just_n_examiner ([info]just_n_examiner) wrote,
@ 2008-06-21 11:31:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Self Motivation and Quality
It's nice to make a difference.

In general, if you know that the job that you do is important and makes a real difference, I would think that would make it easier to be self motivated to do the best job possible.

Back when new examiners at the Office went through only a two-week training course (Patent Examiner Initial Training) before being set loose to examine new applications, there really wasn't much, if any, time devoted to instilling in examiners an appreciation for the importance of the job they were going to be doing (to my recollection, anyway).

It took me a long time to really gain a full appreciation for the impact that the job patent examiner makes on businesses, inventors and the economy in general. As I came to that realization, I wanted to do a better and better job of examination (within, of course, the production requirements that the Office imposes).

I've always had the impression that many examiners see patent examining as just another job. This really was very understandable, given that two weeks worth of training, especially when so many new examiners are straight out of school. I doubt that many new examiners have spent their time as patent-junkies before coming to the Office.

But patent examination isn't just another job, and it's important that it doesn't get treated like one.


For a long time, I never noticed any significant effort made on the part of the Office to help examiners to gain that appreciation for the impact that their job has, but that as definitely changed over the last few years.

The Office now puts their new examiners through 8 months of initial training, and although I don't have any firsthand knowledge of the exact curriculum being taught, I assume that there's some time devoted to giving the students an appreciation for the importance and impact the the job has on society.

The Patent and Trademark Office Society has begun organizing trips to the courthouse (even the Supreme Court for KSR!) to attend hearings on important patent cases.

The Office has also started putting links to stories in the media about the PTO and patent issues into the weekly newsletter. The introduction:

"Welcome to "USPTO in the news", where you'll find the five major news stories from the previous week covering important news about our office, patents, trademarks, copyrights, and IP policy and enforcement. Please take a moment to read these stories -- you'll gain a greater understanding of the issues affecting the USPTO and become better informed about what the media and our stakeholders are saying about the USPTO."


In a recent issue, they linked to the following stories:

Managing Intellectual Property
"Federal Circuit seeks new patentability test in Bilski" - May 12, 2008

Information Week
"Patent Office Hosts Toy Design Competition for Students" - May 13, 2008

San Jose Mercury
"Get moving on patent reform measure stalled in Senate" - May 11, 2008

Intellectual Property Watch
Bush Administration Pushes On For Patent Reform Bill This Year" - May 16, 2008

Intellectual Property Watch
"Francis Gurry Of Australia Wins Election To Be Next WIPO Director General" - May 13, 2008


'The Weekly' has even posted their own story regarding the possible impact that the Bilski case might have. The introductory paragraph:

"Recently, the media has focused on the pending In re Bilski case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., which is an appeal from a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO). After a full-court hearing on May 8, many reporters and bloggers have speculated that this case will lead to the end of business method patents. To help USPTO Weekly readers get a better understanding about the Bilski appeal, the Weekly investigated the case."

The entire text of this story can be found at The Patent Prospector.


Self-motivation can go a long way to ensuring quality patent examination, and knowing you are doing something that matters goes a long way to getting one self-motivated. After all, everybody wants to feel like they make a difference.


(Post a new comment)

Great post
(Anonymous)
2008-06-22 12:53 am UTC (link)
I've been an examiner for almost two years now, and I believe I was in one of the first classes at the "academy." You're exactly right--they did try to give us a sense of pride in our job, and for the most part I think it's worked. I remember one particularly inspiring lecture, where an attorney who worked in litigation made it clear that we had the power to keep a little company in business--or sound their death knell. Maybe that's an exaggeration, but it certainly hit home. He also spent a little time mimicking how he'd defend a patent in litigation, telling the jury that the "experts" in DC decided the invention was novel--and they wouldn't want to disagree with the experts, would they? Gives you pause when you're tempted to allow a case just for that count.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Great post
(Anonymous)
2008-06-23 02:32 pm UTC (link)
I would also like to say one more thing - I am happy for those who enjoy the Patent Office's eight months of initial training. Truthfully, I was anxious to complete my two weeks and get into my art unit, etc. I think I would have stayed for about 3 weeks if I knew I still had seven months of training ahead of me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Great post
(Anonymous)
2008-06-26 12:53 am UTC (link)
"they did try to give us a sense of pride in our job, and for the most part I think it's worked."

