Annual Report of the Commissioner of Patents to Congress for the Year Ending December 31, 1887
Laid before the House of Representatives by the Speaker pro tempore, January 31, 1888, referred to the Committee on Patents, and ordered to be printed
Department of the Interior
United States Patent Office
Washington, D.C., January 31, 1888
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:
It is provided by section 494 of the Revised Statutes that --
The Commissioner of Patents shall lay before Congress in the month of January annually, a report giving a detailed statement of all moneys received for patents, for copies of records or drawings, or from any other source whatever; a detailed statement of all expenditures for contingent and miscellaneous expenses; a list of all patents which were granted during the preceding year, designating under proper heads the subjects of such patents; an alphabetical list of all the patentees, with their places of residence; a list of all patents which have been extended during the year, and such other information of the condition of the Patent Office as may be useful to Congress or the public.
It will best subserve the purposes of this requirement to present the subject in a somewhat different order from that prescribed. The receipts and expenditures, the number of patents, etc., can be best shown and illustrated by schedules and tabular statements, which will be set forth at the close of this report.
There are certain subjects which I regard as of paramount importance, to which the attention of Congress should be directed in order that appropriate legislation may be enacted with a view to improving the law applicable to patent property and the condition of the Patent Office for the commodious and expeditious transaction of the public business.
Room in the Patent Office
For several years past the annual report of my predecessors have called the attention of Congress to the utter inadequacy of room and facilities for conducting the business of the Patent Office. This building, I am advised, was constructed from the fund of the Patent Office, a fund which was not raised by taxation upon the people, but was an accumulation from fees paid in by the inventors of the country, and it may not be inappropriate to say that the inventors themselves, as well as their representatives, attorneys, and others, are properly insisting upon the idea that this building ought to be at least so far devoted to the business of the Patent Office that ample room will be provided for its conduct, and facilities afforded which will secure the consideration of applications for patents and the issuance of the same without unnecessary delay, expense, or inconvenience. But the building is now occupied by the Secretary of the Interior, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and the Commissioner of Patents. The result is, owing to the increase in business of the Government in all these various branches, that neither the Secretary of the Interior, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, nor the Commissioner of Patents, has sufficient room to conduct the business of his bureau with the dispatch and promptness which the public is entitled to expect. The various divisions of the Patent Office are crowded into narrow, inconvenient, and, in many instances, unhealthy limits. The records and drawings and other material, which should be conveniently arranged and made accessible in proper rooms, are stored in corridors and by-way places, where classification is almost impossible, and where access can only be had to the particular subjects desired after long search and delay. Not only this, but great quantities of valuable records, descriptions, specifications, and drawings are constantly exposed to the danger of conflagrations involving the safety of the entire building. It needs only an examination or investigation to demonstrate the absolute necessity that exists for making some change in the arrangements between the bureaus occupying this building in order that each shall have proper room and facilities to discharge its respective functions. The force under the control of the Commissioner of Patents is scattered and located in remote parts of the building on different floors to such an extent that in order to communicate with the various divisions, transfer records back and forth, and conduct the business much more time and a greater amount of labor are required than would otherwise be involved. If some arrangement could be made by which the force could be located conveniently and compactly, in my judgment almost if not quite enough could be saved in the curtailment of expenses and saving of time to provide for the rental of another building which would meet the demands of either one of the other bureaus mentioned.
The Commissioner of Patents is not possessed of sufficient information to suggest what arrangement should be made, or whether it would be advisable for the Government to rent other buildings in which to locate any one of the bureaus, or whether such bureau should be transferred to some other of the public buildings; but the fact is pointed out that the Commissioner of Patents ought at least to be furnished in a building constructed out of the patent fund with sufficient room to conduct the business of the Patent Office conveniently, expeditiously, and without delay to its patrons.
I most urgently call the attention of Congress to this subject and request consideration.
Under the present statute the Patent Office publishes 6,500 copies of the Official Gazette, of which 2,319 copies are sold and delivered under subscription at the price of $5 per year. Under the provisions of the act of May 18, 1872, 3,235 copies are distributed to public libraries, members of Congress, and public officers. This publication is one of the most useful and complete of the kind which has ever been published. Its usefulness and importance are well known to Congress, and need not be dwelt upon. It will not be inappropriate, however, to call attention to the mechanical features of the publication, the requirements involved for photolithography, and the method of printing the same. This work contains an illustrated and defined history of art, so far as covered by patents, in the United States from the time of its first publication down to the present day. As is well known, the drawings which accompany every application for a patent are necessarily required to be reproduced and made a part of the patent itself when it issued. Under the present system this photolithographic copy of the drawing, reduced in size, is published by the Office to meet a demand for copies coming from all parts of the United States and from foreign countries. It is not within my power at present to state the number of copies of patents, specifications, and drawings which are called for; but the demand is great, and the charges made for these copies furnish an important source of revenue to the Office. In order to meet this demand it is necessary, as just stated, that the drawing be reproduced of a size requisite to be made part of the patent, and to be conveniently sent to persons requiring copies. This involves the necessity of employing photolithography. It may not be generally known that the Official Gazette, excepting the front and closing pages, containing opinions and decisions of the courts and the Commissioner and the index, is a purely photolithographic production. The pages containing the drawings and the claims in type are photolithographed.
For several years Congress has appropriated about one hundred and thirty thousand dollars per year to provide for the production of copies of patents, designs, trade marks, pending applications, and for the reproduction of exhausted copies. This photolithographing is required by statute to be done by contract. On several occasions experiments have been made to have this work done elsewhere than in the city of Washington, but in every instance of which I am aware the experiment proved a failure, the work either not being up to the required standard of excellence or being so delayed as to practically interfere with the work of the Office and prevent the prompt issuing of patents. The inconvenience attending these experiments has been so serious that for several years Congress has inserted in the appropriation bills the requirement found in the act approved March 3, 1885, as follows:
Said photolithographing or other producing plates and copies referred to in this and the two preceding paragraphs to be done under the supervision of the Commissioner of Patents, and in the city of Washington, if it can be there done at reasonable rates; and the Commissioner of Patents, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, shall be authorized to make contracts therefor.
The contracts entered into for the performance of this work have generally been made to run from the beginning of the expiration of the fiscal year. Prior to the 30th of June, 1887, the present Commissioner directed an inquiry to be made, and sent an agent to the principal Eastern cities to ascertain at what rates work of this character could be done in those cities, and received what is believed to be entirely reliable and satisfactory information that the rates fixed by the present contract for doing this work are below those which would be demanded elsewhere.
To explain in greater detail the usefulness and manner of conducting this photolithographic work, I quote from the report of my immediate predecessor:
Under the practice which now obtains in this Office, on Friday morning of each week preparations are begun for the patenting of all applications which have been allowed and in which the final government fee has been paid during the week next preceding. To secure a proper reproduction of such cases, it is necessary that the original drawings be transmitted to the office where the work of photolithographing is performed. On each Friday morning the drawings which are ready are sent to the photolithographer, where the proof sheets are prepared. At noon of the same day these are returned to this Office and another lot of drawings taken. About four o'clock of the same day proof sheets of these last-mentioned drawings are returned, and other drawings again taken; and so this work of photolithographing continues day by day. Upon the return of the proof sheets to this Office careful comparison with the original drawings must be made by the employees here, and imperfect sheets (which amount to about five per cent of the whole) must be corrected and returned without delay.
From the fact that the original drawings must be sent to the photolithographer for reproduction, and when it is considered that these drawings constitute the only illustrated record in the Patent Office of the inventions involved -- as under the present rules of the Office models are dispensed with -- it is apparent that any loss or damage thereto would not only greatly embarrass the Office but result in serious injury to inventors. Doubtless, in view of these considerations, a requirement was inserted in the present contract that the original drawings and corrected proofs must be returned to the Patent Office within one and one half day from the delivery to the contractor of such original drawings.
