'Overdrive': USPTO Director Details Backlog Reduction, AI, and Eligibility Trilogy
In one of his first major addresses as the 60th Director of the USPTO, John A. Squires informed the AIPLA Annual Meeting that the agency is operating in “overdrive” despite a recent government shutdown. Speaking five weeks into his tenure, Director Squires laid out an aggressive agenda focused on operational efficiency, AI integration, and a new framework for patent eligibility. The Director twice reiterated that the doors to the agency are wide open.
“American innovation does not pause. Neither do we,” Squires stated, noting that the USPTO’s user-fee-funded status and $1 billion reserve keep it “open for business” (AIPLA, ¶¶ 4-5).
He then listed a rapid series of actions taken, including launching the AI-assisted Automated Search Pilot (ASAP!), issuing several Director Review decisions, and providing a comprehensive statement on patent eligibility to the U.S. Senate (¶ 6).
Confronting the “Dumpster Fire” Backlog
Director Squires did not mince words about the state of the agency he inherited, describing the unexamined patent application backlog as “an absolute dumpster fire” (¶ 7).
He cited a record 837,928 unexamined applications as of January 2025, an increase of over 260,000 since 2020, even as annual filings fell (¶ 8). He termed this “a total betrayal of American inventors” (¶ 9).
To combat this, the Director detailed immediate actions that resulted in $315 million in savings, including reining in travel and re-evaluating contracts (¶ 10). The agency is now moving forward with:
1,100 new examiner hires
New incentives and bonuses
New IT tools, including AI-enhanced search to help patents be “born strong”
The new Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program (¶¶ 11-12)
These efforts, spearheaded by Deputy Director Coke Stewart, have reportedly already made a significant impact. According to Squires, the Patents team achieved “a reduction of nearly 50,000 backlogged applications in just over 6 months—with rising quality” (¶ 14).
AI as the Engine for Operations and Quality
Director Squires positioned AI as the central force for the USPTO’s future. He introduced the metaphor of the USPTO as the “Department of Commerce’s Central Bank of Innovation,” where patents are “soft dollar assets” (¶ 19).
In this “bank,” the patent application process is a “trade” of disclosure for exclusivity (¶ 20). The examiners act as “chief negotiators on behalf of the United States of America” (¶ 20). The goal of AI is to ensure both sides of this negotiation have reliable information from the start.
The new ASAP! search pilot, for example, “gets you the prior art right now—before the first Office Action—so the applicant and examiner are literally on the same page in their trade decision” (¶ 22). This transparency, he argued, makes the “trade cleaner, the issuance stronger, and the asset more investible” (¶ 23).
He also framed AI and Distributed Ledger (DL) technology as the next great “re-engineering” of infrastructure, similar to the internet. He noted that AI’s strength is speed, while its weakness is trust; conversely, DL’s strength is trust, but its weakness is speed (¶¶ 26-27). He argued that inventions combining these or solving for their weaknesses are not abstract hype but fundamental “infrastructure,” and “that’s invention” (¶ 29).
A New Trilogy for Patent Eligibility
The most substantive portion of the address focused on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Director Squires expressed a clear intent to “make sure the door to the patent office is wide open to transformative technologies” (¶ 37).
He criticized the sua sponte “abstracting out of existence” of claims, citing the Ex parte Desjardins case, and promised clear guidance (¶¶ 35-36). To that end, he offered a “trilogy” of three pillars for examiners to “sift between eligibility and patentability” (¶ 32).
35 U.S.C. § 100(b): The statutory definition of “process,” which Squires emphasized has encompassed “new uses of known technologies” since 1793 (¶ 33).
Enfish: The decision holding that “improvements to computer data structures” are patent-eligible (¶ 34). The Director explicitly stated that DL is “the ultimate data structure” and AI is “the other side of the Enfish coin” (¶ 34).
“Something Morse“: A reframing of the Alice/Mayo “something more” test (¶ 38). Squires pointed to the “artifacts of re-engineering” as the key. He invoked Samuel Morse’s patents, noting that while Claim 8 (reciting electromagnetism) was ineligible, Claim 5 (reciting the practical application of a dot-and-dash system) was eligible (¶ 39; O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62 (1854)). This, he argued, is the “something more”—or “something Morse“—that demonstrates a practical, tangible application.
Director Squires concluded by pointing to the first two patents of his tenure (U.S. Patent Nos. 12,419,201 and 12,419,202) as examples of inventions that successfully passed this “trilogy” test (¶ 43).
Building a Thematic Foundation: The First Five Weeks in Context
The AIPLA address did not emerge in a vacuum. It functions as a grand synthesis of the doctrinal, economic, and procedural arguments Director Squires has been methodically building since his swearing-in. A review of his initial public statements reveals a consistent, multi-pronged strategy.
