USPTO 2030: A Roadmap for Instant Allowance with a Six Sigma (99.99966%) Validity Rate

1.???? The Need for Fundamental Change

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is at an inflection point. Like many federal agencies, it faces the dual challenge of exponential technological change and constrained resources. ?This comes at the same time that the news is replete with daily stories of federal employees losing their jobs.? Millions of government workers are concerned about an uncertain future.? It reminds me of my experience during the financial crisis. ?My company ordered all employees to remove all personal items from their offices so that they could walk out the door carrying all their belongings in a single trip.? The next week, we were all required to attend a special meeting.? We were divided into two groups, each group going into a different conference room.? In one conference room, we were told everyone in the other conference room would be terminated and would be walked out of the office in the next hour.? The other conference room had even worse news.? Our conference room spent the next hour wondering if there would be two conference rooms next time.? It remains a terrible memory.? None of the people in either conference room made the decisions that led to the crisis.? Worse, management had no vision for a successful future.?

Large-scale staff reductions not only undermine morale but also underscore the urgent need for a clear vision that can guide and empower those that stay. When an agency sheds employees without articulating how the remaining personnel will carry the mission forward, the result is lingering uncertainty and frustration. The workers still in place deserve more than a survival-mode mentality—they need to see how their contributions connect to a bigger, better future. A well-defined strategy and inspiring leadership can provide purpose and direction, transforming a time of crisis into a new opportunity for growth and success.

I worked for the Army in the 1980s when the Department of Defense implemented the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. It offers a telling example of how painful cuts can foster long-term success. At first, the closure or restructuring of major military bases displaced thousands of jobs and shook local economies dependent on federal funding. Over time, however, new opportunities emerged as former bases were transformed into thriving commercial hubs, technology incubators, or academic campuses. A similarly forward-looking response took shape at NASA after the Space Shuttle program ended in 2011. Rather than allowing cuts to sabotage America’s role in space, NASA formed strategic partnerships with companies like SpaceX and Boeing and redirected its energies toward deep-space missions. This fresh vision not only safeguarded NASA’s core objectives but also cleared the path for the James Webb Space Telescope’s groundbreaking observations and the International Space Station’s vital experiments—advances that continue to reshape our understanding of physics and reignite public enthusiasm for exploration.

Apple’s story in the late 1990s underscores how focused downsizing can serve as a springboard for a transformational comeback. When Steve Jobs returned to a beleaguered company in 1997, Apple faced financial woes and an unwieldy product lineup. Substantial staff reductions and product cancellations followed, leading to uncertainty and tension. Yet, these moves were swiftly coupled with a singular strategic vision that centered on a smaller set of high-impact products, beginning with the iMac. By allocating resources wisely and articulating a clear future to those who remained, Apple rekindled its innovative spirit. Within a few short years, the tech giant was flourishing again, eventually releasing iconic devices like the iPod and iPhone. This underscores how, with strong leadership and a coherent plan, even painful cuts can lead to reinvention and enduring success.

International satisfaction surveys place USPTO in the middle of IP5 Offices.? USPTO Patents External Quality Survey findings show the overall Net Promoter score dropped from 59% in FY21-Q2 to 53% in FY24-Q4, with 8% of respondents reporting a Poor or Very Poor Net Promotor score.? Patent owners and applicants often evaluate the quality of USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office), EPO (European Patent Office), JPO (Japan Patent Office), KIPO (Korean Intellectual Property Office), and CNIPA (China National Intellectual Property Office) based on factors such as examination quality, consistency, timeliness, and customer service.

USPTO Reports: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning

EPO Quality Reports: https://www.epo.org/about-us/annual-reports-statistics.html

JPO Quality Initiatives: https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/news/

KIPO Reports: https://www.kipo.go.kr/en/

CNIPA Reports: https://english.cnipa.gov.cn/

?

Comparative User Satisfaction Trends

?

Worse, USPTO is falling behind in the growth of new applications, with other offices seeing much higher increases in patent filings.?

?