It is not absolutely impracticable that the work of preparing the Official Gazette be performed elsewhere than in this city, provided the place be not too remote. This undoubtedly would be attended at times with serious inconvenience. For manifest reasons, however, the work of preparing the current issues of patents must be done in this city, and the proper reproduction elsewhere is simply impracticable, if not impossible. Inasmuch as proof sheets of the photolithographs of the current issues are used in the preparation of the Official Gazette, it need hardly be said that this work entire can be probably be more cheaply performed by one firm than by several independent firms or contractors.
I have no doubt that this work should and will in time be done by the Patent office itself. It should not be dependent upon contractors. When the patent system is revised, corrected, and improved, as it probably should and doubtless will be in the not distant future, this important subject will be at least carefully considered.
The appropriation of Congress for the present fiscal year was
For Official Gazette $44,000 For copies of patents, designs, trade marks, exhausted copies, etc. 90,000
The attention of Congress has been in former reports of the Commissioner of Patents repeatedly called to the need of this bureau of a laboratory containing the necessary apparatus for testing inventions relating to electricity, and to conduct experiments pertaining to processes and products involving chemical results. This necessity is one which scarcely needs illustration or explanation when it is considered that many of the most important and valuable inventions relate to these two classes of art. Electrical processes and apparatus -- such as the telephone and improvements in telegraphy -- are so well recognized in importance and value as to require no comment, and yet the determination of whether a new invention has been made in these arts or an improvement involving novelty and utility can be reached only by means of proper testing apparatus. This is also especially true in the field of chemistry -- processes for the treatment of iron, producing by chemical means new qualities, and resolving crude iron into fine steel. Such subjects are being continually presented, and the examiner in charge is called upon to determine whether these results are accomplished by the processes claimed. The assertions of the applicants are supported by affidavits of parties in interest and by statements which appear to be reliable, and yet, in the absence of some means of testing the truth of the facts claimed, it is impossible for the Office to determine with that degree of certainty which should exist whether the invention is novel and useful and should be covered by a patent.
I recommend that some reasonable appropriation be made to provide for the purchase, from time to time, of apparatus and materials suitable for a laboratory for these purposes.
It is well known that the business of the Patent Office and the number of applications presented are gradually increasing. There are periods when there is some slight decrease; but there is beyond any question a continuous and almost constant increase in the number of applications for patents. There are received in the Office now an average of about eight hundred applications each week, and the Office issues between three hundred and fifty and four hundred and eighty five patents per week. There is no doubt that these numbers will gradually increase.
On the 30th of June the Commissioner was required by the last appropriation bill to reduce the force in the classified service of the Office to the extent of ten persons. In the present condition of the Office it is my opinion that the existing force, when properly arranged and organized, will be competent to transact the business and keep up the work, and I am gratified to be able to say that I have not felt justified in requesting any increase in the number of employees. I am gradually rearranging and reorganizing the force, and hope within a reasonable time to have it in as excellent working order as it is capable of. I have no doubt that if the Office had the conveniences, rooms, and facilities hereinbefore referred to the present force would be entirely adequate. Not only this, but a large saving in the way of expense would result, and the employees would be enabled to conduct the business with greater comfort and health. There can be no doubt that a great number of the rooms in which the employees of the various divisions are compelled to work are unhealthy and are more fit for storage than for occupancy by human beings.
I beg to call the attention of Congress to the need of legislation on certain subjects which I deem of great importance in view of the present laws relating to patents, their issuance, and other subjects connected therewith.
1. Date of the patent
Section 4885 Revised Statutes provides --
Every patent shall bear date as of a day not later than six months from the time at which it was passed and allowed and notice thereof was sent to the applicant or his agent; and if the final fee is not paid within that period the patent shall be withheld.
This provision enables an applicant who fails to pay the final fee within six months after the allowance of his application to prolong the monopoly of his patent the period of six months, and it not infrequently occurs that parties having what they regard to be valuable inventions permit their applications to forfeit in order that they may avail themselves of section 4897, which allows them to make a renewal application for the same invention upon the payment of a new fee, but without filing any new papers, the original application, specification, and drawings being used. A new allowance is thus obtained of an application for the same invention, and this allowance may remain for six months after the expiration of the intervening two years before the party takes out his patent. The result of this practice is that unless the application is barred by a public use which may intervene an applicant has it in his power under these statutes to prolong the term of the patent which he may secure for an almost indefinite period.
I respectfully suggest that section 4885 be amended so as to require that the term of the patent when issued shall begin with the date on which the application was passed and allowed, and notice thereof sent to the applicant or his agent, applicant of course being six months within which to pay the final fee and take out his patent, and that all renewals authorized in case of a forfeiture for non-payment of final fee be limited to the same claims, except in case of inadvertence or mistake, and that when so renewed the term of the patent begin with the date of the original allowance. The justice of this provision, as well as its wisdom, will be apparent from a consideration of the fact that in issuing the patent there arises by implication a contract between the Government on the one hand and the patentee on the other that the latter shall have the exclusive enjoyment of the patented property for a definite period, at the expiration of which period the property becomes that of the public. The United States extends to patentees more liberal protection and for a longer time than any other government -- seventeen years -- and it is neither just nor right to the public which is thus liberal and generous that there shall be found under this legislation methods by which the inventor can defeat the provisions which contemplate a termination of the monopoly and be able to prolong its enjoyment for many years beyond the period contemplated by law.
2. Limitation of term of United States patent by foreign patent.
Section 4887, after declaring that no person shall be debarred from receiving a patent in this country for his invention or discovery, nor shall any patent be declared invalid by reason of the invention having been first patented or caused to be patented in a foreign country, provides --
But every patent for an invention which has been previously patented in a foreign country shall be so limited as to expire at the same time with the foreign patent, or, if there shall be more than one, at the same time with the one having the shortest term, and in no case shall it be in force more than seventeen years.
It is understood that the object of this legislation originally was to prevent an inventor from allowing the people of foreign nations to come into the free enjoyment of his invention at an earlier period than was permitted the people of our country, which earlier enjoyment resulted from the fact that the term of American patents, as just stated, is much longer than any allowed by foreign governments, so that it was impossible for an American inventor to take out a foreign patent without disclosing and making public his invention after the expiration of the shorter term in such foreign country. In the meantime the American people were excluded from the free enjoyment of the invention during the period intervening between the expiration of the foreign patent and the American patent. But I believe those conversant with the subject have never seen any wisdom in this provision of the law. A great deal of trouble and annoyance have resulted from it to inventors, both American and foreign, without, so far as is known, advantaging any one.
It is evident that the American patentee is entitled to seventeen years of protection under the patent granted him by this Government. There ought to be no distinction between an American inventor who takes out a patent at home but none abroad and one who takes out patents both in his own and some other country. Yet the American patentee who omits to take out a patent abroad makes his invention public and free in all the countries of Europe during the entire period, because his American patent becomes a publication which discloses the invention and prevents him from taking out any patents in foreign countries under the systems existing there, so that in such cases the people of the foreign countries acquire the free use of an invention from the date of its publication in America, while the people of America submit to the monopoly enjoyed by the patentee during the entire period of seventeen years. The consequence of these conditions is that if the American patentee takes out his foreign patent first his domestic patent is limited in term to the short duration of the patent abroad. If, on the other hand, he takes out his American patent first, he is barred from taking out any patent under the foreign systems, which provide that any publication of a patent shall bar in those countries. This inequity of the law has forced inventors both in America and abroad, at much trouble and expense, to arrange, wherever it was possible, to have their foreign and domestic patents issue on the same day, so that neither of the conditions alluded to could attach.
It is also suggested, in view of the fact that the number of Americans taking out patents abroad very largely exceeds the number of foreigners who take out patents in this country, that these conditions of law have operated much more disadvantageously to Americans than to foreigners, and that, therefore, there should be some modification in the law.
These difficulties and others which need not be elaborated in this connection have become so well recognized, for they not only exist between Americans and foreigners, but between the different nations of Europe as well, that for some years past representatives of various governments have met together for the purpose of adopting and establishing articles of an International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property. Conventions were held at Rome and at Paris, and finally articles of a Union were adopted on the 20th of March, 1883, acceded to by Belgium, Brazil, Spain, France, Guatemala, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Salvador, Servia, and Switzerland, the latter State being assigned the position of intermediary, through whom those adhering to the Union were to communicate with other States in relation to its objects. Subsequently other States gave their adhesion and became members of the Union, viz: Great Britain, Tunis, Norway, Sweden, the Dominican Republic, and the United States. A copy of the articles and protocols constituting this Union is attached to this report.
