just_n_examiner ([info]just_n_examiner) wrote,
@ 2008-01-15 22:50:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Canada Must Be Doing Something Right
Does Canada know something that we don't, or are things just slow up there these days?

The USPTO is hiring over a thousand new examiners a year, and is planning to continue doing so for the foreseeable future.

So, I found it to be quite the contrast when I ran across CIPO's latest information on their plans for future hiring:


2008/2009 Hiring Targets



Candidates that were invited and wrote the written test evaluating knowledge and abilities and were
unsuccessful will not be considered in any future recruitment campaigns for a period of 2 years from the date
of the written test.



Discipline:
Target Date
Number of openings
Deadline to apply
When applying indicate Educational Background in:
Biotechnology
March 2009
10
October 31, 2008
Masters degree or Ph.D. in biochemistry or molecular biology
Electrical
December 2008
12 September 1, 2008
Degree in electrical or computer engineering
Organic Chemistry
March 2009
6 October 31, 2008
Honours Degree in Chemistry (1)
General Chemistry
September 2008
11 May 1, 2008
Degree in Chemical Engineering (2)
Mechanical
Not presently hiring
0 N/A
Degree in Mechanical Engineering


Note: Only minimum required Educational Background is indicated in the above table. Asset qualifications may be applied. See the statement of merit and footnotes below for further details.



(1) An honour's degree in Chemistry is a four-year degree or three years of post-CEGEP university.



(2) An honour’s degree in Chemistry will also be considered (see footnote 1). A Chemical Engineering bachelor’s degree with specializations in Biotechnology, Biochemistry, and/or Environment will be considered as equivalent to a Chemical Engineering degree. A bachelor’s degree in Metallurgical Engineering or Metallurgy will be considered as equivalent to a Chemical Engineering bachelor’s degree.





(Post a new comment)

Cattle
(Anonymous)
2008-01-16 02:53 am UTC (link)
You US guys are fodder.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Cattle
(Anonymous)
2008-01-16 01:36 pm UTC (link)
are you planning to eat us? we're very high in fat.

-MM

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Cattle
(Anonymous)
2008-01-16 01:49 pm UTC (link)
Mmmmmmmmm, examiner fat ... having a ball with cholesterol

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-01-16 03:24 pm UTC (link)
Things are just slow up there these days?

(Reply to this)

Canada Must Be Doing Something Right
(Anonymous)
2008-01-16 07:24 pm UTC (link)
Hi,

As a Canadian Examiner (eh), I know that we don't have the same probles the US does at keeping examiners. We have a problem attracting examiners, but not keeping them.

Why? Well, I think we are all lucky to have jobs after the high tech crash of 2000...Silicone Valley north doesn't exist anymore, and we a lot of people who used to work in such a volitile environment are now looking for security...

My 2 CDN cents, which is probably worth the same in US currency these days.

Cheers.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Canada Must Be Doing Something Right
(Anonymous)
2008-01-16 08:56 pm UTC (link)
"Hi,

As a Canadian Examiner (eh), I know that we don't have the same probles the US does at keeping examiners. We have a problem attracting examiners, but not keeping them.

Why? Well, I think we are all lucky to have jobs after the high tech crash of 2000...Silicone Valley north doesn't exist anymore, and we a lot of people who used to work in such a volitile environment are now looking for security...

My 2 CDN cents, which is probably worth the same in US currency these days.

Cheers."

Interesting. I appreciate your 2 CDN cents! What does your typical day or week involve? How many hours are you expected to spend reading a typical patent application in your technological discipline (if you could tell us what that is that would help too), performing a prior art search to check for similar inventions and then writing some form of response to that? About how many examiners work at the Canadian Patent Office?

-JustanEx(U.S.)Exmr

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Canada Must Be Doing Something Right
(Anonymous)
2008-01-16 09:14 pm UTC (link)
Canadian Examiner, please secure your borders to keep our examiners here where they belong.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Canada Must Be Doing Something Right
(Anonymous)
2008-01-17 04:16 am UTC (link)
I'd be very interested in knowing the work conditions at the CIPO.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

BUSINESS WEEK POLL: How would you rate the Patent Office overall as a place to work?
(Anonymous)
2008-01-16 11:41 pm UTC (link)
O.K., the USPTO needs all the help it can get. Examiners, please vote and have your say:

http://forums.businessweek.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=bw-patentoffice&tid=1

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2008-01-17 06:54 pm UTC (link)
JPE I would beg to differ that "Canada must be doing something right". It just seems to me that US Patents are in demand and Canadian patents are not. They don't need examiner's because they don't have the filings that the USPTO does. If people are wanting US Patents so badly clearly the US Patent Office is doing something right!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-01-17 07:09 pm UTC (link)
people want US patents so badly because the US is one of the world's largest markets. It has nothing to do with the quality of the job the USPTO is doing.

