“[A]pplied technologies are foundational and form the backbone of America’s growth.” – John Squires

Source: USPTO
John Squires was officially sworn in as the 60th U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director on Tuesday, September 23, and today issued the first patents of his term, both in technology sectors that often face increased scrutiny about patent eligibility during patent prosecution and in the courts.
The two issued patents were directed to distributed ledger/crypto and medical diagnostics technologies.
Squires was confirmed by the U.S. Senate last Thursday as part of an en bloc vote on 48 pending Trump nominees. The 48 confirmations were made by a vote of 51-47.
During his confirmation hearing in May, Squires emphasized his goal of making patents strong up front. Since then, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart has taken a number of measures that many feel are patent owner-friendly and aimed at restoring quiet title to patents. She called it a “level-setting” herself at last week’s IPWatchdog Women’s IP Forum.
In his remarks during the patent signing today, Squires underscored his commitment to granting patents on “applied technologies,” including those that have been “too often dismissed as ‘mere business methods’ or ‘ineligible diagnostic practices.’”
He used the example of Samuel Morse’s telegraph patent, which was granted in 1840. “Claim 5 of that patent was upheld by the Supreme Court as patent eligible in light of claim 8 being abstract,” Squires said. “It reminds us that applied technologies are foundational and form the backbone of America’s growth.”
The signing ceremony came one day after Squires was sworn in by Judge Ryan T. Holte, with Stewart resuming her post as Deputy Director. Squires credited Stewart with getting the agency “back on our front foot.”
He particularly emphasized his belief in “a strong, robust, expansive, and resilient intellectual property system—and everything that goes with it.” As part of that, he reiterated his commitment to upgrading the tools examiners have for vetting patents up front. “You should have the best tools for every case of first impression because that’s when they’re needed most, that’s when they matter most,” he said.
Squires has also signaled his goal of analyzing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) trends “to better understand why IPRs have the types of numbers reported while PGRs seem less preferred; why prior art was missed in cases of invalidation and if that art is making it back to the art unit post disposition to address issues on the front end; and why industry appears to be under-utilizing third party submissions and what can be done to address this issue; among other issues.”
His remarks today concluded with an appeal to inventors and entrepreneurs in particular, who he wants “to know that the USPTO is open for business—especially for the technologies of tomorrow.”

Join the Discussion
6 comments so far.
Pro Say
September 26, 2025 12:00 pm“However, absent Congressional action, that simply passes on such decisions to the district courts, the CAFC, and/or attorneys evaluating such patents.”
True, Paul. But still better — much better — than killing patent-worthy innovations at the PTO front door; which is what’s been happening for some years now.
“The PTO has no power to change the law.”
Also true. But the PTO does have the power to change minds.
Which America badly needs. Desperately so.
Paul Morgan
September 26, 2025 09:26 amThe Patently-O blog notes that PTO Director Squires choice of these two patents for this talk suggests more such allowances for diagnostic and business method software patents. Yes, new PTO Director Squires can further reduce or eliminate patent application rejections based on Supreme Court decisions in Mayo, Alice and earlier unpatentable subject matter decisions.
However, absent Congressional action, that simply passes on such decisions to the district courts, the CAFC, and/or attorneys evaluating such patents. The PTO has no power to change the law. Also, there is no indication in patent decisions in recent years that the present Sup. Ct. majority takes the very favorable view of patents or Agency legal interpretations that it apparently does of some Presidential executive powers?
INDRA PRAKASH KATYAL
September 26, 2025 03:21 amDURING PANDEMIC COVID-19 PERIOD & MORE THE PROCESSING OF R&D TO INVENT & DEVELOP NEW TECHS TO CLEAN WATER & CURB AIR POLLUTION BEEN HAMPHERED TO GET NEWLY DEVELOPED & US PATENT GRANTED TECHS. REMAINED HAMPHERED THOUGH UNPOLLUTED WATER & UNTOXIC AIR, BOTH OF WHICH ARE BEING MORE FOR THE LIVING BEINGS OUR INDIAN INVENTOR HAS INVENTED TWO WATER DESALINATION & ONE HYDROCARBON (ENV.) TO UNCHECK THE FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS TO CLEAN AIR GRANTED WITH US PATENTS & NEEDS LICENSING TO COMMERCIALIZE TO SAVE EARTH. US PATENT NOS. OF TECHS ARE: 1. US 9,643,860 B2
2 US 10,876,772 B2 & 3. US 9,855,515 B2 INVENTOR NAME:AMIT KATYAL
NAME OF TECHS ARE : 1. SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR HYDRATE-BASED DESALINATION 2. SIMULTANEOUS EVAPORATION & CONDENSATION IN CONNECTED VESSELS & 3. HORIZONTAL METHOD FOR TRAY DISTILLATION & OTHER GAS-LIQUID OPERATIONS.
Paul Morgan
September 25, 2025 07:32 pmThanks for noting the following questions of the new Director: “Squires has also signaled his goal of analyzing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) trends “to better understand why IPRs have the types of numbers reported while PGRs seem less preferred; why prior art was missed in cases of invalidation and if that art is making it back to the art unit post disposition to address issues on the front end; and why industry appears to be under-utilizing third party submissions and what can be done to address this issue; among other issues.”
These are not new questions, and here are some of the prior answers that have been publicly given:
1. Yes, there are apparently no feedback consequences for examiners or for examiner training for missed prior art found later in vastly more costly, extensive, and better prior art searches made by patent suit defendants [which includes some 80% of IPR petitioners]. PTO quality of examination checks have traditionally not checked for missing prior art missed for any reason.
2. As for why PRG’s are so very rarely used: PGRs are by statute only even usable for brand new patents – less than 6 months old – whereas the vast majority of al patent suits are on much older patents, re later products. Estoppel for losing PGR decisions is so broad that it precludes most patent litigation defenses, even those not even raised in the PRG. Additionally, the PGR system and many APJ judges are arguably not fully equipped or experienced to handle these different contested cases. Including their different and needed discovery. Especially, product “prior public use” or “on sale” cases. Likewise, the legal defenses of written description (112), enablement (112), indefiniteness (112), and eligibility (101).
3. As to “why industry appears to be under-utilizing third party submissions:” A major reason is that submission of prior art to a non-attorney PTO examiner [with very little time to spend and no duty to the submitter], in a purely ex parte proceeding (in which nothing the applicant says can be rebutted or cross examined), and with no discovery, is a dangerously much less effective way to attempt to use a good patent litigation defense. The prior art submitter cannot appeal even if their art was just ignored, and might be accused of willful infringement later. Invalid patent claims are realistically feared likely to be issued anyway,. Above and beyond that, companies do not conduct expensive prior art searches and legal defense tactics against the flood of pending patent applications with non-final claims, especially for features of non-existing products that they might not even consider until years later. Most patent suits these days are not against competitors monitoring each other’s patents.
[Other specific substantive responses to these Director’s questions ought to be provided.]
Pro Say
September 24, 2025 06:24 pmHope springs eternal.
Now about the CAFC’s off-the-SCOTUS-rails ineligibility decisions . . . while Congress does nothing . . . with 2026 just around the corner . . .
Model 101
September 24, 2025 06:06 pmThis is great!!
Congratulations !