Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
Many people misunderstand what a patent actually does. A patent doesn’t give you the right to make, use, or sell your own invention.
A patent’s power lies in its ability to confer a “negative right”—the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented invention into the United States for a limited period.
This distinction matters enormously for inventors and businesses. Consider an innovator who develops and patents a groundbreaking new fuel injection system for automobiles. While this new patent allows them to prevent any other company from using their specific fuel injection system, it doesn’t automatically give them the right to build and sell a car incorporating that system.
The car itself is likely covered by hundreds of other existing patents owned by various manufacturers. To bring their product to market, the inventor would need to either design around all those other patents or secure licenses from the other patent holders.
This illustrates that owning a patent is a strategic tool for controlling a specific piece of technology, not a universal permission slip to manufacture a product. It’s a right to stop others, which in turn creates leverage for licensing, sale, or exclusive market positioning.
The Role of the USPTO
The United States Patent and Trademark Office is the federal agency tasked with examining patent applications and issuing patents. It’s the gatekeeper of innovation, ensuring that only inventions meeting strict criteria laid out in federal law are granted patent protection.
Each year, the USPTO receives and processes over 600,000 applications—reflecting the constant drive for innovation across all sectors of the U.S. economy. The agency’s examiners, who possess expertise in various scientific and technical fields, meticulously review each application against the body of existing knowledge to determine its patentability.
The Three Main Types of Patents
Under federal law, the USPTO grants three principal types of patents, each designed to protect a distinct form of innovation:
Utility Patents protect how an invention works or is used—its function and structure.
Design Patents protect how an invention looks—its unique ornamental appearance.
Plant Patents protect new and distinct varieties of asexually reproduced plants.
Choosing the correct type of patent is a critical strategic decision for an inventor, as each offers different scope of protection, lasts for different durations, and has unique requirements and costs. In some cases, a single product may even be eligible for multiple types of patents, allowing an inventor to build a layered and more robust portfolio of intellectual property protection.
Universal Requirements for Patentability
While each patent type has its own specific criteria, all inventions must satisfy certain fundamental conditions to be patentable. Broadly speaking, an invention must be novel (new), non-obvious, and adequately described in the patent application.
These universal pillars ensure that patents are granted only for genuine advancements and that the public, in exchange for granting the temporary monopoly, receives a clear and complete disclosure of the new invention. This framework prevents the patenting of things that are already known, trivial improvements, or ideas that are not fully realized and explained.
The Workhorse of Invention: Utility Patents
The utility patent is the most common and arguably the most powerful form of patent protection in the United States, accounting for over 90% of all patents issued by the USPTO. Often called a “patent for invention,” a utility patent protects the functional aspects of a new or improved product, process, or machine—what it is, how it works, and how it’s used.
What Qualifies for Utility Patent Protection
The scope of what can be protected by a utility patent is defined by federal statute, specifically 35 U.S.C. § 101. To be eligible, an invention must fall into one of four statutory categories:
Process: This category covers methods, techniques, or a series of steps for producing a tangible and useful result. Examples include a method for manufacturing a chemical, a novel software algorithm for data compression, a unique technique for performing surgery, or an innovative business method for processing financial transactions.
Machine: This refers to a concrete apparatus or device with moving parts or interconnected components that perform a function. This category includes everything from simple mechanical tools to complex electronic devices like computer systems, engines, and 3D printers.
Article of Manufacture: This covers man-made items produced from raw or prepared materials, resulting in a product with new form, quality, or properties. Unlike a machine, an article of manufacture typically doesn’t have moving parts. Examples include a hand tool like a screwdriver, a piece of furniture, a ceramic vase, or a computer chip.
Composition of Matter: This category protects chemical compositions, mixtures of ingredients, or new chemical compounds. It’s the cornerstone of the pharmaceutical, chemical, and biotechnology industries, covering new drugs, synthetic materials like plastics and fabrics, gasoline formulas, and even genetically altered life forms.
In addition to these four primary categories, utility patents can also be granted for any new and useful improvement of an existing process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. This is where a significant amount of innovation occurs, as inventors build upon existing technologies to make them better, faster, or more efficient.