The adhesion of the United States to this Union was ratified on March 29, 1887. The purpose of this Union is to provide that persons who have made applications for patents in one of the States of the Union shall have a definite period thereafter within which to file their applications in other countries as of the same date at which their original applications were field, and that no publication or use of the invented article during that period can deprive the applicants of their right of priority in all the States in which such applications were filed. It will be seen that this provision was intended to meet one of the very difficulties existing under section 4887 of the Revised Statutes, and which was heightened by the requirement that the term of the American patent should be limited by any patent issued to the patentee in foreign countries.
The advantages to American citizens under this Union are set forth in article 4 of the convention, to the effect that any person who has filed an application for a patent or who has applied for the registration of a trade mark in the United States shall be entitled to priority in other countries of the Union as against persons making similar applications within a period defined. A person having applied for a patent in this country is entitled to have his case considered, if filed in another country, the same as if filed simultaneously with the application here.
There is a great advantage to this in all countries where the patent is granted to the first applicant, which is generally the case in Europe and England; but it unfortunately happens under section 4887 that every patent granted in this country for an invention which has been previously patented in a foreign country is limited to expire with the foreign patent having the shortest term. It is well known that under the American system an examination of all applications musts be made before the patent issues, and generally five, six, or seven months elapse after an application is filed before the patent issues. The result is that the American inventor who desires to avail himself of the advantages of the treaty is in danger of having his foreign patent granted first, for the reason, as just stated, that such foreign patent issues almost immediately after the application is filed, and therefore, necessarily, the term of his domestic patent is abridged by it.
This is the manner in which this condition of things affects the American inventor; but the foreign inventor who comes to this country for a patent is not thus injuriously affected, because there is no provision under the European system that their patents shall be limited by the duration of an American patent; and if there were such, it would produce no limitation, because the American term, as already stated, is generally much longer than the terms provided by most of the European States. In my opinion, there is no reason for continuing this limitation, contained in the last clause of section 4887. While it stands it is almost a complete bar to the enjoyment of the privileges of this Union between the various States named and in the United States. The repeal of this clause has been suggested in the reports of Commissioners heretofore. It is a source of much vexation to the inventors and of trouble to the Patent Office, it is out of harmony with the spirit of our patent law, and, in my judgment, it ought to be repealed.
3. Assignments of patents
Section 4935 provides for the payment of fees to the Commissioner of Patents, or to the Treasurer, or any of the assistant treasurers of the United States, or to any of the designated depositories, national banks, etc. All moneys received at the Patent office from every source whatever are required to be paid into the Treasury as received without any deduction for any purpose. Section 4936 provides that the Treasurer of the United States is authorized to pay back any sum or sums of money to any person who has through mistake paid the same into the Treasury or to any receiver or depository to the credit of the Treasury as for fees accruing at the Patent Office, etc.
The Commissioner of Patents has the unquestioned authority to correct a mistake occurring in his Office and to refund to any individual who has paid money to the financial clerk through mistake or accident if such correction be made before the money has been covered into the Treasury or placed in a depository of the Treasury. Such corrections are occurring constantly by reason of mistakes in making change and from demands made on account of applications which either are not filed or are withdrawn on account of some impropriety or irregularity in their presentment; but when the money has been covered into the Treasury the Commissioner of Patents no longer has the power to correct such mistakes, and as it frequently occurs that the mistake is not discovered until after the money has been covered into the Treasury the party in interest is required to go through the somewhat tedious process of applying to the Treasury and furnishing proofs before he can obtain the correction of the mistake. Generally all evidence of the mistake is disclosed by the records of the Patent Office, and the Secretary of the Treasury is uniformly required to make examination and reference of the matter to this Office before acting on the application. The Patent Office is thus put to the same trouble of inquiry and examination as it would be were the whole matter in the hands of the Commissioner of Patents. The amounts involved are always small sums -- either the first filing fee of fifteen dollars, or the twenty dollars final fee, or some small sum involved in making change. I can see no reason shy the Commissioner of Patents should not be authorized to make all correction of mistakes of this character which occur in his Office and to refund the money, and I recommend that authority be given for that purpose.
5. The attorneys' fund
In this connection I desire to call attention to what may be regarded as equitable claims on behalf of a number of patent attorneys against the Patent Office resulting from a defalcation on the part of the late financial clerk, Mr. Levi Bacon. The claims grew out of the following facts and practice formerly prevailing in this Office: The statutes of the United States require that all payments to be made into the Patent Office for copies, records, or work to be done shall be tendered in advance or simultaneously with the delivery of the copies, records, or work; but persons were constantly sending for such copies of records from remote parts of the country, not knowing what the cost would be, and the Office had been in the habit of responding to such requests with an estimated cost of the work. Thus the delivering of the copies or other work desired was considerably delayed. On the other hand, many parties were in the habit of remitting a larger sum of money than would be required, and directing the Office to furnish the copies or records immediately and return the change. There grew up in the Office, in consequence of the difficulties attending this method of transacting business, the practice of extending a credit to patent attorneys in good standing and requiring them to admit the amount of their accounts once each month; but after some years' experience considerable sums of money were lost in consequence of the death, disappearance, or inability of the attorneys to pay. In 1878 Mr. Commissioner Spear issued an order authorizing persons dealing with the Office to deposit with the financial clerk a special fund, to be drawn against as they saw proper. After the issuance of this order it was the practice of the financial clerk to receive the money thus deposited and place it in envelopes, upon the back of which was kept the account between the Office and the attorney. This fund was regarded as a private fund, at all times the property of the attorney, no part of which went into the public funds or into the Treasury except as it was so drawn against, and the sum then so drawn was applied and paid over into the Treasury. The balance on hand was always regard as the money of the individual, subject to his order and liable to be withdrawn at any time he might desire to have it returned. On the death of the financial clerk, Mr. Bacon, in June, 1887, it was found that the various balances which should have been in these envelopes were gone, and that no account could be given of this so-called "Attorneys' Fund," or "Miscellaneous Fund," as it was sometimes termed. At the same time it appeared that the Office had these various attorneys charged with copies, records, and other material furnished which should have been, and but for the defalcation would have been, paid for by the sums of money in the various envelopes to the credit of the parties in interest; but the money not being found, these accounts were regarded as just and valid claims against attorneys, and it was held that the fact that each at some previous time had had in the hands of the financial clerk sufficient money to provide for the payment of these accounts could not be regarded as liquidating the same. The Commissioner of Patents entertained the view that an officer of the Government could not incur a liability without the express provision of law, and that he had no authority to receive private deposits and make the Government liable for them, or to secure such deposits either by the money of the Government or by their equivalent in work, copies, etc. In his opinion, the case was very much the same as though the attorneys had come to the financial clerk with a bill of large denomination, and, instead of tendering the exact sum which was due, intrusted him with the bill, allowing him to make change, and upon his failure to return the change should attempt to hold the Government liable for the difference. No doubt there were a number of these attorneys who deposited their money without much consideration. They find themselves now indebted in small sums of money to the Office, and they naturally insist that they understood they were dealing with the Government, and that the Government ought to indemnify them for their loss. These claims have certainly strong equitable features. The practice grew out of the order of Commissioner Spear, the money deposited by the attorneys was always made payable to the Commissioner of Patents, and all the correspondence, receipts, etc., were conducted in the name of the Commissioner. In my judgment, Congress should authorize the Commissioner of Patents to adjust these claims, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, and to pay them by the recognition of orders for copies, records, assignments, etc. This would restore the parties to all their rights without the payment of cash, by simply supplying these attorneys with what it was originally contemplated they should receive. The amount involved is about five thousand dollars ($5,000.)
