just_n_examiner ([info]just_n_examiner) wrote,
@ 2008-05-31 13:03:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Patent Examining Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry
Nobody likes to make a mistake, for reasons that are fairly obvious.

When you're an examiner, making a mistake will usually cost you time, and probably counts. It also generally costs the applicant time and money.

When I first began examining, and found that I had made a mistake in an action, my first inclination was to apologize for it in the subsequent action.

Being new, though, I had no idea whether such a thing was appropriate, or a good idea.

So I asked around, and the general consensus was that you didn't want to apologize for a mistake in an action ['on the record'], because all that would do is call attention to the fact that you screwed something up. Better to just fix the mistake and leave it at that.

There were still times that I really thought that I should apologize, but I continued to follow the guidance I'd received as a new examiner.

There eventually did come a time (after I got partial signatory authority) that I decided that there really were mistakes for which the attorney (or more importantly, the applicant) deserved an apology. These days when that happens, I give one to them.

Most of those mistakes are fairly innocuous, like forgetting to include the initialed 1449 from an IDS with an action (although IDSs are getting tracked more closely these days, so it is harder for that to happen).

Mistakes can be more serious, though. There is one instance that I particularly remember. Without going into the details, I made a mistake that gave the attorney the impression that I was willing to allow a group of claims when that wasn't actually the case. When the amendment came back, the attorney had placed the claims in what they clearly expected to be condition for allowance.

While I was reviewing the amendment, I discovered my mistake.

I felt bad about it, but I didn't have any choice as to handling this situation. It's not like I could allow claims that were clearly (to me) non-patentable. I fixed the mistake, wrote up another rejection and mailed it out.


And I included an apology in the action.


There are other instances where I really would like to apologize, but I don't, because I don't think one is really warranted. One example of this is when I am doing a follow-up search and come across a really good piece of art that I think I should probably have found the first time around. But searching is a subjective art, and you're not always going to find the best art the first time around. Sometimes upon reflection you think of a searching strategy that hadn't occurred to you before. It happens.

Another instance where I get the urge to issue an apology has to do with 101 rejections. For a while, the guidance that we were receiving on the interpretation of 101 was, um, evolving.

I'd send out a 101 rejection, and by the time the amendment came back, the Office's position on 101 interpretation had changed. "Thanks for making those changes for me, but things have changed and now you'll have to do these other things to satisfy the requirements for statutory subject matter." Once again, I feel bad about it, but in this case I'm just following the guidance of the Office, who is just following the guidance of the courts (and I'm getting stuck writing a second non-final for it). It feels like I should include an apology with the action, but under those circumstances I don't think it's called for.

Luckily, 101 has settled down for the time being, so I'm not put in that position very often these days (although with the cases that are currently working their way through the courts, it's possible that will change again soon).


I can't ever remember seeing anything resembling an apology in correspondence from attorneys. That could be because all of the attorneys I deal with are true professionals and don't make mistakes.

It could also be that when an attorney makes a mistake, they probably owe that apology to their client, not to me.

In any event, it's not uncommon to see an applicant change attorneys over the course of prosecution, so certainly mistakes do get made. It only makes sense; nobody out there is perfect.


(Post a new comment)

Malpractice
(Anonymous)
2008-05-31 06:18 pm UTC (link)
Malpractice is the reason for no attorney apologies.
I may be in the wrong, but I am too scared of malpractice to put anything in the record. If I feel really bad, I'll call the Examiner up, but never put anything in witting or on voice mail.

(Reply to this)

apologies galore
(Anonymous)
2008-06-01 12:42 am UTC (link)
I'm lucky if I don't have to apologise on one of my first reports here in Australia. We have a customer service charter that says that we will examine national phase cases within 14 months of exam request. However, our backlog is so that the top of our intrays are at about 16-18 months since examination. Therefore every first report gets an apology that it is late! As a consequence I think that we don't mind apologising for our mistakes because we're generally in an apologetic mood anyway :)

(Reply to this)


[info]judith_s
2008-06-01 06:12 am UTC (link)
We can't apologize because it can & will be brought up if the patent is ever enforced as evidence that the prosecution was not competent. I have, on rare occasions, called the Examiner. In particular, if I have a very helpful Examiner, or allowed claims, but the client pushes me to appeal or go over his or her head, I will call the Examiner to let them know & apologize too. But not on the record.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-06-01 08:36 am UTC (link)
Excellent thread JPE. Gives me a chance to ride my pet hobby horse, that English common law (equity) is vital, but so powerful that, wrongly administered (say on admission of mistakes), it can wreck the rule of law (as seems to be happening now). The judges that enforce equity carry a huge burden of responsibility, to see that equity is kept in check. For a reader from mainland Europe it is frankly absurd that a prosecuting attorney is unable to admit an error, for fear that just that admission will be decisive on the question whether the patent owner will win or lose against the infringer, and whether the attorney is bankrupted or not, in a malpractice suit. No wonder relations between Examiners and prosecutors are so strained.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Downloading patents in PDF format
(Anonymous)
2008-06-01 01:21 pm UTC (link)
I just found this web site that lets you download patents as PDF files for free. Its http://www.patentretriever.com/

Thought I'd share this little gem with those that are interested.