Funny you say that since everyone I know is incredibly cynical about working at the PTO.

I could care less about whether someone gets a patent or not. Fortunately for applicants it is in my interest to do a quality job as produ¢tion and quality go hand in hand.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Changes at USPTO?
(Anonymous)
2008-06-23 04:28 am UTC (link)
Hi folks,

I'm a patent attorney and recentlu noticed in the mechanical art units a proactive approach to prosecution. I've had examiners call and state that they would allow a case if certain minor amendments were made.. not that this is new or unheard of.. it just seems have been quite awhile since I've received such calls. They are appreciated, even if I cannot agree to the terms (rare.)

I encourage this dialog as it seems to speed things along and is much cheaper than having to file and review multiple revisions.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

My Primary has given me the go-ahead to call
(Anonymous)
2008-06-23 01:37 pm UTC (link)
when I've ID'ed a clear way to get to allowance. I'll typically do the "heavy lifting" and put the proposed amendment in a word doc and email it to the Atty such that the case has not been identified within the email. This email of course has been preceeded by a phone call where the case has been ID'ed and the attorney knows to look for the amendment. This gives the Atty something concrete to show their client either via email / fax and simply facilitates the dialogue necessary for everyone to be on the same page with the matter.

I'd much rather do THAT then put the time into a Final and volley paperwork back and forth.

During that inital call to the atty you get a "feel" for whether or not you're going to have the opportunity to work together or if you're stigmatized with the Us vs. Them mindset.

Occassionally I've had non-responsive attorney's; left a msg, no response, emailed the propsed amendment, no response. . . But those instances are few and far between compared with the number of opportunities I've had to work WITH the attorney to save a tree and short circuit the flurry of paper.

I've only been here 3 years, I'm striving to develop a reputation which preceeds me within the firms that I'll work with over the course of what I hope to be a long a fruitful career here at the PTO. I ALWAYS conclude my conversations with each attorney with the directive, that should they see where we are working together on a case again in the future, feel free to call me at any point during the prosecution, it's been a pleasure working with you.

Anyone worth their salt regardless of which side of the application you're prosecuting KNOWS each side is under the gun to get the job done, for the attorney it may be a nice pearl handled luger, for us it's a semi-automatic rifle, regardless of the "weapon" the goal for each remains the same.

So. . . for every Examiner who pushes a Final in hopes of parlaying it into an RCE there is an Atty whose simply looking at the opportunity of more billable hours. You two deserve each other.

Give me the Attorney/Agent whose trying to do their job as effectively / efficiently as possible.

~signed Waste not, want not!


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: My Primary has given me the go-ahead to call - (Anonymous), 2008-06-23 04:36 pm UTC (Expand)
You mean 502.03 . . . - (Anonymous), 2008-06-23 06:30 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: You mean 502.03 . . . - (Anonymous), 2008-06-23 06:57 pm UTC (Expand)
OK so let me clarify~ - (Anonymous), 2008-06-23 07:20 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: OK so let me clarify~ - (Anonymous), 2008-06-24 09:55 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: OK so let me clarify~ - (Anonymous), 2008-06-24 10:38 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: OK so let me clarify~ - (Anonymous), 2008-06-25 05:13 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO?
(Anonymous)
2008-06-23 02:27 pm UTC (link)
I suppose everything old is new again. When I was at the Patent Office almost a decade ago (75% allowance rate)(not the current Rejection Office, where the allowance rate is well under 50%, hence the title of "rejection" rather than "patent"), the emphasis was on first actions allowances when proper. That meant calling the prosecutor and discussing how to place the application in condition for allowance.

Even for some time thereafter, the Rejection Office's emphasis was still on customer service (anyone else wonder why for about 5 years the Examiners stated they would return your call as soon as possible but not later than one business day, but that mandate disappeared?).

In the last 3 or four years, the Patent Office has retreated so far away from customer service it is ridiculous. Maybe we are seeing the backlash, and examiners are starting to say "hey, this job was much more agreeable/enjoyable/fun/entertaining when we didn't have to do twice as much work because we aren't allowing anything/when everyone on the outside didn't hate us."