USPTO must choose between:

1. Maintaining the existing operational structure—a strategy that risks increased pendency, reduced examination quality, and a further decline in patent certainty.

2. Embracing transformative innovation—leveraging advanced AI-driven examination, automated quality control, and a modernized patent ecosystem to dramatically enhance efficiency, reliability, and global competitiveness.

?

2.???? Lessons from History: The Risks of Incrementalism

The U.S. has historically pioneered many of the world’s most effective operational and quality management strategies, only to fail in full implementation.? While this Winston Churchill quote is unverified, it’s my favorite: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they have tried everything else.”? America frequently has a good idea but doesn’t act on it.? Consider the case of W. Edwards Deming, which serves as a cautionary example. Deming, the architect of statistical process control and total quality management, developed principles that could have revolutionized U.S. manufacturing. However, it was post-war Japan—not the United States—that embraced his methods fully, leading to decades of global industrial leadership for Japan. As Deming observed:

“The Japanese learned from America what we had taught, but they learned it all. We learned only a little and forgot even that.”

Similarly, in my own practice, I oversaw a technology-sharing agreement between a US manufacturer and its Chinese joint venture (JV) partner, each manufacturing the same vehicle.? Within a few years, the Chinese JV demonstrated superior quality to its US counterpart.? The Chinese JV fully implemented the US product and quality standards.? I later learned that the US parent frequently deviated from its standards due to bureaucratic resistance, short-term thinking, and lack of sustained leadership commitment.? The lesson is clear: having the right ideas is not enough—leadership and execution are critical. USPTO must not fall into the same pattern of missed opportunities. Instead, it must be bold, decisive, and strategic in embracing operational transformation.? We can’t afford to try everything else before adopting the “right thing.”?

?

3.???? ?The Case for Transformation: Key USPTO Historical Performance

The tables below summarize the time, cost, and quality of US Patents over the past 250 years.?

?

?

?

4.???? ?Envisioning the Future USPTO: AI-Driven, Instantaneous Examination

?

By 2030, USPTO could operate as an AI-first examination system, delivering:

??????? Zero-pendency patent grants with instantaneous allowance for qualified application.

??????? AI-generated prior art searches encompassing the full global corpus of technical knowledge.

??????? Pre-filing claim assessments, allowing inventors to refine applications before submission.

??????? Agentic AI examination

??????? Detailed three-dimensional drawings for more thorough examination and utilization by readers.

??????? Applications that include millions of fully supported examples to simplify later validity and infringement litigation.?

??????? Very low filing costs to promote US invention growth.

??????? Much higher renewal fees for unused inventions to encourage commercially available products and services.?

??????? Huge renewal discounts for patents electing FRAN license terms.?

??????? Six Sigma (99.99966%) validity standards, ensuring patents withstand legal scrutiny.

5.???? ?No Fundamental Legal Impediments Prohibit the Proposed Operational Changes

There is no explicit prohibition on USPTO conducting near-instant examinations powered by AI-driven search and analysis. Title 35 of the U.S. Code, which governs patent law, simply requires the Director to “cause an examination to be made,” without specifying how that examination must take place or how much time it must require. Although historical practice and regulations assume a human examiner’s active role, the text itself does not mandate the meticulous, human-led, multi-year review that has become standard. As AI improves and becomes capable of matching or exceeding human examiners in prior art search and initial patentability analysis, it is legally permissible for USPTO to integrate AI tools to substantially accelerate—and potentially reduce to an instant—parts of the process.

Likewise, legal frameworks do not bar USPTO from reassigning most examiner functions to a post-issuance quality control stage, effectively shifting the examiner’s role. The requirement that applicants have a path to appeal or dispute rejections (and ultimately that a human decision-maker can be held accountable) can still be honored with a system that frontloads AI evaluation. Examiners could take a more targeted role in double-checking AI outputs on issued or near-issued patents, verifying particularly complex claims or contested issues. This approach would still comply with existing statutory and regulatory mandates as long as proper oversight, appeal rights, and due process remain intact.