The doctrinal core of the “Eligibility Trilogy” was first workshopped in his October 10 statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee. In that testimony, he introduced the Samuel Morse patent as the historical anchor for eligibility, arguing that “Morse’s Claim 5 is still law today” (Senate Statement, sec. III). He explicitly linked this to national security, framing his 9/11 experience as proof that patents are “instruments of national defense” (Senate Statement, sec. II). While the AIPLA speech re-uses the Enfish and Morse examples, it packages them for a practitioner audience as a usable “trilogy,” replacing the passionate national security argument with a more economic and operational focus.
The economic metaphor of the USPTO as the “Department of Commerce’s Central Bank of Innovation” (AIPLA, ¶ 19) was a centerpiece of his very first ceremonial swearing-in remarks on September 23. To his USPTO audience, he introduced this idea and previewed his view of examination as “claims discovery”—the “line where the prior art leaves off and where the inventive contribution begins” (Swearing-in Remarks, p. 2). This concept evolved directly into the “examination as a trade” metaphor he presented at the AIPLA meeting (AIPLA, ¶ 20).
Finally, his procedural agenda was made clear in his October 17 “Open Letter” reclaiming AIA institution authority. The AIPLA speech mentions this as a key accomplishment: “Restored the original intent of the AIA” (AIPLA, ¶ 6). The letter provides the full justification, citing the need to remove the “perception of self-incentivization” (Open Letter, p. 2) and restore accountability. This action demonstrates his focus on not just substantive patent law (§ 101) but also the procedural framework (AIA) that governs patent validity, reinforcing his AIPLA theme of building “clarity and confidence” (AIPLA, ¶ 3).
Analysis and Considerations
Director Squires’ remarks signal a sharp, pro-patent, pro-technology shift at the USPTO.
Benefits: The “something Morse“ framework offers a potentially more concrete and technology-grounded test for eligibility, which will be welcome news for inventors in AI, DL, and life sciences. The aggressive backlog reduction and implementation of front-loaded AI search tools like ASAP! could significantly speed prosecution and reduce RCEs, saving applicants time and money.
Challenges: The primary challenge will be implementation. Translating this “trilogy” into consistent, reliable guidance for thousands of examiners is a massive undertaking. The Desjardins case highlights the existing gap between the Board’s past analyses and the Director’s new-found clarity. Significant training will be required to ensure examiners correctly identify “artifacts of re-engineering” without resorting to old habits.
Risks: A cautious view reveals two main risks. First, judicial deference. The Federal Circuit is not bound by this new USPTO framework. There is a risk that the USPTO will issue patents under the “something Morse“ standard that are later invalidated in federal court, creating a trap for unwary patent owners. Second, AI reliability. The heavy reliance on AI for prior art search introduces new concerns. Practitioners will need assurances about the confidentiality of application data used to train or query these AI models. Furthermore, the risk of AI “hallucinations” or, more practically, an AI tool simply missing the single most relevant piece of prior art, could lead to “born weak” patents that are vulnerable to invalidity challenges.
The Director’s message was one of definitive change. He ended his remarks with another invitation: “The doors to America’s Innovation Agency are wide open ... We are open for business. Please come” (¶¶ 45-46).
Conclusion
The address to the AIPLA attendees serves as a solid statement of intent. Director Squires is positioning his tenure as one of aggressive action and doctrinal clarification, moving simultaneously on operational, procedural, and substantive fronts.
The “overdrive” metaphor is not just about clearing a backlog; it describes a unified strategy to re-center the USPTO as a pro-patent “Central Bank of Innovation.”
For patent attorneys, in-house counsel, and inventors, the message is one of renewed optimism, but it must be paired with professional diligence. For instance, actions against the patent examiners such as the proposed dissolution of their union (POPA) and the reported significant changes to the Patent Examiner Performance Appraisal Plan (PAP) for Fiscal Year 2026 appear at odds with Director Squire’s pronouncements.
The promise of faster prosecution and a more favorable § 101 standard is balanced by the untested nature of the “something Morse“ framework against judicial review and the operational risks of new AI search tools.
The agency’s doors may be “wide open,” but practitioners must be prepared to navigate the new architecture being built inside.
Disclaimer: This is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. To the extent there are any opinions in this article, they are the author’s alone and do not represent the beliefs of his firm or clients. The strategies expressed are purely speculation based on publicly available information. The information expressed is subject to change at any time and should be checked for completeness, accuracy and current applicability. For advice, consult a suitably licensed attorney and/or patent professional.