-MM

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-01-18 08:22 pm UTC (link)
So what you are saying is that the USA is better and more desirable and it is not that Canada is doing anything right?

I think that the quality of the US Patents are just fine, given the limited amount of time to review them. I would love to see a statistic showing how many "originally" filed vs. "amended" claims end up patented. If a claim gets amended doesn't that show some form of quality?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Quality
[info]humbleagent
2008-01-19 02:57 pm UTC (link)
"If a claim gets amended doesn't that show some form of quality? "

Not really. From my industrial engineering days, Quality = adhering to procedures, not rejecting product. Theoretically USPTO management should be agnostic about whether or not an examiner rejects a claim, as long as the examiner followed the proper procedure for examination. The political reality, however, is that the public equates broad patents with poor examination quality. Hence USPTO management which is subject to political pressure has instituted "second pair of eyes" in some of the more controversial fields, such as business methods. From a quality perspective, second pair of eyes actually is both antiquality and antiproductive. Instead of inspecting the process that the examiner uses (e.g. did the search include all of the elements of the claims) it redoes the examiner's job to see if it gets the same result. (at least as I understand it)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Quality
(Anonymous)
2008-01-19 04:17 pm UTC (link)
I understand what you are saying but I think you missed my point. In this blog we hear a lot of cranks (and only the cranks) saying what a crappy job the examiners are doing. If the job of an examiner is to get the applicant to clearly define what the invention is (either through 112 or art) and if the stats show that in a large percentage of applications the applicants have to amend their claims then I believe that would be good measure of quality. I can't believe they are amending for the hell of it. Perhaps I am completely wrong and the stats show that most applications go through without amendment but I doubt it, I've been here too long. As an examiner I have seen a wide spectrum of attorneys work, some of it is good and some of it utter crap, especially considering what they get paid. Only the crappy ones get talked about. The attorneys writing to this blog seem to think all their cohorts are doing they same wonderful job they claim to be doing, believe me, they are not. That said, I have seen some utter crap from examiners too and it is shameful. Somehow, (perhaps in their need to have more and more examiners and get more work out) the PTO can not seem to get rid of the known bad examiners and POPA isn't helping matters.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Quality
[info]humbleagent
2008-01-19 06:04 pm UTC (link)
“I think you missed my point”

I think I was more trying to steer the discussion into a more productive area.

“If the job of an examiner is to get the applicant to clearly define what the invention is…”

No offense, but if an examiner is expending effort to “get” an applicant to do anything, then I would argue that those efforts are undermining the quality of that examiner’s work. As I understand it, the examiner’s function is to determine if an applicant is entitled to a patent (35 USC 131) and to render assistance when requested. It is the applicant’s job to clearly define the invention in the claims.

“A large percentage of applicants have to amend their claims”

In my view, amending claims is consistent with an attorney or agent doing a quality job. If an applicant has to amend their claims due to a valid 101 or 112 rejection, then yes, that would be an indication of a lack of quality in claim drafting. (emphasis on the word valid) If, on the other hand, it’s due to a valid 102 or 103 rejection based on prior art that the applicant hadn’t been aware of, then I don’t think that amending a claim reflects poorly on the quality of the original claim.

“I can’t believe that they are amending for the hell of it”.

No, but if a given rejection 101 or 112 rejection is debatable, then an applicant may choose to amend the claims to appease an examiner rather than contest the rejection.

“I have seen a wide spectrum of attorneys work, some of it is good and some of it utter crap, especially considering what they get paid.”

I had to smile when I read that. I think what you meant is that since attorneys make so much money, they should turn out quality applications all the time. You are confusing, however, what attorney’s make overall, with what applicants are willing to pay for drafting a given application. There certainly is a broad range of abilities among practitioners, but what you are seeing may be more a reflection of the range of budgets among applicants.

That being said (and let’s hear from the patent practitioners on this one), are their essential steps that should be performed in the production of any patent application, regardless of an applicant’s budget so that the application produced is a “quality” application? How can you measure and track the performance of those steps to determine that a given process for producing a patent application was “in control”?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Canadian PO
(Anonymous)
2008-01-17 07:41 pm UTC (link)
Interesting. Note what's NOT there. They aren't looking for anyone to examine business methods, nor specifically to examine computer software. Hopefully, for their collective sakes, our neighbors to the Great White North won't fall into that (clap)trap.

bierbelly, eh.

