How a Track One Patent Filing Could Increase Your Chances of Getting a Patent

Neil Kardos covers “How a Track One Patent Filing Could Increase Your Chances of Getting a Patent” in this Practical Patents short blog.

Here is a compelling reason for you to consider prioritized examination, known as “Track One,” at the USPTO, beyond simply obtaining a patent more quickly. Were you aware that filing a patent application with a Track One request could potentially enhance your likelihood of securing a patent? Our patent analytics team at Harrity conducted a comparison between Track One and non-Track One filings and discovered that Track One patent applications exhibit approximately a 10% higher allowance rate than non-Track One applications.

In the realm of business methods, the allowance rate for Track One applications is notably 21% higher! Now, the pertinent question arises: Is the Track One request directly responsible for this elevated allowance rate, or are patent applications with inherently higher chances of success, owing to their “more patentable” subject matter, more likely to be filed with Track One requests?

In conclusion, it is presumed that it’s a combination of both factors. Theoretically, Track One applications tend to be assigned to seasoned patent examiners who are more inclined to grant patents. Therefore, if you possess a patent application encompassing a significant technological advancement, it would be wise to consider filing it under Track One to heighten your prospects of securing a patent.

Want more tips? Check out other Practical Patents videos with Neil Kardos here!

Hindsight Bias in Patent Examination: How Language Models Can Help

Derek Abeyta covers “Hindsight Bias in Patent Examination: How Language Models Can Help” in a featured article for

The article discusses the issue of hindsight bias in the patent examination process and proposes the use of artificial intelligence (AI) models, specifically large language models, to address this problem. Hindsight bias occurs when a patent examiner unknowingly uses their knowledge of the invention to reject a claim as obvious. This can lead to incorrect determinations of obviousness, prolong prosecution, and result in unfair narrowing of independent claims. AI models can help mitigate this bias by providing an objective and consistent standard for determining obviousness. These models can analyze the examiner’s rationale for an obviousness rejection and identify instances of impermissible hindsight, thereby assisting the examiner in providing a more reliable assessment of patentability.

“Language models have the potential to reduce the likelihood of appeals and legal challenges, streamline prosecution, and lead to more consistent and cost-effective patent examination,” Derek says.

The article also highlights the challenge of determining whether an invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill at the time of filing and how to overcome this challenge, the potential benefits of using language models, and whether they outweigh the initial costs and cons.

Read the full article to learn if language models offer a promising solution to mitigate hindsight bias, improve the patent examination process, and ensure consistency and objectivity in determining patentability on

The Importance of Using Commas After “Such As” in Patent Applications

Neil Kardos covers “The Importance of Using Commas after ‘Such As’ in Patent Applications” in this Practical Patents short blog.

As patent applications are legal documents, it is crucial to draft them accurately and without any ambiguity. A common grammatical error that can lead to unintentional narrowing of the scope of a patent application is the improper use of the phrase “such as.” In most cases, the intention of using this phrase is to provide examples of the items listed after it, but failing to use a comma before “such as” can result in the items being considered restrictive clauses and limiting the scope of the application.

For instance, consider the sentence “the network device may transmit packet data, such as a source address or a timestamp.” Here, the intended meaning is that a source address and a timestamp are examples of packet data. However, if there is no comma before “such as,” it becomes a restrictive clause, meaning that only a source address or a timestamp will be considered as packet data, not any other data like a destination address or a packet header.

Using a comma before “such as” can convert the phrase into a non-restrictive clause and make it clear that the items listed after it are only examples and not the only items that can be considered packet data. Therefore, it is essential to include a comma before “such as” to avoid any unintentional narrowing of the scope of a patent application.

In conclusion, patent applications require careful drafting and precise language to avoid any misinterpretation or ambiguity. Proper use of punctuation, especially commas, can help prevent unintentional narrowing of the scope of the application and ensure that the application provides adequate coverage of the invention.

Want more tips? Check out other Practical Patents videos with Neil Kardos here!