📅 2026 Update: Key Changes in Patentability and Fees

Since the original article was published, several important updates have occurred in the realm of patent law. These changes may affect patent applications, fees, and how inventors protect their inventions. The earlier article continues further down the page, detailing the foundational aspects of patentability.

📉 Decrease in PCT Fees

Effective January 1, 2024, the International Filing Fee for the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) was reduced from $1,515 to $1,454 for the first 30 pages. This change aims to lower costs for inventors seeking international patent protection.

🏢 USPTO Processing Improvements

On December 5, 2025, the USPTO reached a milestone by processing pre-grant publications in-house for the first time. This advancement enhances the efficiency of patent publication, making it easier for inventors to share their innovations with the public.

📚 Updates to MPEP

In November 2024, the USPTO published Revision 01.2024 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP). This revised edition incorporates updates that reflect current practices and legal standards, ensuring that inventors have access to up-to-date guidelines.

⏳ Average Processing Times

The average time from filing to final decision for a utility patent application is now approximately 24 months. This timeframe helps inventors plan their projects more effectively, knowing how long they may wait for patent approval.

📌 Key Points to Remember

  • 📉 PCT fees decreased to $1,454 for the first 30 pages.
  • 🏢 USPTO now processes pre-grant publications in-house.
  • 📚 MPEP updated to reflect the latest legal standards.
  • ⏳ Average processing time is around 24 months.
  • 📅 Keep track of important deadlines to avoid abandonment.

💡 Tips for Understanding Patentability

Review the specifics of your situation with your attorney to ensure you understand your options.

📝 Know the Eligibility Criteria

To be patentable, an invention must be novel, non-obvious, and useful. Understanding these criteria can help you assess whether your invention qualifies for a patent.

📅 Keep Track of Deadlines

Patent applications are published 18 months after the earliest filing date. Be mindful of this timeline to ensure you meet all necessary requirements for patent protection.

💰 Plan for Maintenance Fees

Maintenance fees are due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after patent grant. These fees vary based on entity size, so plan your budget accordingly to keep your patent active.

📄 Use Available Forms

Familiarize yourself with the USPTO's forms, such as those for express abandonment and fee transmittal. These forms can simplify your application process and help you manage your submissions efficiently.

📞 Utilize USPTO Resources

Take advantage of the free resources provided by the USPTO, including guides and webinars. These tools can help you navigate the patent process more effectively.

🏆 Ranked by User Reviews (2026)

This section highlights services that assist with patent-related issues, focusing on their user ratings and the specific areas they cover. Ratings may vary over time, as customer experiences change and more reviews come in. Trustpilot data was checked in October 2026, and while star ratings are helpful, they are just one indicator of service quality.

🥇 1. LegalZoom

LegalZoom has been rated 4.6. It is known for offering a wide range of online legal services, including business formation and intellectual property services. Some users report delays and communication issues, which can be important to consider when seeking assistance with patent applications.

🆓 Free USPTO Resources

The USPTO provides various free resources, such as guides, webinars, and a contact center. These tools help inventors understand the patent process and navigate the complexities of obtaining patents without incurring legal fees.

🔎 What to Compare When Choosing Services

  • 📄 Types of services offered
  • 💰 Pricing and fee structures
  • 🕒 Processing times for applications
  • 📊 Customer reviews and ratings
  • 📞 Availability of support and resources

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

❓ What is the non-obviousness requirement?

An invention is considered non-obvious if someone skilled in the relevant field would not find it an obvious improvement over existing inventions. This criterion is essential for patent eligibility.

📅 How long does the patent application process take?

The average pendency for a utility patent application is approximately 24 months from filing to final decision. Factors like office actions can affect this timeline.

💰 What are maintenance fees?

Maintenance fees are due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after a patent is granted. These fees help keep a patent in force and vary based on the size of the entity holding the patent.

📄 Can I abandon a patent application?

Yes, the USPTO provides forms for express abandonment. This allows applicants to withdraw their applications before a final decision is made, which may help in obtaining a refund of fees.

📞 Where can I find help with my patent application?

The USPTO offers free resources, including guides and webinars, to help inventors understand the patent process. Additionally, pro bono programs are available for independent inventors and small businesses.

🕒 When are patent applications published?

Patent applications are published 18 months after the earliest filing date unless a non-publication request is filed. This publication provides public access to technical disclosures.

⚖️ Recent Patent Cases

Recent court rulings have further clarified the standards for patentability, particularly regarding non-obviousness and eligibility criteria. These rulings highlight the ongoing evolution of patent law and its impact on inventors.

To stay informed about the latest developments, you can browse more rulings on the news page.

End of October 2026 Update





Article 35 of the United States Code contains regulations and provisions for governing the process through which the "patentability" of proposed inventions are determined by the relevant government body, in most cases the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Within that area of the Code, Sections 100 to 105 deal specifically with the requirements which a process or device must manifest in order to be considered to fall within patentability. For instance, Section 102 requires "novelty," or the newness of the technology being submitted to the Patent Office's consideration, specifically in terms of its dissemination in the public eye and availability for the public's use. 

Section 101, containing the definition for the main kind of patent considered for the purposes of American law and commerce, contains an important standard in that language, that the patent refer to something which is "useful." After those basic and fairly intuitive considerations have been made, the patent applicant has the more nuanced and potentially difficult task of proving patentability by showing that the invention is "non-obvious."

Essentially, this term refers to the requirement that a patent cannot have been too easy to concoct. If not on the books, a non-obvious provision might not be able to stand in the way of applicants successfully patenting very simple and intuitive forms of mechanical functioning. Beyond that simplified sense of the non-obvious requirement, a degree of ambiguity can be raised in regard to the relation of a procedure or device being sought for patentability in relation to previous techniques relying on similar methods or tools.

Conditions for Patentability Non-Obvious

In the process of making judgments on the patentability of devices or processes under consideration, the United States Patent and Trademark Office compares the article to any  predecessors that can be found in its method of functioning or aimed-at goal. These predecessors, called the "prior arts," must be sufficiently different from the new technology in order for it be considered non-obvious. Another consideration to be made, one with greater latitude for ambiguity and potential conflict, is whether the new technology could have been devised by an individual "of ordinary skill in the art." 

Because of the subjective foundation of the language describing a non-obvious patented invention, examinations by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to figure out whether an invention can be considered to manifest this quality must be particularly thorough. If every attribute of the process or device can be found in a prior art, then it will be found lacking in sufficient patentability. Likewise, if the Patent Office can determine that the new technology is essentially a combined version of two prior arts, it will be rejected. That being said, findings that a patent is non-obvious proceeding from this reasoning may often be challenged because of their  more tenuous nature.