However, the scope of patentability isn’t limitless. The law explicitly excludes certain subject matter from protection. You cannot patent laws of nature (like gravity or E=mc²), physical phenomena (like discovering a new mineral in the ground), or abstract ideas (like a mathematical formula in isolation or a fundamental economic principle). These are considered the basic tools of scientific and technological work, which must remain free for all to use.
The Three Pillars of Patentability
For an invention to be granted a utility patent, it must be thoroughly examined by the USPTO and found to satisfy three fundamental legal requirements: utility, novelty, and non-obviousness. These pillars ensure that the patent system rewards genuine contributions to technological progress.
Utility (Usefulness)
As the name suggests, a utility patent can only be granted for an invention that is useful. This requirement, outlined in 35 U.S.C. § 101, ensures that patents aren’t granted for frivolous or inoperable creations. The standard for utility has several facets:
Operability: The invention must actually work as described in the patent application. An application for a perpetual motion machine, for instance, would be rejected because it violates known laws of physics and is therefore inoperable.
Specific and Substantial Utility: The invention’s use must be specific, not general, and it must have a substantial, real-world application. A new chemical compound might be patentable if it’s shown to be effective in treating a specific disease, but it would likely be rejected if the inventor only claims it’s useful for further scientific research without identifying a concrete application.
Credible Utility: The claimed utility must be believable to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant technical field. Claims that are scientifically implausible would fail this test.
Novelty (Newness)
An invention must be novel, or new, as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 102. This means the exact same invention cannot have been previously known or used by others, patented, or described in a printed publication anywhere in the world before the effective filing date of the patent application.
The body of existing knowledge, including all patents, publications, and publicly available products, is referred to as “prior art.” During examination, a USPTO examiner will conduct a search of prior art to determine if the claimed invention is truly new. If an identical invention is found in a single prior art reference, the application will be rejected for lacking novelty.
Non-Obviousness
Non-obviousness is often the most challenging requirement for an inventor to overcome. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, even if an invention is technically new (novel), it cannot be patented if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
This standard prevents patents from being granted for trivial modifications or predictable combinations of known elements. For example, simply changing the color of a machine or making a device out of a well-known stronger material would likely be considered obvious. The invention must represent a genuine, non-trivial leap forward from what was previously known.
The process of securing a utility patent isn’t merely about submitting paperwork; it’s a rigorous filter designed to reward only those inventions that are fully conceived, demonstrably useful, and represent a legitimate contribution to the field. The high bar set by these requirements means that an inventor must do more than simply identify a problem—they must develop and articulate a concrete, novel, and non-trivial solution.
Real-World Examples of Utility Patents
The range of inventions protected by utility patents is immense. The following examples illustrate the breadth of these protections across different sectors:
Mechanical and Electrical Devices: This is a classic category for utility patents. Famous examples include the original light bulb, the cotton gin, and modern inventions like the bagless vacuum cleaner. More specific, recent examples include a nebulizer device with a unique housing that allows for better drainage, an ergonomic personal shield stowage device for vehicles, and a boxing bag apparatus with simulated sparring arms to improve a boxer’s training.
Computer and Software Technology: In the digital age, utility patents are critical for protecting technological innovations. The core technology behind the smartphone capacitive touchscreen, which detects touch based on the electrical properties of the human body, is protected by a collection of utility patents. Other examples include innovations in electric vehicle batteries and charging systems, complex computer systems and microprocessors, and countless software programs and algorithms that perform specific tasks.
Chemical and Pharmaceutical Compositions: The pharmaceutical and chemical industries rely heavily on utility patents to protect their discoveries. These patents cover new drug formulations that treat diseases, new chemical compounds with specific properties, and novel synthetic fabric blends. Even genetically altered life forms, such as microorganisms engineered to clean up oil spills, can be protected by utility patents.
Processes and Business Methods: Utility patents can also protect a way of doing something. A famous example is Amazon’s “One-Click” purchasing system, which patented the business method of allowing a user to make a purchase with a single mouse click. Other examples include novel investment strategies and unique manufacturing processes that improve efficiency or product quality.