We can hope.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Changes at USPTO? - (Anonymous), 2008-06-23 03:47 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - (Anonymous), 2008-07-04 11:55 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - (Anonymous), 2008-07-05 02:30 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - (Anonymous), 2008-07-05 09:12 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - (Anonymous), 2008-07-06 05:41 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - (Anonymous), 2008-07-06 07:26 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - (Anonymous), 2008-07-06 11:08 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - (Anonymous), 2008-07-07 01:02 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - (Anonymous), 2008-07-07 03:38 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - (Anonymous), 2008-07-08 02:53 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not !
(Anonymous)
2008-06-25 11:24 am UTC (link)
Hit outmoded production thresholds, while your hands are tied and your foot is fixed in cement. . . and by gawd if you happen to see a way to use your tools to make up for the imposed obstacles, do so at great risk and your own peril.

~ Living in the age of Fear, . . .

. . . being encouraged to live & work from a place of Fear, and by all means fuel it if you should see the opportunity.

I'll be glad when my stint in this world is done, this place is insane.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-26 03:57 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-27 01:25 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-27 02:29 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-27 11:44 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 03:34 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 04:40 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 05:20 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 12:53 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 01:40 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 03:08 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 05:23 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 03:19 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 04:41 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 05:12 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 05:14 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 05:30 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 05:55 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 06:13 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 06:24 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 06:35 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 05:41 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 06:01 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 06:02 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 06:26 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 06:48 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 07:40 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-29 03:53 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-29 04:17 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-01 02:53 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-01 07:53 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-01 01:45 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-01 10:05 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-02 12:54 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-02 03:56 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-02 01:19 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-02 05:47 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-03 04:45 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-07 12:38 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-07 03:40 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-10 04:39 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-10 06:12 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-06-30 02:35 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-01 07:59 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-03 07:50 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Changes at USPTO? - Apparently not ! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-04 07:09 am UTC (Expand)
Re: quality
(Anonymous)
2008-06-28 04:51 am UTC (link)
Several comments on factors at the USPTO that affect quality.

1) IMO, language (i.e. English proficiency) is a huge issue. Now, I should point out that my parents are immigrants, and I learned English as a second language, so I'm not trying to turn this into a race/ethnicity issue. But the simple fact is that a large number of USPTO examiners are of foreign descent, and English is NOT their first language. If you don't have strong written English skills, it will affect the quality of your work. I think USPTO management should be a little more discerning when determining the ability of people to read/write English for this job, but considering that many SPEs are also foreign born, then it makes sense that they are less likely to scrutinize this.

2) Knowing the art well can help you do a better job of examining. I came to the USPTO with an advanced degree in my field and several years of industry experience. I think this has helped me tremendously in searching and finding good prior art, or even getting a "gut feeling" if something is novel or non-obvious. Many examiners come straight out of school with a B.S. If your only experience in the art is an undergrad engineering degree, than your perspective on the art is pretty limited. Not that you can't succeed with just that background, but every bit helps.

3) I'm by no means perfect, but I try hard to do a good job for the applicant I'm examining for. I think overall, I have good quality. That being said, I don't think the USPTO provides enough motivation for examiners to do a quality job. The system is set up to reward those who produce, not those who do a quality job. Production is the lifeblood of an examiner -- our retention, promotions, and bonuses are all almost completely determined by production. If whether you get paid, or even retained, depends on producing, then you can be sure that people will find a way to produce. On the other hand, quality is an afterthought. Nobody gives you a bonus or a promotion because you wrote good office actions. Quality review of examiner's work may catch an occasional dud of an office action, but for the most part examiners who put out duds can get away with doing that far easier than examiners who are not producing. If you do a poor office action, you *might* get in trouble. If you don't produce, you *will* get in trouble.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: quality
(Anonymous)
2008-06-28 09:20 pm UTC (link)
To all you engineering student considering the PTO, don't. This place has the most unhealthy atmosphere of any place I have worked in my 50 years. Do something good for your country: work in actual engineering or work to make the PTO an honest place again.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: quality - (Anonymous), 2008-06-28 09:21 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: quality - (Anonymous), 2008-06-29 02:00 am UTC (Expand)
Re: quality - (Anonymous), 2008-06-30 11:07 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: quality - (Anonymous), 2008-07-01 07:51 am UTC (Expand)
Re: quality - (Anonymous), 2008-07-01 01:47 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: quality - (Anonymous), 2008-07-01 09:54 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: quality - (Anonymous), 2008-07-08 09:24 am UTC (Expand)
Re: quality - (Anonymous), 2008-07-08 11:46 pm UTC (Expand)