It will not be regarded as improper in this connection to call attention to the fact that since the defalcation alluded to was discovered the Commissioner has taken careful steps to guard against any possible misappropriation of the public moneys. All money deposited by attorneys or others is now required to be at once transferred to the Treasury and placed beyond the control of the Patent Office. When this defalcation was disclosed, it was also ascertained that during the long period of Mr. Bacon's possession of the office, though millions of dollars had passed through his hands, there had never been a settlement of his accounts. The practice now prevails of requiring a quarterly and annual adjustment of the accounts by the financial clerk. In addition, an entirely new system of receiving and accounting for the funds received has been adopted, with checks and counterchecks, so that it is believed to be now practically impossible for any mistake or misappropriation to occur without being at once detected. The importance of the subject will be seen when the fact is considered that the daily receipts average about three thousand dollars.
6. Delay in prosecuting applications
I desire to call especial attention to the subject of the delays which occur in the Patent Office on the part of applicants in the prosecution of their applications for patents.
Section 4894 provides --
All applications for patents shall be completed and prepared for examination within two years after the filing of the application, and in default thereof, or upon failure of the applicant to prosecute the same within two years after any action therein, of which notice shall have been given to the applicant, they shall be regarded as abandoned by the parties thereto, unless it be shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Patents that such delay was unavoidable.
Under this section applicants who desire to prolong their applications and postpone action therein have an ample opportunity to do so. There are two classes of persons who apply for patents, one composed of those who are exceedingly anxious to obtain their patents at the earliest practicable moment, the other of those who desire to prolong the issue of their patents and to keep the application pending in the Patent Office to the very latest date possible. The second class embraces the more powerful, rich, and influential parties, who are either the inventors or the assignees of the inventors. This section of the statute enables the second class of persons to keep their applications pending in the Office for years before their patents issue. In the meantime they are engaged in the manufacturing and putting upon the market the article or improvement, but warning the public that the patent is applied for, the effect of which is to give them the absolute control and monopoly of the invention and to deter all other inventors from entering upon the same field of invention and from manufacturing the article. The manner in which this delay is effected may be briefly explained: The applicant files his application and is allowed two years within which to complete or perfect it. Any action of the Office requiring change or modification or some formal correction can be followed under this section by a further delay of two years before the applicant is required to take any action in response. At the expiration of the two years he perhaps makes some amendment or change in the character of his claims. This involves a corresponding action on the part of the Office, and, however prompt and speedy this action may be, the applicant is permitted another two years before any responsive action can be compelled from him; and so the matter may be continued. There are applications now in the Office which have been kept alive nine or ten years, and the Office is powerless to compel speedier or earlier action on the part of the applicants.
I have recently had occasion to direct an investigation to be made into this matter, and I submit as a part of this report the result reached by a committee on the subject, showing the number of applications in the Office which have been so pending for a number of years.
These repeated actions and these long-continued delays cannot fail to suggest that a great deal of useless and unnecessary labor and consumption of time in the Patent Office are involved. Every application stands in its proper place upon the calendar of the Office, and when reached in its order it must be examined carefully to see whether any action has been had since the last-recorded action of the Office, so that a case which has remained for two years without responsive action from the applicant may probably be examined twenty or thirty times simply to ascertain that nothing has been done. When it is considered that this labor is multiplied by the number of applications which are thus delayed the amount of useless and unnecessary labor expended can be appreciated.
While calling attention to the fact that this two years' period in the case of original applications is too long, it will be a matter of surprise to know that in applications for reissues Congress has omitted to fix any period (except the duration of the original patent) within which they become abandoned for want of prosecution. A reissue application is always alive, and the applicant may file an amendment ten years after it was required by the office to be made and be entitled to have it considered and acted on.
I earnestly recommend that section 4894 be so modified that there shall be vested in the Commissioner of Patents a discretion to declare any application forfeited for want of prosecution whenever he shall be satisfied that such order should be entered. This power is possessed by all tribunals who have the control of litigation and matters of this character. Of course the exercise of this power should be guarded by proper restrictions, so that injury or wrong cannot be done, and no order of this kind should be made by the Commissioner until ample notice has been given to the applicant to show cause why his application should not be declared forfeited. The power to reinstate a case after it had been declared abandoned should and would be preserved under section 4894, whenever, in case of death, insanity, or other good and sufficient cause, it should be made to appear to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that the want of prosecution was unavoidable, and that the party was incapable of showing cause why the case should not be declared abandoned.
7. Renewal application where case was forfeited for non-payment of final fee.
Section 4885 provides that, after the Office has passed and allowed an application and nothing remains but the payment of the final fee to complete the issuance of a patent, if the fee be not paid within the period of six months the patent shall be withheld. I have already called attention the fact that very frequently the payment of this final fee is purposely omitted in order to permit the applicant to extend the period of his monopoly; but of course this is not always the case. The provision of section 4897, which enables a party who has failed to make such payment to file a renewed application within two years from the date of the allowance of the original application and obtains his patent, is a wise and just provision; but there is very much doubt and uncertainty as to the meaning of this section, in so far as it requires that "such second application must be made within two years after the allowance of the original application." It has been held by high authority that the effect of this provision is by construction to bar the invention as well as the application if the renewed application be not filed within two years. On the other hand, there is also high authority that such is not the effect, and that even if two years have elapsed after the allowance of the original application the new application may be made and may go to patent, notwithstanding the existence of the original application, its allowance, and its forfeiture for non-payment of the final fee. This section should be amended to remove this uncertainty. I am of the opinion that the limitation should be to the invention; and not only this, but that when an application for a patent has been allowed by the Office and the applicant has failed to pay the final fee within six months, and has also failed to renew the application within two years, the invention should be made public and become public property as of the date of the original allowance. I think this should be the result, from a proper consideration of the relations between the Government and the inventor. The inventor has conceived and presented a new invention. He comes into the Office for the purpose of donating that invention to the public after he shall have first enjoyed its exclusive use for the period provided by law. The Office has made a careful and thorough examination, has discharged all its part of the contract, and extended to the applicant the right to take out his patent upon paying the charges required. The public from this moment is entitled to its part of the consideration of the contract, and ought not to be deprived of it by the failure of the inventor to fulfill his. The inventor has become so far public as to be made known to the Patent Office. The law extends to the applicant the full period of two years within which to avail himself of all his rights and to enjoy his property. Failing in this, he ought not to have it in his power to conceal the invention as a lost art and to deprive the public of it. On the other hand, other inventors may invent the same thing and come into the Office, and by patenting the invention deprive the public of what they have already acquired right to by virtue of the allowance of the first application. In other words, when an invention has been made and disclosed to the Office, and the application has been passed to issue, that invention should be taken out of the field of patentability as to all future inventors, and ought not to be regarded as a concealed or abandoned invention. I therefore recommend the modification of the statute so as to provide that such second application must be filed within two years after the allowance of the original application, and if not so filed, the invention shall be regarded as abandoned to and as the property of the public.
8. Joint inventors.
Under the present statutes a patent may issue to a sole inventor or joint inventors, to an inventor and his assignee of a part interest, or to the assignee or assignees of the entire interest. Every patent issued to a sole inventor or to an inventor and his assignee of an undivided part, or to the assignees of the whole interest, is beyond challenge so far as an improper union of persons as patentees is concerned -- that is to say, the law authorizes the patent to issue to the inventor or to any person or persons to whom he desires that it shall issue, and this is the principle which underlies the statute authorizing the assignment, grant, or conveyance either of the original invention before patent has been granted or of the patent after it is issued; but while there is no express provision of law declaring that a patent issued to joint inventors is void, should it appear that they were not joint inventors, yet that is the well-settled law, as announced by the courts. The statute also requires that the assignees of the inventor shall be such by virtue of a written formal legal assignment; but in the case of a patent to joint inventors, when it turns out that by mistake or error of law one of them was not a joint inventor, but the sole inventor, the other does not become a patentee as an assignee under a formal legal assignment, although he does become one of the joint patentees with the full consent and wish of his co-patentee. Inasmuch as it is often one of the most perplexing and difficult questions coming before the Office or before the courts to determine whether an invention is actually a sole invention or a joint invention in which two or more persons contributed, there seems no reason why a patent which is thus issued to persons who supposed themselves to be joint inventors should be invalid. Under all other systems within my knowledge the patent is allowed to issue in the name of those persons who demand it in whatever capacity or relation they may make the demand, and it is only requisite that one or more of the patentees shall have been the true inventor. I am aware of no reason why such should not be the law in the United States; and when there is taken into consideration the amount of time, labor, and trouble involved in investigating the question as to whether there was or was not an actual joint invention, and other incidental questions which are constantly arising, as well as the injustice to the patentees themselves of having their patents declared void, I find ample reason for recommending a provision of law expressly providing that the patents shall not be held to be invalid by reason of the fact that the inventors described as joint inventors were not joint inventors, provided that either one of them thus described was in fact the true and sole inventor.