(Reply to this)

CIPO
(Anonymous)
2008-01-18 07:57 pm UTC (link)
The CIPO may be looking for more examiners soon. In light of the Pilot Program recently announced, I would think that there will be more filings in Canada by US inventors (after first obtaining a foreign filing license of course). You would then file in the US within one year or file a PCT application within the year and nationalize in the US off of it. This way you receive a meaningful search and examination from the CIPO and then expedited examination in the US following allowance of your claims by the CIPO. Any comments on this approach?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(Deleted post)
Re: CIPO
(Anonymous)
2008-01-18 09:28 pm UTC (link)
You can go if you want. I'll stay here. Warmer. And DO NOT take the 'Nats!! However, take the O's. Please!! (to paraphrase the great, late comic).

thanks,

LL

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: CIPO
(Anonymous)
2008-01-19 01:40 am UTC (link)
You're kidding right? What with global warming and all Canada will soon have the northwest passage and Quebec will be the next Hotlanta.
I'm going up there an opening up a swimming pool business.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: CIPO
(Anonymous)
2008-01-19 07:15 pm UTC (link)
"Global warming" is more a made up issue from the left-wing radicals. Are people having an effect on the environment? Yes. Because we are PART of the environment! And how come at one time they are yelling that the Earth is getting hotter and the next that the next ice age is coming?? And when your spokesman for "global warming" is Al Gore (who has a HUGE carbon footprint, but buys "credits", which is the biggest line of garbage I have heard. Buying credits like this is like they did in the middle ages and buying blessings for sins. Either you do it or you don't!) And, as big of a mess that we are in now, it would have even been worse with Gore.

Sorry for the off-topic political rant, but the "global warming" stuff always irritates me because so many of the advocates either do not know science or choose to only select and twist the facts to fit their preconceived notions (like Gore did in his movie. Yes, I watched it & it was as convincing as most of the 911 conspiracies you hear about on the Internet. Not very!)

Back to patents...


MVS

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: CIPO
(Anonymous)
2008-01-20 01:07 am UTC (link)
Wow global warming is made up! Thanks for that very useful info. Can I quote you on that? Oh wait...you know this how?.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: CIPO
(Anonymous)
2008-01-22 09:58 pm UTC (link)
Wonder if your good buddy John Darling agrees with you on this one?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)
Re: CIPO
(Anonymous)
2008-01-23 09:32 pm UTC (link)
You and global warming denier MVS were getting along so well in a not so long ago topic in this blog. Indeed you made it appear that you considered him the most reasonable man at the PTO. I laugh that you tell me to get a life because you will no doubt answer this post and get the last word in, just like you always do. Still waiting to catch your comedy act.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)
Re: CIPO
(Anonymous)
2008-01-26 11:36 pm UTC (link)
i AM reasonable :) At least about most things. Just a few things hit my buttons & I have to go off about them. People blaming "global warming" for everything bad is one of them. I do think we are having an effect on the environment & world. It's just that all the "scientific evidence" always seems to be biased towards the people doing/supporting/paying for the research.

And remember - Nats win the Series in 2010.


MVS

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: CIPO
(Anonymous)
2008-01-22 03:44 am UTC (link)
Can we keep Campden Yards?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

ip.com
(Anonymous)
2008-01-19 03:50 pm UTC (link)
OT

I just noticed the link on the right of this blog to IP.com. It looks like a site where the public can post comments about pending applications.

Do examiners ever check this? Is it useful?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: ip.com
(Anonymous)
2008-01-20 12:59 am UTC (link)
I check it now and then... I've yet to have found any comments on an application I've been in the process of examining.

-MM

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Peer to patent
[info]humbleagent
2008-01-21 05:58 pm UTC (link)
Have you been tracking Peer to Patent? Does that look helpful at all from an examiner perspective?

I noticed that the first two office actions to come through didn't cite any of the prior art submitted by the public reviewers.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Peer to patent
(Anonymous)
2008-01-22 03:19 pm UTC (link)
I've checked it a few times in the past and found nothing... I'll use it on the next few applications I examine this biweek and let you know if I found it useful... I can tell you that my impression is that most examiners have never even looked; they may not even know it's there. I imagine that if I worked in a more controversial art, I'd find far more input from the public on those sites.

-MM

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Peer to patent
[info]humbleagent
2008-01-23 12:11 pm UTC (link)
MM,

Thank you for your answer.

I was actually referring to www.peertopatent.org, not ip.com in my last post.