(Anonymous)
2008-07-08 12:04 pm UTC (link)
How's the job market for patent agents in the NoVA area these days with our "recession"? I'm considering leaving the PTO soon, but if the job market sucks, I might stick around a bit more.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2008-07-08 11:08 pm UTC (link)
Are you EE? Mechanical is a hard sell even in good times in my opinion. If EE, depends. Still, anything is better than working in that upholstered cesspool for people without technical degrees at all, like the Commissioner.
Still, like you said, we are in a recession, so I understand. Maybe after the election Dudass will take his breath mints and pepsident smile elsewhere, and things will improve there. And until the economy improves, like I said, hey, I understand.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-07-08 11:48 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 12:58 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 01:13 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 01:21 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 03:15 am UTC (Expand)
The examining job
(Anonymous)
2008-07-09 12:06 am UTC (link)
I've been reading all this & have to respond.

Is the job for everyone? No! Not even close. To do it right, or even close to right, you need to be able to THINK. You need to be able to read things and understand not only what is intended, but other ways it can be interpreted. An imagination helps, too. Many people can not think and put things together. They might be able to follow a flow chart (& get through engineering school), but have no creative ability to see anything other than in black & white. Everything is in shades of gray (or grey if you prefer).

All too often examiners see things like they did in school & they fail. They are not able to see more than the words. And they lack the ability to see the context and shades of meaning for the words. All of this is needed. And too few people have these abilities. (Other things are needed (time management, self motivation, reading ability, etc.; just wanted to point out these)

Is the job perfect? No! But what job is? You see athletes making 10s of millions a year complaining about "no respect" from owners, teammates and/or fans all the time (for example). Bottom-line, ALL people b1tch about their jobs. It is human nature.

Is the examining job "engineering"? No, not even close. If you want to do "engineering" work, then do that! If you want to work in the lab, then go do that job.
But don't go take an examining job & then complaining that you are not doing "engineering" work! Of course you are not! It is examining!!
And, if you DO want "engineering" work, you may want to talk to people that have done that (I have. Many. Many are now at the PTO.) For most places, it is a dead-end unless you want to get into management. But, then again, you are getting out of engineering again.

If you want to become a lawyer, then go ahead & do it. But, DO NOT put down people that don't want to become lawyers! Everyone has different priorities & goals in life. Just because yours is one thing does not make you superior (or inferior) than someone who chooses the other route.
Personally, I LIKE working at the PTO. Been there almost 25 years, now. I DO NOT want to be a lawyer (never did). That lifestyle (detailed nicely elsewhere here about how to become a partner; of course that didn't explain all of the other things you need to deal with out there.) was not for me.

If you want to be a lawyer, I would suggest that you talk to lawyers off the record & find out ALL the facts before you jump ship. If it is still for you, go for it. But make sure you get ALL the facts on both sides 1st.



Could the examining job be a lot better? Definitely!! But most all jobs could be "better". And, I would rather work here than do a lot of other jobs out there.

As a last point, I would be willing to guess that the vast majority of the negative posts, above, are from lawyers. Most of them have an extremely biased and negative view of the office (some of which can be justified) &, as evidenced above, a superiority attitude when it comes to examiners. It often seems like the lawyers need to justify their decisions by putting down those of us who didn't make the same decision.

thanks,

LL

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: The examining job
(Anonymous)
2008-07-09 12:06 am UTC (link)
Oh, and as for the posters that try to argue that it is so easy to fire an examiner, obviously you have NO experience at actually trying to get rid of an examiner protected under title 5. (Thankfully, I haven't directly, but have friends (SPEs) that have had to do it.) It is a process that usually takes a year or more (unless it is something egregious like assault, and not always even then).