9. Trade Marks and interstate commerce.
After the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the trade mark cases, (100 U.S. 82), which held that the acts of Congress approved July 8, 1870, and August 14, 1876, were unconstitutional, and that Congress had no power to legislate upon the subject of trade marks per se, the act of March 3, 1881, was enacted under the provisions of the Constitution, conferring upon Congress the power to regulate commerce. That power, it is conceded, extends to commerce with foreign nations, commerce with the Indian tribes, and interstate commerce; but for some cause not apparent in the enactment approved March 3, 1881, Congress saw proper to authorize the registration of only such trademarks as were used in commerce with foreign nations or with Indian tribes and left trademarks which might be used in commerce between the States wholly unprovided for. If there should be any reason why the latter class of trademarks should be excluded from the protection of Federal legislation, or left to the regulations prescribed by the States, or wholly omitted, it is not apparent. The attention of Congress has been called to this subject by my predecessors, and I respectfully renew the suggestion that the provisions of that act be enlarged so as to cover trademarks used in interstate commerce. This question has become more important in view of the Union hereinbefore referred to for the protection of industrial property. Some additional legislation by Congress is necessary in view of the new situation resulting from this treaty. Article 6 of the convention declares that "every trade or commercial mark deposited in the country of origin shall be admitted to deposit and so protected in all other countries of the Union." It is evident from this declaration that if the article were to be fully carried out in this country it would probably admit to registration trademarks which otherwise would not be admissible under the existing laws of Congress. In other words, the provision is more liberal than the act of March 3, 1881. It is more liberal than was the common law, because under each there were limitations which excluded trademarks which were not regarded as lawful in some sense, and which were calculated to mislead, or were regarded as in contravention of religious ideas, morals, etc. The definition of a trademark is substantially the same in all commercial countries; but practice varies in the application of these definitions and in respect to the character of marks which may be protected. For instance, the usage in Southern Europe in respect to the employment of sacred names in relations which would be offensive and perhaps sacrilegious to much of the American sentiment. In a case where a representation of the Virgin Mary was claimed for soap this Office held that its use in such a connection was offensive to a great proportion of the people of the United States; and therefore that it was not entitled to protection; yet it is actually protected in France, where a different sentiment prevails. Instances of this kind are rare; but the statute should be framed to cover all cases likely to arise. If Congress, therefore, is inclined to make the law of trademarks conform to the provision of the Convention, the act of March 3, 1881, should be amended so as to admit to registration any trademark already lawfully registered in any of the countries of the International Union, subject, of course, to the conditions which require preliminary examination as to prior use and employment in the class of commerce over which the legislation of Congress extend.
Another question in connection with trademarks which will suggest appropriate legislation relates to the coercive features of the provisions of the treaty intended to give trademark property a protection which would be unknown to the common law or to the statutes of this country. These provisions will be found in articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, and may be briefly stated to include seizure upon importation of any article of merchandise bearing an illicit trademark or a false or fraudulent intimation of origin. Of course, it is to be understood that the practical operation of such legislation would apply in this country to goods imported from abroad, and would authorize the seizure in this country of such goods. The act of August 14, 1876, provided for the seizure by United States marshals of all appliances used for counterfeiting or the fraudulent imitation of registered trademarks. Section 2496 of the Revised Statutes, as amended March 3, 1883, refuses entry at the custom-house of foreign goods bearing simulations of the trademarks of domestic manufactures. These two acts contain all the protection afforded by the United States statutes to our citizens so far as coercive measures are concerned. Of course the common law and the statutes afford a civil remedy for infringement; but in view of the fact, that as between the owner of a trademark in one country and the infringer of it in another, the civil remedy is so expensive, it practically constitutes no protection. Every country seems to have felt the necessity of employing coercive measures to prevent fraud of this character. No act of Congress has ever contemplated the seizure of merchandise bearing counterfeit of simulated trademarks, and under the present laws the courts of Federal jurisdiction have no jurisdiction to enforce such seizures. Whether such legislation should be made is submitted to the consideration of Congress.
Under Article 6 of the Constitution of the United States this Convention is now a part of the supreme law of the land. The Government may withdraw from it when inclined to do so; but until such withdrawal its provisions must be recognized, and ought to be enforced by appropriate legislation empowering the proper officers to make the required seizures, and determining the due proceedings in our courts which are necessary to enforce the provisions of the treaty and protect the rights of individuals. It is true that under the general provisions of this treaty, as set forth in Article 2, there is only contemplated giving to the citizens and subjects of foreign States the same protection that our own citizens enjoy; but it is to be apprehended that while it is not expected the same procedure and method will be employed, yet the same ample protection will be afforded to citizens of foreign countries which would be demanded for our own citizens.
10. Restriction of some of the evils of the patent system.
The growth and development of the patent system of the United States, and of inventive genius stimulated by the rewards and prospects of rewards growing out of that system, are the subjects of constant comment and public consideration. That this system has been useful and beneficent is beyond question. Quoting from one of the annual reports of Mr. Commissioner Butterworth:
Touching the first objection, I submit that a careful investigation will show that the patent system is the foundation upon which the industrial interests of this country are based. We are, in fact, indebted for our unequalled growth and prosperity as a manufacturing people to its influence. Nor is its healthful influence confined to the shops and factories, but extends to the fields, mines and forests. The mere desire which all our people naturally feel to secure increased comforts and improved methods would never have resulted in even a distant approach to our present condition as a productive nation but for the great incentive found in securing to the inventor for a term of years the absolute ownership of the improved machine, method, process, or discovery which is the result of his efforts. It has been urged that the inventive genius of our people would have given to the world substantially all the improvements we have now without this incentive. Such a proposition seems so unreasonable that it is hardly worth while to combat it by argument. We sow not only to reap, but in the expectation of reaping an adequate harvest. No one would devote years of patient study, careful and profound thought and investigation, based on experiments, merely to produce a machine for his own individual use. The British Parliament a few years since appointed a committee to take testimony to make full investigation to ascertain the influence of and necessity for a patent system. That investigation settled beyond all controversy, at least so far as the English nation is concerned, that without the patent system the inventive genius of that people would have remained inactive, and little progress would have been made during several centuries in the direction of developing the great industries which are now the source of English wealth and power.
While preparing the exhibits for the World's Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exposition at New Orleans, I endeavored by correspondence to gather what information I could touching the relation our patent system sustains to the growth of our own industries, and from the investigations I have made I feel safe in saying that to this system we are chiefly indebted for our present great industrial prosperity. The percentage of manufacturing establishments in this country which have not utilized the patent system in one way or another, as a means either of founding a business or building up and extending it, is very small. But, as suggested before, it is urged that this exclusive property in a patent imposes burdens upon our people. The exact reverse is true.