Term of Protection and Ongoing Costs
A utility patent provides a powerful, but finite, period of protection. For patent applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of a utility patent is 20 years measured from the earliest effective U.S. filing date. This means the 20-year clock starts ticking from the day the application (or a related earlier application) is filed with the USPTO, not from the day the patent is eventually granted, which can be several years later.
A crucial aspect of maintaining a utility patent is the payment of maintenance fees. Unlike other patent types, a utility patent requires the owner to pay fees to the USPTO at three specific intervals after the patent is granted to keep it in force: at 3.5 years, 7.5 years, and 11.5 years.
If a maintenance fee payment is missed, the patent will expire prematurely, and the invention will enter the public domain, where anyone can use it without permission. These fees make utility patents significantly more expensive to maintain over their lifetime compared to design or plant patents.
The Application Components
A non-provisional utility patent application is a highly technical and complex legal document. While it contains many components, such as a transmittal form, fee sheets, and an inventor’s oath, its core comprises the specification, claims, and drawings.
The Specification: This is the written description of the invention. It must be so detailed and clear that it satisfies the “enablement” requirement—meaning it must teach a person of ordinary skill in the relevant technical field how to make and use the invention without requiring “undue experimentation.” The specification must also provide a “written description” that demonstrates the inventor was in full possession of the invention at the time of filing. This disclosure is the inventor’s side of the bargain with the public: in exchange for a 20-year monopoly, the inventor must fully share the knowledge of their invention.
The Claims: The claims are the legal heart of the patent. They appear at the end of the document as a series of numbered, single-sentence statements that define, with precision, the exact boundaries of the invention to be protected. The language of the claims is what determines whether a competitor’s product infringes the patent. Crafting strong, enforceable claims is a highly skilled art and is one of the most critical aspects of the patent application process.
Drawings: Patent applications must include drawings whenever they are necessary to understand the invention. For most mechanical devices and machines, drawings are essential. They must show every feature of the invention that is mentioned in the claims and must conform to strict USPTO formatting standards.
Protecting Aesthetics: Design Patents
While a utility patent protects an invention’s function, a design patent protects its unique appearance. A design patent is granted for a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 171, this type of patent safeguards the way an article looks, not how it’s used or how it works.
What Design Patents Protect
The protectable design can manifest in several ways:
The configuration or shape of an article (like the unique body of a car).
The surface ornamentation applied to an article (like a pattern on a piece of fabric or a design on a dinner plate).
A combination of both configuration and surface ornamentation.
A critical requirement is that the design must be embodied in or applied to a physical article; it cannot exist as a mere abstract concept. The design is considered inseparable from the object to which it’s applied.
The Critical Distinction: Ornamental vs. Functional
The most important concept in design patent law is the distinction between “ornamental” and “functional.” A design patent protects only the ornamental, non-functional features of a product. A design is considered functional—and therefore not eligible for design patent protection—if its appearance is dictated solely by its use or purpose.
For example, the threads on a standard bolt are shaped that way for a purely functional reason: to engage with a nut. That shape would not be protectable with a design patent.
However, the line between ornamental and functional can be nuanced. The key question is whether the design is primarily dictated by function or if there are alternative designs that could perform the same function. If several different shapes could achieve the same functional purpose, the specific shape chosen by the designer is more likely to be considered primarily ornamental and thus protectable.
It’s very common for a single product to possess both functional and ornamental characteristics. In such cases, an inventor can seek separate protection for each. A classic example is a sneaker. The unique chemical composition of the sole that provides superior shock absorption could be protected by a utility patent. At the same time, the distinctive and visually appealing pattern on the side of the sneaker, its unique shape, and color scheme could be protected by a design patent.
This strategy of layering intellectual property rights provides much broader and more robust protection for the product as a whole.
Iconic and Everyday Examples of Design Patents
Once considered a niche form of protection, design patents have become a powerful strategic tool, particularly in consumer goods and technology where brand identity and user experience are paramount. The value of a strong design patent is evident in both iconic products and everyday items.
Iconic and Famous Examples: Perhaps the most famous design patent is for the original, curvaceous Coca-Cola bottle (U.S. Design Patent D48,160), whose unique shape is instantly recognizable even without a label. Another historic example is the Statue of Liberty (U.S. Design Patent D11,023), granted in 1879 for its ornamental design.