(Slightly simplified) The examiner 1st has to have a bad quarter (i.e., be rated less than marginal). 2nd they are given an oral warning & a quarter to improve. IF they do, all is reset (i.e., they need another quarter of below marginal performance to get an oral warning). If they do not improve (to at least marginal or fully satisfactory),they are then given a written warning & another quarter to improve. If they do improve, they are retained. (it has now been 3 quarters/9 months) If they have not improved, they can THEN be fired. Maybe. There may be extenuating circumstances (e.g., "suddenly discovered" medical causes). They can appeal to the commissioner's office for a "last chance agreement" (one MORE quarter to improve or resign). Or POPA may step in and take up the fight. And this is a simplified explanation! Then can appeal and later be reinstated (with back pay) for extremely minor items (technicalities) that were not missed.

For you lawyers, if you are in a firm say 4 years & the managing partner(s) decides that you are not doing enough, or good enough, work, how much time do they HAVE to give you to improve?? Or can they just stop by & tell you your services are no longer needed & give you your severance?

Oh, and have you talked to any engineers that have been laid-off because of lost contracts or low-downs in the economy? Happens every day. And it's not the employees fault.


Thanks,

LL

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 12:41 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 12:45 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 01:18 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 01:27 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 01:36 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 02:01 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 04:16 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 12:46 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 01:17 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 01:22 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-09 01:30 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 02:41 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 06:12 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 12:36 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 02:11 pm UTC (Expand)
reponse part 1 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 02:37 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: reponse part 1 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 05:29 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: reponse part 1 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-18 06:16 am UTC (Expand)
response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 02:37 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 03:52 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-19 04:38 am UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-19 07:58 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-20 06:22 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-21 12:23 am UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-21 12:36 am UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-21 12:40 am UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-21 01:27 am UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-21 09:56 am UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-20 09:37 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-21 12:16 am UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-21 01:33 am UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-21 01:59 am UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-21 02:58 am UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-21 09:46 am UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-21 12:32 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-21 12:34 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: response part 2 - (Anonymous), 2008-07-22 09:26 am UTC (Expand)
Re: The examining job
(Anonymous)
2008-07-10 01:29 pm UTC (link)
"Been there almost 25 years, now. I DO NOT want to be a lawyer (never did)."

The problem is that people like you start thinking you know something about the law simply because you work at the PTO and have been there a while.

Trust me, you don't know anything about the law. Don't care how long you've worked there. I get plenty of OA's from primaries like you. It's like a joke. Except it's not funny.

I've read a lot of posts, including yours. What I see is this nonsense from examiners about how they are experts in technology. They're on the cutting edge.

LOL

Why is that? Because you pick up some app that was filed 2-3 years ago and read it?

Guess who wrote that app? Guess who saw that technology 2-3 years before it became the oldest new on your docket that you could no longer avoid picking up?

LOL some more.

(Replies frozen)(Parent)

Mudslinging . . . yea, THAT'S going to help!
(Anonymous)
2008-07-09 01:30 pm UTC (link)
As an Examiner, I look forward to and appreciate the insights provided by LL, which ARE succinct given all that's being covered from two points of reference; policy and practice.

I come to this blog in order to learn. The attorney's who post here would be wise to use this forum to direct the practices of examiners in ways that facilitate prosecution and vice versa but no; instead I get to learn just how ugly human nature can get.

Well you know, we ALL KNOW just how ugly it can get and SOME of us are trying to develop beyond those base instincts so . . .

I am an Examiner, have been an inventor, educated in the discipline of engineering and have made the decision, for WHATEVER REASONS, to spend my career serving and protecting other inventors as an EXAMINER. I don't want to create, change or spin the interpretation of the laws within which I am constrained, I simply want to serve as a Patent Examiner.

NOW. . . care to help me in doing so?

~ At your service

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Mudslinging . . . yea, THAT'S going to help!
(Anonymous)
2008-07-09 04:02 pm UTC (link)
"~ At your service",

thanks. It sounds like you have the right attitude. (Why the lawyers here do not want to accept that some people do not want to be lawyers, I do not know.)

What I try to do in my posts is get across what BOTH sides are supposed to be doing to make the system work. Things DO need to be improves on BOTH sides and I try to point that out too. But, when we get these "lawyer-types" posting their poisons it gets difficult.