(Reply to this)

Phone Call is Best
(Anonymous)
2008-06-02 08:02 am UTC (link)
I think a phone call is best way to handle mistakes on both sides of prosecution, for two reasons. First, as noted by many others, it keeps the apology off the record. Second, it doesn't require waiting 3 months or so until the next response or office action.

As an attorney, when the Examiner calls to let me know about a mistake or a change of thinking on the case, it gives me something to report to the client, which helps the client make the decisions the client needs to make.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Phone Call is Best
(Anonymous)
2008-06-02 11:31 pm UTC (link)
I agree whole-heartedly on this one. No need to put anything on the record. However, apologies are always appreciated.

On the attorney side, I don't need an apology for finding new art after I've traversed the first rejection (happens all the time, and I realize that searches aren't perfect). However, what does irritate me is finding new art after claims have been allowed and we've taken the allowable subject matter. What was once "good news!!" to the client gets turned into "sorry to have to tell you this ... but the case we thought was allowed has been rejected."

Also, don't like rejections on technical issues (i.e., 112 2nd para and 101) that weren't made initially but are made 3 or 4 office actions into the action.

I find that more you do this, the less personal I take mistakes. Everybody makes them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

My "apology"
(Anonymous)
2008-06-02 01:12 pm UTC (link)
"The DETAILED ACTION below is considered a 2nd non-final action thereby affording the Applicant every opportunity to obtain patent protection for the instant invention."

Anotherwords, sorry for any inconvenience or additional costs. I'm biting the bullet over here going back to square one and whether you realize it or not, it's costing me with regard to hitting my "production" quota for the bi-week.

(Reply to this)

I have apologized as an attorney
(Anonymous)
2008-06-02 05:56 pm UTC (link)
I have, on a number of occasions, apologized in my response to an office action. Recently, it was because I forgot to address part of a 112 rejection. The examiner repeated the rejection in the next office action for the part I had overlooked, and in my response I fixed that part and stated something like "the undersigned regrets overlooking the Examiner's rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph in the last response".

It's only reasonable to offer some kind of regret for making the inevitable human error, malpractice or no malpractice.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I have apologized as an attorney
(Anonymous)
2008-06-02 10:53 pm UTC (link)
The examiner didn't send out a notice of non-compliance for not addressing all rejections?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I have apologized as an attorney
(Anonymous)
2008-06-02 11:15 pm UTC (link)
Usually depends on if the examiner has a lot of amendments due that biweek. Something small like that, repeat the rejections and send out the OA. 10+ amendments due plus need to get counts in? Good chance you'll get the notice of non-compliance.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-06-06 11:43 pm UTC (link)
I've only apologized once. I used the applicant's conference paper against them (Springerlink had a bad date listed but I should have caught the error).

The attorney delayed the allowance a few months as I cited another (less detailed) version of applicant's original conference paper with a legit 102(b) date in the original action. In the second non-final I made rejections with the second paper and allowed the case on the next action.

The patent may have a bit of a cloud over it as the bad reference contained a URL (no longer valid) of a full version of the paper with a filename like name2004.pdf (any date in 2004 would be 102(b)). In the second action I told them they had a duty to disclose if that file was online in 2004. They ignored that allegation in the amendment. In the allowance I interpreted their silence as a positive affirmation that the file was not online in 2004.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

ever heard of the waybackmachine?
(Anonymous)
2008-06-10 04:57 pm UTC (link)
waybackmachine may have been able to get you a as of 2004 web version of the reference - a fellow examiner.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: ever heard of the waybackmachine?
(Anonymous)
2008-06-12 07:11 pm UTC (link)
Of course I tried wayback machine.

The directory listed was the inventor's website. Archive.org didn't index any part of his website.

I didn't care enough to call and ask them for a straight answer (the attorneys wouldn't know anyway), but for ignoring my question they're at least going to have that question looming if they ever try to enforce anything.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Love Story
(Anonymous)
2008-07-04 03:12 am UTC (link)
I like the analogy to the classic movie, "Love Story." I agree with that. You should be able to share your opinion. I like how at http://www.wikipatents.com you can leave your opinions on patents. You can even rate them by how Use amusing, interesting, or historic (http://www.wikipatents.com) you feel they are.

You don't have to say you're sorry.

~Matthew

(Reply to this)


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