From a procedural standpoint, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and relevant USPTO regulations would likely need to be updated or clarified to address how an AI-based examination system documents its decisions. Traditional rulemaking—complete with notice and comment—would ensure that stakeholders can weigh in on issues such as record transparency, algorithmic bias, and standards for determining what constitutes a “qualified” application. Yet none of these procedural steps rise to the level of a legal prohibition; they are simply measures to align new practices with established administrative requirements.

In practice, the greatest challenges to implementing an AI-first and instantly issuing patent framework are not strict legal bans but rather practical considerations like reliable AI performance, data security, and public acceptance. For example, USPTO would need to show that its AI can thoroughly analyze prior art, apply the correct legal standards, and provide an audit trail sufficient for courts and applicants to examine. While those challenges are significant, they revolve around technological and administrative feasibility rather than an absolute legal obstacle. Consequently, with the right safeguards and adjustments, USPTO is free under current law to employ AI searches and examinations, culminating in a near-instant grant process supported by a robust post-issuance quality review system.

6.???? ?Redefining the Role of Patent Examiners

The role of patent examiners within USPTO is set to undergo a fundamental transformation as artificial intelligence assumes responsibility for prior art searches and initial patentability assessments. Instead of conducting manual examinations, examiners will focus on post-grant quality control and dispute resolution, ensuring that AI-driven patent grants achieve six-sigma quality for legal and technical accuracy. This transition will enable USPTO to reallocate its personnel toward policy development, AI oversight, and support for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). ?The US issues between 350,000 and 400,000 patents each year.? About 4,000 patent infringement actions are filed in the US each year.? Many infringement actions address the same patents across many infringers.? Less than 1% of active patents are litigated.? Examiners will focus on this 1% and improve AI systems to achieve Six Sigma quality goals, leading to a large reduction in validity challenges.? By shifting toward post-grant review and AI governance, examiners will play a more strategic role in refining the patent system, addressing legal complexities, and ensuring consistency in AI-assisted decision-making.

This restructuring will improve patent quality, enhance system efficiency, and reduce costs, making patent protection more accessible to inventors and businesses. However, achieving these goals requires overcoming significant technological and structural challenges. One of the primary obstacles is that current AI lacks the depth of legal reasoning and contextual judgment required to evaluate non-obviousness and claim scope with the precision of human examiners. To address this, USPTO must identify advanced AI models capable of self-learning and adapting to evolving case law and statutory changes. Another critical challenge is ensuring the integrity and completeness of prior art databases. Incomplete datasets introduce uncertainty into AI-driven searches, potentially undermining examination quality. A global, federated IP database that integrates patents, technical literature, and open-source innovations would mitigate this risk and provide AI systems with a comprehensive repository of prior art.

??????????? The shift in examiner responsibilities will also require extensive retraining and adjustments to policy. USPTO must implement structured AI-examiner hybrid training programs to equip personnel with the skills necessary to audit AI decisions, refine search algorithms, and oversee AI-assisted patentability assessments. In parallel, legal frameworks will evolve to accommodate AI-driven examination. Patent statutes such as 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112 may be updated to ensure that AI-assisted patent grants are legally recognized and enforceable, preventing future litigation uncertainties. ?This radical restructuring will not only enhance patent quality and system efficiency but also reduce costs, improve accessibility, and restore confidence in the U.S. patent system.

7.???? ?Key Barriers to Implementation (and Solutions by 2030)

Transforming USPTO into a zero-pendency, AI-driven system presents technological, structural, and policy challenges that must be addressed in this decade.? In light of the challenges associated with in-house software development, USPTO should consider hosting a competition that invites leading technology firms to offer their services. This approach would not only leverage the expertise of industry leaders but also generate revenue for USPTO through participation fees. Such collaborations have precedent; for instance, private companies have historically paid fees to government entities for the opportunity to provide products or services, thereby fostering innovation and efficiency within public agencies.

USPTO Chief Information Officer Jamie Holcombe has expressed concerns about the federal government’s traditional approach to software development. He emphasizes that cultural and bureaucratic barriers often hinder technological advancement, stating, “Our budgeting process is stupid. Our procurement is stupid. Everything we do in the government is pretty stupid, when you compare it to the commercial world.”? By inviting private sector solutions through a competitive process, USPTO can bypass these internal obstacles.