Peer to Patent only has a few posted applications open for public comment, but the results are forwarded directly to the examiner. Those that volunteer to post their applications get accelerated examination.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Peer to patent
(Anonymous)
2008-01-23 01:28 pm UTC (link)
oh, ok... well no I've never had anything forwarded to me from peer to patent.

-MM

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Screened Post)
Re: My blog about health and wealth
(Anonymous)
2008-01-21 04:14 pm UTC (link)
Interesting... Tell me more!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Just think, Canadian examiners
(Anonymous)
2008-01-21 05:22 pm UTC (link)
Get free subscriptions to the aforementioned *enhancement supplement*!

So where did our CA counterpart go anyway? Where are the answers to our questions regarding their workload and responsibilities?

1) How many applications do you examine in a single week (we can do the math ourselves; x2)

2) Is that a 40 hour workweek?

3) What are you paid per year?

4) How many examiners are there in the CA Patent Office?

5) What's the number of applications pending?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Just think, Canadian examiners
(Anonymous)
2008-01-21 07:30 pm UTC (link)
Remember, according to the exchange rate, 1 Canadian app is only worth 0.9684 U.S. apps.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Just think, Canadian examiners
(Anonymous)
2008-01-22 01:37 pm UTC (link)
Hi Guys,

Sorry, I only check this blog about once a week...

Here is how the Mechanical Division works...other divisions have different goals...

1) We get 8 - 9 hrs (depending on your section) to examine an application. This also includes searching, writing a first report, and ALL subsequent office actions (2nd - 999th reports, approval for allowances, special orders, etc.). The idea is that during a work day you do one new application (1st action) and a second action on another application.

2) We have a 3 month turn around time, meaning once a response to your first action appears in your queue, you have only 3 months to either do a second report, or approve for allowance.

3) We "work" 37.5 hrs. a week, but what does that mean when you have production goals to meet. In the Mech. we have no more overtime, but we have "compressed" days, meaning every two weeks you get a day off for working "more" on the other days.

4) We can work from home, and the number of days depends on how long you have been here. No laptops or hoteling yet...the idea is brewing...

5) We have 2 19" monitors, and an adequate PC, but a 1980's Techsource system where all the info is stored...(if it ain't broke why fix it...right!!!)...

6) In the Mech. Division, there are about 75 examiner, and about 350 total at CIPO in all the groups.

7) Pay is on the website where you got the hiring targets...working level is a PAT-04. Senior is a PAT-05 (good luck getting one of these positions though). Training (PAT-02, PAT-03) is a 2 year process. In real terms, it's an OK job, but the days off and the WAH (work at home) make it fun...once again since Nortel and JDS died, so did the money!

8) We work on RE dates (Examination Request)...we need about 200 - 250 RE's in our Queue. We have an 18 month turn around time on RE's...18 months once RE.

9) YUP, foreign prosecution helps our job, but we do all searches and examination. QC is done by Section head. We have different art classes, meaning EACH examiner is in charge of specific classes.

10) We ofetn wonder about you guys down there...want to share the knowledge.

Oh yeah, the Highway is comming, as I am sure you know...hopefully that will help us all out!!!

Also, who ever mentioned it above is right, we don't have as much demand as you guys do, but we also don't have the same population size...we are ofteh compared to Australia....

Hope this give some insight...

Cheers,
P

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Just think, Canadian examiners
(Anonymous)
2008-01-22 03:53 pm UTC (link)
Sure, I'll share. In the Mechanical areas (US), it varies much more than your Mechanical Division (CA), and also varies by GS scale.

1) Newer examiners (Junior Examiners) get much more time, sometimes as much as 30+ hours for a single case. This scales down drastially by the time you have authority to sign off on your own work (Primary Examiner). Most Mechanical Primaries are getting less than 20 hours per case, from start to abandonment/allowance.

2) The US has a 2 month turn-around, with some responses eliciting a special status (2 week turnaround, 1 month turnaround, etc.)

3) US examiners "work" 40 hours a week, with the production goals putting many people that I know at 60+ hours or more per week. I'd say as a very conservative estimate Examiners are putting in at least 25% of their paid time in unpaid overtime. I put in at least double this for many years.

4) Not sure how hoteling or any other partial work from home pilots at the USPTO work, but full primaries can sign up to work from home permanently. Maybe some others at the USPTO or more in the know than I (which I'm there are lots!) could clarify? I have a friend who is relatively new at the USPTO, actually met them after I left, who is on some sort of flat-rate pilot. They don't work from home, but they also aren't required to be in the building? I've also heard hotelling is now being opened up to non-primaries?