In this connection one important fact in the matter of using articles or machines which have been patented seems to be generally overlooked, and that is that no one is compelled to use any patented invention. The blessed privilege of sticking to the old ways abides with all of us, notwithstanding the patent system. Farmers are under no obligations whatever to lay aside the sickle, scythe, or cradle and use the reaper and mower. They may still, if they will, rake and bind wheat and oats with their hands, instead of doing it by machinery. There does not rest upon them the slightest obligation to use a thrasher or separator, since they are at perfect liberty to swing the flail or use the tramping floor. The hand loom may still be used, notwithstanding the inventions of Jacquard and Arkwright, supplemented and improved by modern inventions. The old spinning wheel need not be thrown aside because the inventive genius of man has given us the spinning jenny and its kindred aids in that art. There rests no obligation upon any of us to use the telephone, the telegraph, the locomotive, or the engine. In fact, in all things we may stick absolutely to the old way, and submit ourselves to all the inconveniences and discomforts of the olden times. Every farmer may continue to build a worm or post-and-rail or stone fence, instead of using barbed wire. In this connection it is proper to remark that he pays for his barbed wire fence but little, if any, more than fifty per cent of the cost of the old board or post-and-rail fence, and it has been demonstrated that the farmers of the country have in the last few years saved over sixty millions of dollars by the use of this valuable invention. In fact, all inventions are utilized not simply because they are more convenient, but because they are cheaper and better.
Touching the statement that laborers are thrown out of employment and wages reduced by the use of patented devices, it is sufficient to say that the allegation is entirely at variance with the best information obtainable from the returns of the last census. The utilization of valuable inventions does not throw laborers out of employment, but redistributes labor, and opens up new avenues of employment, calls into requisition a higher order of skill, and secures an increase of wagers. For example, take the boot and shoe industry, where a few hundred machines have changed the whole course of labor. The census of 1870 showed that there was an average of twenty nine persons employed in every shoe factor in this country, whereas in 1880 there were fifty six persons so employed. The same number of persons in 1875 made three times as many shoes as in 1845. In a table prepared by Colonel Wright, chief of the Bureau of Labor, it is shown that in 1870 there were employed 91,702 men, women, and children, while in 1880 there were 111,152. In estimates based upon four hundred and sixty shoe manufacturing establishments in Massachusetts it is shown that three millions of dollars more are paid in wages than the capital invested, and that the labor saving machinery has given to the laborer in 1880 almost double the wages of 1850.
But for the growth of our industries due to the patent system there would have been no employment in this country, other than in the fields, for ten per cent of the immigrants who have come among us. While an important invention may result in utilizing a machine which will do the work of a dozen men, the result is to open up an avenue of employment which will give work to double the number. The comforts and conveniences of life are made more abundant and cheaper, the consumption larger.
When the advantages which our country derives from the patent system are considered, in connection with the fact that it does not cost the Government a farthing, the whole expense being paid by those having business with the Office, either as applicants for patents or otherwise, it would seem that there should be no hesitation in appropriating at least the money paid in and received by the Government in trust for the purpose of promptly and efficiently conducting the business of the Bureau. While the Patent Office has been more than self-sustaining, the cost to those having business to transact has been reduced and the facilities increased. A few years since it cost from $2/50 to $35 to obtain a copy of the drawings of a patent. Under the system of photolithographing now adopted the Office can supply copies of patents with perfect reproductions of the drawings at nominal cost -- viz., twenty-five cents for single copies, or ten cents when twenty or more are ordered. Not only this, but the entire expense of producing these photolithographic copies is more than paid by the proceeds of the sales.
But it is impossible that such a growth and development could have occurred and not be accompanied by greater or lesser evils. The attention of the public has been for years constantly called to the fact that the inventor himself rarely secures the real reward of his invention. This undoubtedly proceeds from the fact that quite as much genius is required to develop a property or manufacture and place it advantageously upon the market in so great a country as this, and to make it remunerative, as is required to make the invention, and it is the misfortune of inventors, as a general rule, not to be possessed of business habits and business faculties. The result has been that nearly all the great and most useful inventions of modern times have fallen into the hands of men of capital or corporations, who alone have the means of capital or corporations, who alone have the means to bring them before the public, develop their useful qualities, and enable the people directly to see that they are useful and be produced at prices which remunerate. This condition of things cannot be remedied, and perhaps ought not to be. There should be no legislation which interferes with the right of property which is vested in the inventor from the moment he has created a new subject of invention. The entire system and theory of patent property rest upon the idea that that which a man invents in the sense of its being a new and novel creation is his individual property, which he owns by the right of creation and discovery. It is not the theory of the patent law that when the Government grants a patent to an inventor it confers upon him any such property as it does in the case of a patent for land, which belonging to the Government at one moment becomes the property of the patentee upon the execution of the instrument; but the patent in the former case recognizes the existence of the property in the individual, but in consequence of its intangible and incorporeal nature it is incapable of protection from invasion by some other persons, unless some distinct and specific remedy is afforded the inventor against such invasion and infringement. Letters patent are mere evidence of the fact that, in the opinion of the Government, the patentee has invented a new, useful, and original invention, and the Government undertakes to protect him in the exclusive enjoyment of that property for a definite term. Now, any legislation which departs from this theory and proceeds upon the idea that the patentee should not be entitled to full protection is a mistake. Many suggestions have been made as to the best method of protecting the inventor and enabling him to realize, as far as possible, the value of his invention, at the same time protecting the public against vast and powerful and corporations in patent property exacting greater values than can be justified upon any fair or reasonable consideration, and which by buying in all the succeeding improvements in a certain line of invention are enabled for generations to perpetuate a monopoly which erects and locates itself all over the country in every business center under the provisions of a patent is able in nearly all cases to prolong its life after the patent expires by reason of the possession which it has taken of the market. New manufacturers are unable for years after the expiration of the patent to come into the market and compete with an organization which thus has such complete possession of the field of the manufacture.
It has been recommended that some legislation should be had looking toward the restriction of the extension of patents and patented property. In this direction I suggest for the consideration of Congress the propriety of providing that all patents hereafter issuing shall contain a condition that they may be extinguished by the Government at any time upon the payment of the owners of the property, whether the patentee or his assigns, a reasonable sum of money, such sum to be determined by arbitration or otherwise, as may seem appropriate to Congress. It is probably safe and accurate to say that patent property as a rule is not so valuable as is popularly estimated. The profits which are enjoyed by the owners of property of this character are rather the result of having control of the market and being everywhere firmly established in the business of manufacturing the patented article. It is well known that the licensees under patents make enormous profits in the manufacture of such articles as the barb-wire, after having paid the royalty to the patentee, and it is probably true of all the great concerns engaged in manufacturing patented articles that they would still be able to conduct a large and profitable business were the patent to be extinguished. In view of the fact, already suggested, that in rare instances only do the original patentees obtain any adequate remuneration for their inventions, it seems entirely proper that the Government at any time should have the power in its discretion to extinguish the patent by paying such sum as would be a reasonable consideration for the appropriation of private property for public purposes. Of course, but few inventions would be extinguished in this way, as their importance generally is not such as to justify interference by the Government.
11. Abridgement of patents.
I desire to call the attention of Congress to the necessity of making provision for the compilation and publication of a classified abridgement of patents. The necessity for this publication has been earnestly set forth in the Annual Reports of this Office since 1848, when Mr. Commissioner Ewbank first called the attention of Congress to the subject. I hereto append extracts from these reports for a full understanding of the matter. Year by year the need and demand for such a work are more and more forcibly felt. Each field of invention broadens, and the necessary examination to determine the utility, novelty and usefulness of the invention presented becomes more intricate and difficult. No better illustration need be cited to show that such an abridgement is almost indispensable than the publication of patents relating to electricity. Copies of all patents on this subject from the year 1790 to July, 1880, were compiled and bound for the Electrical Congress held at Paris in 1880. This publication has since been continued, and now comprises forty-nine volumes. It is doubtful whether the work of the Office could keep pace with the vast number of applications which have been filed since the impetus given to inventive genius by the electric light and telephone were it not for these volumes, whereby examinations are facilitated and accuracy secured. In 1881 Congress appropriated $10,000 to begin this work. Fourteen thousand patents relating to agricultural implements were abridged and the briefs made ready for publication. The appropriation, however, was not continued, and the material was boxed and stored away. An appropriation of not less than $20,000 will be required to continue the work of abridging patents and to publish the material already prepared. The ready sale to manufacturers and inventors of such an abridgement would speedily reimburse the Government for the moneys expended in compiling and publishing such a work, and it is believed that the revenues resulting from such sales would largely increase the receipts of the Office.
