand.
5. Engage Thompson Patent Law’s Experienced Patent Attorneys – Work with patent attorneys who have technical expertise in your field (electrical, mechanical, software, medical devices, chemical engineering), proven prosecution success, and experience in engineering patents that withstand scrutiny. Thompson Patent Law’s 94% allowance rate, 1,500+ patents issued, and Fortune 500 client experience (Apple, Google, Intel, Microsoft) demonstrate the value of experienced representation that helps clients ‘out-patent’ even the most significant competitors.
6. Coordinate Patent Strategy with Business Development and R&D Tax Credits – Integrate your patent protection timeline with product launch plans, investment rounds, and R&D tax credit optimization to maximize both IP value and financial benefits.

The Path Forward

Strong patent protection starts with understanding what patent law actually protects—not abstract concepts, but concrete implementations that solve specific technical problems. From there, success requires systematic development, strategic timing, and experienced legal counsel who can engineer patents that competitors actually respect.

The investment in proper patent preparation pays dividends through faster prosecution, stronger claims, and patents that deter competitors rather than helping them. When your invention represents months or years of development work and substantial market potential, the question isn’t whether you can afford quality patent protection; it’s whether you can afford to lose market control by skimping on it.

Your Innovation Deserves Strategic Protection

The quality of your invention matters less than the quality of your patent preparation. A brilliant innovation with weak patent protection loses to a modest improvement backed by strategic, well-engineered patent claims. Experienced patent counsel who understand your specific technical field and know how to engineer patents that withstand scrutiny make the difference between IP that protects your market position and IP that merely decorates your wall.

Don’t let your competitors use your innovations as roadmaps to beat you. Get the strategic, well-engineered protection delivered through Litigation Quality Patent® services that turn concepts into enforceable competitive advantages.