In the modern era, Apple Inc. has built a fortress of design patents around its products, most notably the iPhone and iMac, protecting their distinctive minimalist aesthetic, rounded corners, and overall look and feel. The high-profile legal battles between Apple and Samsung over smartphone designs underscore the immense commercial value of these patents.
Product Shapes and Configurations: Design patents are widely used to protect the unique shapes of products. This includes the ergonomic form of a dish soap bottle, the body of a Chrysler roadster, the distinctive shape of Oakley sunglasses, and the unique form of Crocs footwear.
Surface Ornamentation: This category covers decorative patterns applied to products. Examples include ornamental designs on jewelry, unique tire tread patterns that are more aesthetic than functional, and patterns on furniture.
Digital and Virtual Designs: A rapidly growing area for design patents is the protection of digital assets. This includes Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) for websites and software applications, such as the patented design for Google’s original homepage. It also extends to computer icons, such as the emojis on a smartphone, and the layout of elements on a touchscreen device.
This evolution from protecting only physical objects to protecting digital interfaces demonstrates how the patent system has adapted to the modern economy. As consumer value shifts from pure functionality to include aesthetics and user experience, companies increasingly use design patents as a primary tool to protect their brand identity and secure a competitive advantage.
Term of Protection and Costs
Design patents offer a substantial period of protection. For applications filed on or after May 13, 2015, the term is 15 years from the date the patent is granted by the USPTO. This differs from the utility patent term, which is measured from the filing date.
A significant advantage of design patents is their cost-effectiveness over their lifetime. Unlike utility patents, design patents do not require the payment of any maintenance fees. This makes them a more affordable option for independent inventors and small businesses to maintain long-term protection for the visual aspects of their products.
The Application Components
A design patent application is fundamentally a visual document. Its primary focus is on conveying the design through high-quality images. The application itself is notable for its brevity, consisting of very little text and being dominated by illustrations.
Drawings or Photographs: This is the heart of the application. The applicant must submit a set of drawings or photographs that clearly and completely disclose the appearance of the design. Typically, this includes views from all standard angles: front, back, top, bottom, left side, right side, and a perspective view. These images define the scope of the patent.
The Single Claim: A design patent application is unique in that it’s only permitted to have one claim. This claim is typically a single, formulaic sentence, such as: “The ornamental design for [the name of the article], as shown and described.” This language makes it clear that the protection is for the visual design depicted in the drawings.
Drawing Conventions: A key practice in design patent drawings is the use of different line types to define the scope of the claim. Solid lines are used to show the features of the design for which protection is sought. Broken or dashed lines are used to show the parts of the article or its environment that are not part of the claimed design. This allows an inventor to claim a design for just one part of an object, such as the handle of a mug, while showing the rest of the mug in broken lines for context.
A Growing Field: Plant Patents
The third primary type of patent is the plant patent, a specialized form of intellectual property designed to protect botanical innovation. Governed by 35 U.S.C. § 161, a plant patent may be granted to an inventor who invents or discovers a new and distinct variety of plant. This protection gives the patent owner the right to exclude others from asexually reproducing, using, or selling the patented plant for the duration of the patent term.
What Plant Patents Protect
The scope of eligible plants includes a wide range of cultivated varieties, such as:
Sports: Naturally occurring mutations on a part of a plant, like a branch that produces different colored flowers.
Mutants: Plants with new characteristics resulting from either spontaneous or induced mutation.
Hybrids: New plants created through cross-breeding.
Newly found seedlings.
The definition of “plant” under the statute also extends to algae and macro-fungi, though it explicitly excludes bacteria.
The Cornerstone Requirement: Asexual Reproduction
The single most important requirement for obtaining a plant patent is that the inventor must have asexually reproduced the plant. Asexual reproduction is the process of propagating a plant by means other than seeds to create a genetically identical copy, or clone.
Acceptable methods of asexual reproduction include:
- Rooting of cuttings
- Grafting and budding
- Layering
- Division
- Runners and rhizomes
- Tissue culture
This requirement serves a critical purpose: it proves that the new plant’s unique characteristics are stable and that the inventor can reliably duplicate it. It demonstrates that the new variety isn’t a temporary variation caused by environmental factors like soil conditions, but is a genuine and repeatable genetic discovery.