12. Exchange of publications.
Some provision should be made by Congress by which this Office can be furnished, for publication in the Official Gazette, with certified copies of all decrees, decisions, and judgments made by the Federal courts in patent cases. I recommend that authority be conferred upon the Commissioner of Patents to furnish the Official Gazette to the clerk of any Federal court, or to the library belonging to the court, in exchange for the decisions rendered by such Federal court.
I further recommend that the Commissioner be vested with authority to exchange the Official Gazette for any publication of a scientific or useful character published in this or any foreign country, which, in his judgment, would be desirable and valuable to the scientific library of the Patent Office.
Business of the Patent Office
The total number of applications received during the calendar year 1887 requiring examination was 41,153. The total number of patents issued was 22,990. The gross receipts were $1,144,509.60; the expenditures $994,472.22; net surplus after paying every expense incident to the maintenance of the Office; $150,037.38. The following statements exhibit in detail all moneys received and expended, the number of applications received and patents granted, and also other information relating to the business and condition of the Patent Office which the Commissioner of Patents is directed to furnish to Congress.
Detailed statement of all moneys received for patents, for copies of records or drawings, or from any source whatever. [fn.: A large number of copies of patents are furnished to co-ordinate branches of the Government for which no charge is made. The receipts would be considerably increased if the Office received payment for these copies.]
Applications Cash received $977,435.00 Cash refunded 3,425.00 ____________ Net cash 974,000.00 Certificates of deposit 46,530.00 ____________ Total cash and certificates 1,020,530.00 ============ Copies Cash received 79,724.71 Cash refunded 1,889.19 _________ Net cash 77,835.52 Certificates of deposit 401.65 _________ Total cash and certificates 78,237.17 ========= Recording assignments Cash received 29,187.25 Cash refunded 1,239.05 _________ Net cash 27,948.20 Certificates of deposit 483.25 _________ Total cash and certificates 28,431.45 ========= Subscription to Official Gazette Cash received 14,400.08 Cash refunded 92.60 _________ Net cash 14,307.48 Certificates of deposit 100.00 _________ Total cash and certificates 14,407.48 ========= Registration of labels Cash received 4,110.00 Cash refunded 1,248.50 ________ Net cash 2,861.50 Certificates of deposit 42.00 ________ Total cash and certificates 2,903.50 ======== Aggregates Cash received $1,104,857.04 Cash refunded 7,904.34 ____________ Net cash 1,096,952.70 Certificates of deposit 47,556.90 ____________ Total cash and certificates 1,144,509.60 ============ Expenditures Amount expended by this Office under the several appropriations from January 1, 1887, to December 31, 1887 Salaries $639,124.35 Official Gazette 41,734.90 Photolithographing 79,515.12 Scientific library 3,409.04 Transportation of publications to foreign governments 376.96 __________ Total 764,160.37 ==========
Approximate amount extended by the Department of the Interior on account of this Office from January 1, 1887, to December 31, 1887. [fn.: A literal compliance with the provisions of the statute requiring "a detailed statement of all expenditures for contingent and miscellaneous expenses" is not possible, for the reason that the contingent fund for the several bureaus of this Department was consolidated by the act of March 3, 1883, and hence no part of that fund is disbursed by the Patent Office, and I am furnished only with an approximate sum, expended on behalf of the Patent Office.]
Stationery $11,046.00 Postage on foreign matter 932.00 Printing and binding 192,152.71 Contingent expenses (including furniture, hardware, carpets, ice, file holders, desks cases, washing towels, keeping of horse, etc., telephone, winding clocks, and sundries)* 26,181.14 __________ Total 230,311.85 ========== Aggregate amount of expenditures 994,472.22 ========== [* fn.: This Office has not been furnished with the item of expenses on account of the watch force, as such expenditure is under the control of the Secretary of the Interior, and the force is distributed through the several bureaus of the Department.] Receipts over Expenditures Total receipts $1,144,509.60 Total expenditures 994,472.22 ____________ Receipts over expenditures 150,037.38 Statement of balance in the Treasury of the United States on account of the Patent fund. Amount to the credit of the fund January 1, 1887 $3,107,453.53 Amount of receipts during the year 1887 1,144,509.60 ____________ Total 4,251,963.13 Deduct expenditures for the year 1887 994,472.22 ____________ Balance January 1, 1888 3,257,490.91 Summary of the Business of the Patent Office Number of applications for patents for inventions 34,420 Number of applications for patents for designs 1,041 Number of applications for reissues of patents 152 ______ Total number of applications relating to patents 35,613 ______ Number of caveats filed 2,622 Number of applications for registration of trademarks 1,282 Number of applications for registration of labels 686 Number of disclaimers filed 9 Number of appeals on the merits 941 _____ Total 5,540 _____ Total number of applications requiring investigation and action 41,153 ====== Number of patents issued, including designs 21,378 Number of patents reissued 99 Number of trademarks registered 1,133 Number of labels registered 380 ______ Total 22,990 ====== Number of patents expired during the year 12,157 Number of patents withheld for non-payment of final fee 3,044 Patents Issued Patents issued to citizens of the United States, with the ratio of population to each patent granted. States and Territories Patents One to and Every designs Alabama 54 23,379 Arizona Territory 3 13,480 Arkansas 65 12,346 California 505 1,712 Colorado 151 1,286 Connecticut 788 790 Dakota Territory 71 1,903 Delaware 34 4,312 District of Columbia 210 845 Florida 41 6,573 Georgia 130 11,862 Idaho Territory 4 8,152 Illinois 1,595 1,929 Indian Territory 3 -- Indiana 556 3,558 Iowa 438 3,709 Kansas 311 3,202 Kentucky 245 6,729 Louisiana 112 8,392 Maine 151 4,297 Maryland 253 3,695 Massachusetts 1,875 950 Michigan 733 2,233 Minnesota 305 2,559 Mississippi 45 25,146 Missouri 654 3,315 Montana Territory 22 1,779 Nebraska 127 3,562 Nevada 15 4,151 New Hampshire 166 2,090 New Jersey 988 1,144 New Mexico Territory 9 13,285 New York 4,047 1,255 North Carolina 66 21,208 Ohio 1,477 2,165 Oregon 59 2,962 Pennsylvania 2,109 2,030 Rhode Island 224 1,234 South Carolina 52 19,145 Tennessee 121 12,746 Texas 265 6,006 Utah Territory 21 6,855 Vermont 112 2,966 Virginia 132 11,458 Washington Territory 44 1,707 West Virginia 75 8,246 Wisconsin 427 3,080 Wyoming 4 5,197 United States Army 12 -- United States Navy 6 -- Total 19,912 Patents issued to citizens of foreign countries Argentine Republic 1 Australia 2 Austria-Hungary 36 Belgium 35 Brazil 