USPTO should not attempt to build and maintain its own proprietary AI-driven patent examination software. Government-led technology projects often struggle with long development timelines, cost overruns, and rapid obsolescence due to the constraints of bureaucratic procurement cycles and shifting policy priorities. The challenges of maintaining cutting-edge AI systems are particularly acute, as advances in machine learning, natural language processing, and automation occur at a pace that far outstrips traditional government software development lifecycles. Instead of investing billions in an internally developed system that may become outdated before full deployment, USPTO should host an open competition, inviting the world’s most advanced AI, legal tech, and intellectual property service providers to develop and offer their best-in-class solutions to support patent examination and prior art searches. This competition would encourage ongoing innovation and adaptability, ensuring that USPTO benefits from the latest advancements without the long-term burden of maintaining an in-house system. By shifting to a public-private partnership model, USPTO can harness private sector expertise, avoid the risks of sole-source procurement, and ensure that multiple competitive solutions are available—allowing the agency to adopt the best technologies as they evolve.? Under this approach, approved private-sector solutions would integrate directly with USPTO’s examination framework, with companies paying the agency a licensing or platform fee to participate. This would not only reduce direct costs for the government but also position the US and USPTO into a leadership role in the innovation ecosystem.? Revenue could be used to lower filing costs, support quality improvements, examiner training, and expanded access to patent services.

The model aligns with successful public-private initiatives where private companies pay the government for access to provide services while simultaneously offering valuable infrastructure or expertise. The TSA PreCheck program, for example, allows private companies like IDEMIA and CLEAR to charge users for expedited security screening while remitting a portion of their revenue to the government. ?Similarly, FCC spectrum auctions enable telecommunications providers to pay for access to public airwaves while developing a nationwide infrastructure, ensuring the optimal use of government resources. ?By applying this approach to AI-driven patent examination, USPTO can foster market-driven competition among the world’s top AI and IP service providers, ensuring that it has access to the most advanced tools without the inefficiencies of government-led software development.

8.???? ?Conclusion

USPTO can achieve zero-pendency, improve patent quality, and restore confidence in the system by embracing AI-driven examination, modernizing examiner roles, and leveraging competitive market forces. However, this transformation cannot be achieved through traditional government-led software development. Instead, USPTO must act as a facilitator, inviting the private sector to compete in delivering best-in-class AI and legal technology solutions while drastically elevating examination standards.

Leading other global patent offices in AI-driven modernization is not only a strategic opportunity but a necessity for preserving the United States’ leadership in innovation. The decision USPTO makes today will determine whether the U.S. remains at the forefront of the intellectual property landscape or falls behind jurisdictions that are more agile in integrating advanced technology. Establishing a competitive framework where private firms support USPTO for the opportunity to provide examination services will ensure continuous improvement and lower operating costs, while also accelerating the adoption of cutting-edge tools. The future of USPTO should not be one of isolated government-built systems, but rather an ecosystem of dynamic, AI-powered solutions that enhance the efficiency, accuracy, and accessibility of the patent system.

In a future paper, I will examine the broader implications of this transformation, including its impact on inventors, patent attorneys and firms, corporations, potential competitors, the general public, and other intellectual property offices worldwide. By understanding how these stakeholders will navigate an AI-driven patent system, we can better anticipate challenges, refine policy approaches, and maximize the benefits of a more efficient, technology-driven USPTO.

(About the Author:? Damian Porcari is a leading intellectual property expert with 40+ years of experience in IP strategy, enforcement, and innovation management. He served as Director of the Elijah J. McCoy Midwest Regional USPTO and previously led the Ford Global Technologies Licensing and Enforcement group, and co-founded the IP software product Anaqua with BAT. ?Damian has testified before Congress on Design Patents, co-authored a Supreme Court amicus brief in KSR v. Teleflex, and published extensively on AI-driven patent systems and IP policy. He advises tech startups, AI companies, and law firms on patent strategy and automation.)