The invention process for a plant patent is therefore a two-step process: first, the discovery or creation of the new plant, and second, the successful asexual reproduction to confirm its stability.
Key Requirements and Statutory Exclusions
In addition to the asexual reproduction requirement, a plant must meet several other criteria to be patentable:
New and Distinct: The plant must be genuinely new and must possess at least one distinguishing characteristic that sets it apart from all known plant varieties. This could be anything from flower color, fruit flavor, growth habit, productivity, or disease resistance.
Non-Obvious: The new plant variety cannot have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art of plant breeding.
Statutory Exclusions: The law explicitly prohibits plant patents for two categories of plants:
Tuber-propagated plants: This exclusion is very narrow and primarily refers to the Irish potato and the Jerusalem artichoke.
Plants found in an uncultivated state: An inventor cannot simply find a new plant in the wild and patent it. A newly discovered plant is only eligible if it was found and identified in a cultivated area, such as a nursery or a cultivated field.
The existence of these strict limitations reveals that the U.S. plant patent is a highly specific and narrow form of IP. The requirement for asexual reproduction and the exclusion of tubers and wild plants mean that this type of patent isn’t a universal solution for all botanical innovators.
This has led to the development of other forms of intellectual property to fill the gaps. For example, new varieties of plants that are reproduced by seed (sexually) or are tuber-propagated can often be protected through Plant Variety Protection (PVP) certificates issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Furthermore, the more powerful and expensive utility patents are used to protect genetically modified organisms (GMOs), specific plant genes, traits (like herbicide resistance), and breeding methods.
Therefore, an innovator seeking to protect a new plant must make a strategic choice between at least three different federal IP rights, each with its own governing agency, scope, and cost.
Examples of Patented Plants
The first plant patent ever issued in the United States, in 1931, was for a climbing rose named ‘New Dawn.’ Since then, thousands of new plant varieties have been patented. Examples include:
Fruits: Many commercially successful fruit varieties are patented, including new types of apples, strawberries, raspberries, and wine grapes.
Flowers and Ornamental Plants: The horticulture industry relies heavily on plant patents. Countless varieties of roses, petunias, anemones, clematis, and ornamental shrubs are protected. A commercial nursery’s catalog might list dozens of patented plants, often identified by a patent number (e.g., PP#) or a trademarked name, such as the Aesculus x bushii ‘Aaron 1’ Mystic Ruby™ Buckeye (PP 29,092) or Anemone ‘Frilly Knickers™’ (PP 33,416).
Cacti and Succulents: Even unique varieties of cacti can be patented, such as the Cactaceae plant named ‘Harmony’ (USPP18177P3) developed at the University of Massachusetts.
Term of Protection and Costs
Similar to a utility patent, a plant patent has a term of 20 years from the date the application was filed with the USPTO.
Like a design patent, and in contrast to a utility patent, a plant patent does not require the payment of maintenance fees to remain in force for its full term. This makes it a more financially manageable form of long-term protection for plant breeders and nurseries.
The Application Components
A plant patent application shares some components with a utility application but has its own unique requirements centered on describing the plant itself. The application must include:
A detailed botanical description of the plant and its new and distinct characteristics, written in formal botanical terms. The description must be as complete as is reasonably possible.
An oath or declaration from the inventor stating that they have, in fact, asexually reproduced the plant variety being claimed.
Color drawings or photographs are a critical part of the application. High-quality images are necessary to visually disclose the plant’s distinguishing characteristics, such as the color of its flowers, the shape of its leaves, or the form of its fruit.