2 Canada 294 Corea 1 Cuba 4 Denmark 11 England 500 Finland 1 France 122 Germany 291 Hawaii 2 India 2 Ireland 8 Italy 2 Japan 1 Luxenburg 1 Mexico 6 Netherlands 3 Newfoundland 1 New South Wales 5 New Zealand 9 Norway 6 Russia 11 Scotland 28 South Australia 2 Spain 2 Sweden 20 Switzerland 51 Syria 1 Turkey 3 Victoria 1 West Indies 1 Total 1,466 Comparative statement of the business of the Office form 1837 to 1887, inclusive Years Applica- Caveats Patents Cash Cash Surplus tions Filed and Received Expended Reissues 1837 435 $29,289.08 $33,506.98 1838 520 42,123.54 37,402.10 $4,721.44 1839 425 37,260.00 34,543.51 2,716.49 1840 765 228 473 38,056.51 39,020.67 1841 847 312 495 40,413.01 52,666.87 1842 761 391 517 36,505.68 31,241.48 5,264.20 1843 819 315 531 35,315.81 30,766.96 4,538.85 1844 1,045 380 502 42,509.26 36,244.73 6,264.53 1845 1,246 452 502 51,076.14 39,395.65 11,680.49 1846 1,272 448 619 50,264.16 46,158.71 4,105.45 1847 1,531 553 572 63,111.19 41,878.35 21,232.84 1848 1,628 607 660 67,576.69 58,905.84 8,670.85 1849 1,955 595 1,070 80,752.78 77,716.44 3,036.54 1850 2,193 602 995 86,927.05 80,100.95 6,816.10 1851 2,258 760 869 95,738.61 86,916.93 8,821.68 1852 2,639 996 1,020 112,656.34 95,916.91 16,739.43 1853 2,673 901 958 121,527.45 132,869.83 1854 3,324 868 1,902 163,789.84 167,146.32 1855 4,435 906 2,024 216,459.35 179,540.33 36,919.02 1856 4,960 1,024 2,502 192,588.02 199,931.02 1857 4,771 1,010 2,910 196,132.01 211,582.09 1858 5,364 943 3,710 203,716.16 193,193.74 10,592.42 1859 6,225 1,097 4,538 245,942.15 210,278.41 35,663.74 1860 7,653 1,084 4,819 256,352.59 252.820.80 3,531.79 1861 4,643 700 3,340 137,354.44 221,491.91 1862 5,038 824 3,521 215,754.99 182,810.39 32,944.60 1863 6,014 787 4,170 195,593.29 189,414.14 6,179.15 1864 6,972 1,063 5,020 240,919.98 229,868.00 11,051.98 1865 10,664 1,937 6,616 348,791.84 274,199.34 74,593.50 1866 15,269 2,723 9,450 495,665.38 361,724.28 133,941.10 1867 21,276 3,597 13,015 646,581.92 639,263.32 7,318.60 1868 20,420 3,705 13,378 684,565.86 628,679.77 52,866.09 1869 19,271 3,624 13,986 693,145.81 486,430.78 206,715.03 1870 19,171 3,273 13,321 669,476.76 557,149.19 112,307.57 1871 19,472 3,624 13,033 678,716.46 560.595.08 118,121.38 1872 18,246 3,090 13,590 699,726.39 665,591.36 34,135.03 1873 20,414 3,248 12,864 703,191.77 691.178.98 12,012.79 1874 21,602 3,181 13,599 738,278.17 679,288.41 58,989.76 1875 21,638 3,094 16,288 743,453.36 721,657.71 21,795.65 1876 21,425 2,697 17,026 757,987.65 652,542.60 105,445.05 1877 20,308 2,869 13,619 732,342.85 613,152.62 119,190.23 1878 20,260 2,755 12,935 725,375.55 593,082.89 132,292.66 1879 20,059 2,620 12,725 703,931.47 529,638.97 174,292.50 1880 23,012 2,490 13,947 749,685.32 538,865.17 210,820.15 1881 26,059 2,406 16,584 853,665.89 605,173.28 238,492.61 1882 31,522 2,553 19,267 1,009,219.45 683,867.67 325,351.78 1833 34,576 2,741 22,383 1,146,240.00 675,234.86 471,005.14 1884 35,600 2,582 20,413 1,075,798.80 970,579.76 105,219.04 1885 35,717 2,552 24,233 1,188,098.15 1,024,378.85 163,710.30 1886 35,968 2,513 22,508 1,154,551.40 992,503.40 162,047.95 1887 35,613 2,622 21,477 1,144,509.60 994,472.22 150,037.38
Statement showing the number of the first patent, design patent and reissued patent, and the number of the first certificate of registration of a trade mark and a label issued in each calendar year since July 28, 1836, when the present series of numbers of letters patent commenced, together with the total number of each issued during the year. The number of patents granted prior to the commencement of this series of numbering (July 28, 1836) was 9,957. [Divided for convenience of typing into two tables KWD]
Number of first patent and certificate issued in each calendar year Year Patents Designs Reissues Trade Labels Marks 1836 July 28 1 1837 110 1838 546 1 1839 1,061 7 1840 1,465 20 1841 1,923 30 1842 2,413 36 1843 2,901 1 49 1844 3,395 15 60 1845 3,872 27 67 1846 4,348 44 78 1847 4,914 103 91 1848 5,409 163 105 1849 5,992 209 128 1850 6,981 258 158 1851 7,865 341 184 1852 8,622 431 209 1853 9,512 540 229 1854 10,358 626 258 1855 12,117 683 286 1856 14,008 753 337 1857 16,324 860 420 1858 19,010 973 517 1859 22,477 1,075 643 1860 26,642 1,183 874 1861 31,005 1,366 1,106 1862 34,045 1,508 1,253 1863 37,266 1,703 1,369 1864 41,047 1,879 1,596 1865 45,685 2,018 1,844 1866 51,784 2,239 2,140 1867 60,658 2,533 2,430 1868 72,959 2,858 2,830 1869 85,503 3,304 3,250 1870 98,460 3,810 3,784 1 1871 110,617 4,547 4,223 122 1872 122,304 5,442 4,687 608 1873 134,504 6,336 5,216 1,099 1874 146,120 7,083 5,717 1,591 1 1875 158,350 7,969 6,299 2,150 233 1876 171,671 8,884 6,831 3,288 465 1877 185,813 9,686 7,452 4,247 937 1878 198,733 10,385 *8,920 5,463 1,329 *sic, actually 8,020 1879 211,078 10,975 8,529 6,918 1,821 1880 223,211 11,567 9,017 7,790 2,176 1881 236,137 12,082 9,523 8,139 2,379 1882 251,137 12,647 9,994 8,973 2,581 1883 269,820 13,508 10,265 9,920 2,885 1884 291,016 14,528 10,432 10,882 3,791 1885 310,163 15,678 10,548 11,843 4,304 1886 333,494 16,451 10,677 12,910 4,695 1887 355,291 17,046 10,793 13,939 5,073 1888 375,720 17,995 10,892 15,072 5,453 Number of patents and certificates of registration issued during each calendar year Year Patents Designs Reissues Total Trade Labels Total Patents Marks Certi- ficates 1836 July 28 109 1837 436 1838 515 6 1839 404 13 1840 458 10 1841 490 6 1842 488 13 1843 494 14 11 510 1844 477 12 7 495 1845 476 17 11 504 1846 566 59 13 638 1847 495 60 14 569 1848 583 46 23 652 1849 989 49 30 1,068 1850 884 83 26 993 1851 757 90 25 872 1852 800 100 20 1,019 1853 846 86 29 961 1854 1,759 57 28 1,844 1855 1,891 70 51 2,012 1856 2,316 107 83 2,506 1857 2,686 113 97 2,896 1858 3,467 102 126 3,695 1859 4,165 108 231 4,504 1860 4,363 183 232 4,778 1861 3,040 142 147 3,329 1862 3,221 195 116 3,532 1863 3,781 176 227 4,184 1864 4,638 139 248 5,025 1865 6,099 221 296 6,616 1866 8,874 294 290 9,458 1867 12,301 325 400 13,026 1868 12,544 446 420 13,410 1869 12,957 596 534 13,997 1870 12,157 737 439 13,333 121 121 1871 11,687 905 464 13,056 486 486 1872 12,200 884 529 13,613 491 491 1873 11,616 747 501 12,864 492 492 1874 12,230 886 483 13,599 557 232 791 1875 13,291 915 631 14,837 1,138 232 1,370 1876 14,172 802 621 15,595 959 472 1,431 1877 12,920 699 568 14,187 1,216 392 1,608 1878 12,345 590 509 13,444 1,455 492 1,947 1879 12,133 592 488 13,213 872 355 1,227 1880 12,926 515 506 13,947 349 203 522 1881 15,548 565 471 16,584 836 202 1,038 1882 18,135 861 271 19,267 947 304 1,251 1883 21,196 1,020 167 22,383 902 906 1,808 1884 19,147 1,150 116 20,413 1,021 513 1,534 1885 23,331 773 129 24,233 1,067 391 1,458 1886 21,797 595 116 22,508 1,029 378 1,407 1887 20,429 949 99 21,477 1,133 380 1,513
Herewith accompanying this report are lists or indexes, arranged in monthly, quarterly, and yearly form, of all patents granted during the calendar year of 1887, properly classified under subjects of invention; alphabetical lists of all patentees, with their places of residence, and a list containing all patents extended during the year.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
Benton J. Hall, Commissioner