1. SKGF Nanotube Patent
Study - 2004
Donald J. Featherstone
Michael D. Specht
Nano Science and Technology Institute
Nanotech 2005
Anaheim, California
May 11, 2005

2. SKGF 2004 Nanotube Study Parameters
• Reviewed 206 United States patents issued
in 2004 with “nanotube” in the claims.
• Does not include alternative nomenclatures
for nanotubes (e.g., nanocylinder, carbon fibers).
• Reviewed patent prosecution histories.
2

3. SKGF Nanotube Study Purpose
• Assess the quality of USPTO examination.
Confirm or reject industry assumptions.
• Determine prosecution tips to assist clients
secure better nanotube patents faster.
• Enhance view of Nanotube patent
landscape. (Ongoing)
3

4. Presentation Overview
• Diversity
• Pendancy
• Examination Rigor
• Landscape
4

5. Nanotube Patent Growth
Nanotube Patents Issued by Year
250
200
P a te n ts
150
100
50
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
5

6. P a te n ts
0
5
10
15
20
25
23
33
73
118
136
174
204
209
219
252
264
313
320
333
343
359
Patent Classes 361
372
385
Nanotube Patent Classes
427
429
435
445
501
’04 Nanotube Patent Diversity
508
524
528
568
6

7. ’04 Nanotube Patent Diversity
• 56 different patent classes
• Most common patent classes
- 250 – Radiant Energy (14)
- 257 – Active Solid State Devices (17)
- 313 – Electric Lamp & Discharge Devices (17)
- 423 – Chemistry of Inorganic Compounds (23)
- 438 – Semiconductor Device Manufacturing (23)
• 103 different art units
• 142 different examiners (109 examiners
examined only one nanotube patent application)
7

8. ’04 Nanotube Patent Diversity –
What the Data Suggests
• Unlikely that USPTO will create an examining group
dedicated to nanotechnology.
• Nanotube patent thicket issue is overblown.
• Does limited examiner experience reduce examination
quality? More on this later.
• Don’t assume that examiners know subject matter.
• File extensive non-patent literature.
• Aggressively interview cases.
8

9. ’04 Nanotube Patent Pendancy
'04 Nanotube Patent Pendancy
(Filing Date to Issue Date)
14
12
10
Patents
8
6
4
2
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61
Months
9

10. ’04 Nanotube Patent Pendancy
Type Count Claim Pendancy
Average (File – Issue)
Average
Overall 206 22.7 28.1
First Filed 164 23.5 28.9
Cont. 11 21.4 25.8
CIP 11 21.5 27.4
Divisional 18 16.2 36.6
PCT 1 33 46.1
10

11. ’04 Nanotube Patent Pendancy
'04 Nanotube Patent Pendancy
(Filing Date to First Office Action)
20
18
16 AVG: 11.6
14 MED: 10.3
P a te n ts
12 MIN: 3.7
10 MAX: 34
8
6
4
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
Months
11

12. ’04 Nanotube Patent Pendancy –
What the Data Suggests
• USPTO pendancy not likely to get better.
• If pendancy too long, options include file petition to make
special, conduct search, and file narrow claims.
12

13. ’04 Nanotube Patent Examination Rigor
• 23% First Office Action Allowance
• 77% First Office Action Rejection
- 58% Section 102 Rejection
- 52% Section 103 Rejection
- 20% Section 112, Para. 1 Rejection
- 13% Based Rejection on Non-
Patent Literature
• Nearly 90% were allowed before a final
rejection
13

14. ’04 Nanotube Patent Examination Rigor
- What the Data Suggests
• High rates of allowance suggests less rigorous
examination.
• Applications spread too widely, may impact quality.
• Rejections readily overcome supports notion of less
rigorous examination.
14

15. ’04 Nanotube Patent Examination Rigor
- What the Data Suggests
• Take what you can get, and move on.
• Minimizes pendancy to optimize patent term
• Earlier credentialing of technology
• Reduces initial prosecution costs
• Consider searching to supplement record. Supply
ample non-patent literature.
• Interview to teach and minimize written record.
• Do “extra” due diligence when considering licensing or
investing in nanotube patents.
15

16. ’04 Nanotube Patent Landscape
Claim Statistics
Average: 23
Median: 18
Min: 1
Max: 206
Government Funding
Percent Receiving Gov’t Funding: 16%
Assignee Country
Percent U.S.: 51%
16

17. ’04 Nanotube Patent Landscape
Government Funding Sources
18
16
14
12
P aten ts
10
8
6
4
2
0
Air Force Army DARPA DOE NASA NAVY NSF
Agency
17

18. ’04 Nanotube Patent Landscape
'04 Nanotube Patent Assignee Country
Austria
Australia
France
Germany
Great Britain
India
Israel
Japan
Korea
No Listing
Taiwan
United States
18

19. ’04 Nanotube Patent Landscape
Most Common Assignees
Samsung: 14
Rice University: 12
Daiken Chemical Co: 11
Hitachi: 08
Nakayama Yoshikazu: 08
Industrial Tech Res. Inst.: 07
Nantero: 06
Advanced Micro Devices: 06
19

20. Nanotube Patent Landscape
Nanotube Flow Sensing Device (6,718,834)
Issued Patent:
1. A flow sensing device useful for measurement of liquid flow
velocities along the direction of the liquid flow and irrespective of a
nature of the liquid, said device comprising at least one carbon
nanotube, said at least one carbon nanotube being arranged
between at least two conducting elements, the two conducting
elements connecting the at least one carbon nanotube to an
electricity measurement device for measuring electricity
generated as a function of a rate of flow of the liquid.
Nanotube Treatments for Medical Devices (20050096509)
Pending Application:
1. A medical apparatus comprising: a medical device sized for
insertion into a patient, the medical device having a first surface,
and a second surface; and, a plurality of nanotubes associated
with the first surface of the medical device.
20

21. Nanotube Patent Landscape
Patents Claiming Nanotubes (10)
Patents on Production Methods (38)
Arc (11) Laser (3) CVD (24)
Patents on General Purpose
Tools & Processes (20)
Application Patents (238)
Materials (52) Circuits (110) Sensors (13) MEMS(8) Energy (37) Manipulation
& Probes (18)
Storage (12) Conversion (25)
Hydrogen Storage/
Electrochemical (17) Photovoltaics (3) Thermal/Kinetic (5)
Source: The Handbook of Nanotechnology 21

22. Disclaimers & Contact Information
These materials are not intended and should not be used as legal advice.
If you need legal advice or an opinion on a specific issue or factual situation, please
consult an attorney. Answering questions or the use of this material does not form or
constitute an attorney-client relationship. These material are for information purposes
only and should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal advice
The presentation reflects only the current considerations and views of the authors,
which should not be attributed to Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. or any of its
current or former clients.
For More Information, please contact
Donald J. Featherstone
202-772-8629 or donf@skgf.com
Michael D. Specht
202-772-8756 or mspecht@skgf.com
22