Patents at a Glance: A Comparative Overview
Understanding the key differences between utility, design, and plant patents is essential for any inventor seeking to protect their intellectual property. The following table provides a direct comparison of these three paths to protection, summarizing their core features, requirements, and terms.
| Feature | Utility Patent | Design Patent | Plant Patent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core Protection | How an invention works or is used (functionality, structure) | How an article looks (ornamental, non-functional appearance) | A new and distinct variety of asexually reproduced plant |
| Governing Statute | 35 U.S.C. § 101 | 35 U.S.C. § 171 | 35 U.S.C. § 161 |
| Term of Protection | 20 years from filing date | 15 years from grant date | 20 years from filing date |
| Maintenance Fees | Yes, required periodically to keep patent in force | No | No |
| Key Requirements | Novel, Non-Obvious, Useful | New, Original, Ornamental | New, Distinct, Asexually Reproduced, Non-Obvious |
| Application Focus | Detailed written description and specific claims | Drawings or photographs showing all views | Detailed botanical description and color photographs |
| Common Examples | Software, machines, pharmaceuticals, processes | Product shapes (iPhone), user interfaces (GUIs), packaging (Coke bottle) | New rose varieties, apple trees, ornamental shrubs |
| Most Common? | Yes, over 90% of patents | Less common than utility | Least common |
Getting Started: The Path to a Patent
The First Step: Is Your Idea Patentable?
Before investing significant time and money into the patent application process, the most crucial first step for any inventor is to conduct a thorough prior art search. Prior art is the entire body of public knowledge related to an invention, including existing U.S. and foreign patents, published patent applications, scientific and technical journals, websites, and publicly used or sold products.
A comprehensive search helps determine if an invention truly meets the legal requirements of novelty and non-obviousness. Discovering that an idea has already been patented or publicly disclosed can save an inventor from pursuing a fruitless application.
The USPTO provides a powerful, free tool for the public to conduct these searches: the Patent Public Search system. While a professional search is often recommended, learning to use this tool is an invaluable first step for any prospective applicant.
A Strategic Choice: Provisional vs. Non-Provisional Applications
For those pursuing a utility or plant patent, the application process begins with a key strategic decision: whether to first file a provisional or a non-provisional application.
Provisional Patent Application (PPA): A PPA is a fast and lower-cost way to establish an official filing date with the USPTO. It’s not examined by the USPTO and will automatically expire one year after it’s filed. Its primary purpose is to secure an early priority date for the invention.
During that one-year period, the inventor can use the term “patent pending” on their product, which can be valuable for marketing, seeking investment, or deterring potential copycats while they continue to refine the invention and assess its commercial viability.
Non-Provisional Application (NPA): This is the formal, complete patent application that the USPTO will examine. To benefit from the PPA’s early filing date, an inventor must file a corresponding NPA within the one-year lifespan of the PPA. The NPA must contain all the formal elements, including a full specification and claims.
This system creates a critical strategic choice. An inventor can file a PPA quickly to secure a date, but the later NPA can only claim priority for subject matter that was fully disclosed in the initial PPA. This creates a tension between speed and completeness.
A hastily prepared PPA might not provide adequate support for the final invention, potentially weakening the resulting patent. This decision highlights that the patent process isn’t just a legal formality but a series of strategic choices that can have long-term consequences for the strength of the intellectual property.
Filing with the USPTO: The Modern Process
The USPTO has modernized its application process, making it more accessible to the public. The primary method for filing and managing patent applications is through the agency’s secure online portal, Patent Center.
To use Patent Center, applicants must first create a USPTO.gov account and verify their identity, often through a secure third-party service like ID.me. This security measure ensures that only authorized individuals can access and manage sensitive application information.
Once registered, inventors or their legal representatives can file all necessary documents electronically, track the status of their application, and communicate with their patent examiner.
Navigating the Complexity: The Role of Professional Help
The patent process is governed by a complex web of laws, rules, and procedures. Successfully navigating it requires knowledge of both patent law and the specific technical field of the invention.
For this reason, the USPTO always recommends that inventors consider hiring a registered patent attorney or patent agent to assist with their application. These professionals are licensed by the USPTO and have the expertise to conduct thorough prior art searches, draft the detailed specification, and, most importantly, write the precise legal claims that will define the scope and strength of the patent.
For inventors who choose to represent themselves (a process known as filing “pro se”), the USPTO offers several resources. The Pro Se Assistance Program provides help with pre-filing questions and form completion.
Additionally, there are nationwide pro bono programs that can connect eligible, low-income inventors with volunteer patent professionals who may provide their services for free. These resources can be invaluable for those embarking on the challenging but rewarding journey of protecting their innovation.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