5) Hotelers are given 2 widescreen monitors about the same dimensions and a laptop. I believe it's the same for in-building examiners? USPTO IT has been one of the better run departments there at least in the last half decade or so. The real problem is no encouragement to search NPL and beyond a central library that you aren't given anytime to go to (so no one really does), no real NPL sources on your desktop, nor training on how to access anything beyond the USPTOs own internal database (EAST) of published US patents and PG-PUBs, as well as some very inconsistently maintained foreign publications.

6) There are at least 10x the amount of examiners in the US. I had 75 Mechanical Examiners just on the one floor that I worked on. (This isn't a slight on the CIPO at all - better quality is what it's all about in my mind, regardless of the #s you have.)

Thanks for sharing. Maybe we could get some insight from other Patent Offices' examiners.

-JustanEx(US)Exmr


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Just think, Canadian examiners
(Anonymous)
2008-01-22 04:55 pm UTC (link)
if I was Commissioner, I would start several initiatives regarding prior art and searching.

1) step up reclassification and renovation of the classification system for US patents. This is already in the works but needs to become a top priority.

2) drastically increase the NPL and foreign patent resources available to examiners. ExExmr is right, there is virtually no training aside from the occasional 15 minute demo on NPL and foreign resources, and many of these resources are inaccessible or accessible only with difficulty from our desktops. The foreign collections in EAST need to be improved, and it would be nice to index them into the US classification system. We also need easier means of forward/backward citation searching of NPL and foreign patents. Adding NPL collections to EAST would be a big help.

3) train examiners on forming a search strategy beyond a selection of US class/subclasses. There should be a standard search template at least for each TC, if not for each AU, containing which databases to be searched and which types of search to conduct in each, so that we can know exactly how every application can be expected to be searched. Calculate production time based on this search template, and add completion of all steps of the search template to the PAP. Of course, this would likely result in examiners getting more time, and therefore would not be done under the status quo, but that's why I said "if I was Commissioner..."

-MM

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Just think, Canadian examiners
(Anonymous)
2008-01-22 06:32 pm UTC (link)
MM - it honestly took me leaving the USPTO and discovering how many actual proprietary sources are available out there (some free, some subscription based, and some query based) that encouragement, implementation and access to NPL at the USPTO is woefully inadequate. The sources are out there and they are becoming better every year. I wish I had known of these databases, how to use them and had access to them while an examiner.

-JAEE

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Just think, Canadian examiners
(Anonymous)
2008-01-22 06:39 pm UTC (link)
well, tell us what they are and how to use them! :) (sorry, I don't yet have authority to offer a contractor's fee)

-MM

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Just think, Canadian examiners
(Anonymous)
2008-01-24 01:02 am UTC (link)
MM man, it's called g o o g l e . c o m and it rocks the socks right off many apps, the rest you have to fiddle with the search query as you go along until you hit the "sweet spot" of exactly what niche the inventor is in, or just troll east so far as I know. IEEE, American Chem soc. etc. etc. are nice but unless you're looking through them all with google or something it's for the birds doing search after search in each individual one and there's no real way around that without otherwise merging them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Just think, Canadian examiners
(Anonymous)
2008-01-24 01:21 am UTC (link)
Priceless advice from Examiner #6k.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Just think, Canadian examiners
(Anonymous)
2008-01-24 05:43 pm UTC (link)
oh believe me, I use google, google scholar, and google patents all the time... the trouble with google is that you can't use proximity operators like adj and near (as far as I know). You can use them in INSPEC, but that has its own problems...

-MM

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-01-23 04:33 pm UTC (link)
Two things to keep in mind: (1) the population of Canada used to be comparable with New York State, but now is several million over that. (2) If a U.S. application issues as a patent, and you send a copy of that to the Canadian Patent Office (via your Canadian agent), the Canadian patent will issue as long as there is not a large difference in the claims. I was told this by a Canadian patent attorney a decade ago, and have found it to be true.

That being said, the Canadian MPEP is available on line, and is a marvel of simplicity. I especially like the rules for antecedent basis--inherent qualites can be labeled first time out with "the"; for instance, "the temperature of X being in the range from ..." instead of "a temperature of X being in a range from ..." This certainly makes claim drafting easier, and I'm sure it makes reading a claim easier too.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-02-25 10:06 pm UTC (link)
US examiners are getting quality errors for lack of antecedent basis. Sure sucks being an examiner these days. Explains why 70% leave within the first 5 years.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-02-25 10:04 pm UTC (link)
The morons at PTO management are pushing for a registration system because according to said morons examiners cant handle the workload. Welcome to the wonderful world of Neocons. I just hope Obama's boys fix's the mess at the PTO. Whoever it will be cant do any worse then the current stooges.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…