You are right that the process can get ugly. Thankfully, the lawyer posters here are not representative of the attitudes of most of the lawyers that we deal with regularly. Most of the prosecutors can be dealt with reasonably (and are reasonable) if you are doing a good job.

thanks,

LL

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Mudslinging . . . yea, THAT'S going to help! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-11 07:00 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Mudslinging . . . yea, THAT'S going to help! - (Anonymous), 2008-07-11 09:05 pm UTC (Expand)
Mudslinging vs. Problem-solving . . for example
(Anonymous)
2008-07-09 05:39 pm UTC (link)
The posts up above surrounding MPEP 503.02 using an email exchange to facilitate expedient prosecution.

THAT turned into a F*'ing nightmare exchange of who can extol the greatest amount of fear in a post while still covering their own @ss.

Meanwhile a VERY simply solution was at hand the whole time. Use RightFAX vs. Outlook . . . different line. Telephone (Fax) is considered "secure". Done! Same principle with the same objective, executed WITHIN the parameters of MPEP 503.02.

How many different exchanges occurred around that topic?
Did ANY of them result in a SOLUTION? No!

Come on people, lets work to lift one another out of the "hot water" our respective jobs sometimes steep us in vs. acting like a bunch of live crabs who merely look to pull any other "crab" whose making headway out of the hot water back down into the pot with them.

~At Your Service (AYS)

(Replies frozen)

Let me ask you trolls something
(Anonymous)
2008-07-11 02:09 pm UTC (link)
Why would you want to take a blog by a helpful examiner who is trying to make examiners BETTER at the job you claim they do such a horrible job on, and turn it into a worthless cesspool of verbal bile? Do you want anything to change at the PTO? Do you want good office actions and decreased pendency? If so, adding your beratings onto what has already been admitted to be a job that drives out as many new examiners as the PTO can replace certainly isn't going to help obtain and retain future primary examiners that will bother to learn the job and care about it enough to do it right.

Not everyone wants to be a lawyer. Not everyone wants to be an engineer. Some people might want to be one of those, but have family and other circumstances that require the flexibility of an examining career. These are the folks you should be trying to work WITH to get a quality patent issued, rather than insulting and belittling them until they cease to care about their job and the product they send you.

But then, the members of the bar who behave professionally around here (JD (yes, JD is professional. Abrasive, but professional), bierbelly, et al) already know all this; their criticisms may be harsh when they come, but they are also informative and directed towards a goal of solving a particular problem. You who are slinging this garbage around probably know it too, but clearly aren't mature enough to care.

Whatever, I think it's high time JPE locked this thread, as it stayed on topic for maybe one day before all this nonsense. I only wish he could ban some IPs too.

-MM

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

Re: Let me ask you trolls something
(Anonymous)
2008-07-11 02:12 pm UTC (link)
And for the record, I changed my career goals a few months back and do plan to leave the office and go into practice after law school... but only because I have certain ambitions that are particular to myself; I don't expect every examiner to want the same thing, and I don't think any less of them for that.

-MM

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-11 03:51 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-11 04:59 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-11 06:29 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-11 06:07 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-11 06:30 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-11 07:01 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-11 09:18 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-11 09:28 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-11 11:01 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-12 08:38 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-13 01:53 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-13 06:50 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-12 12:45 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-12 12:30 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 01:54 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Let me ask you trolls something - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 02:20 am UTC (Expand)
Welcome to the USPTO Nightmare
(Anonymous)
2008-07-12 05:29 pm UTC (link)
Addressing the original topic: your so-called "self-motivation" will last only so long at the PTO. They kill a big part of who and what your are, slowly over a few years, and only after you leave do you rebuild what was taken from you. Those that stay too long are forever changed, and start to believe the very bullshirt they questioned early in their "PTO career." Quality becomes so abstract and out of grasp, like a bad hallucination while tripping on LSD. Don't believe me? Just view some of the posts here from Loose Lips Houlihan and AYS!

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

Re: Welcome to the USPTO Nightmare
(Anonymous)
2008-07-12 05:40 pm UTC (link)
^^^ Who posted such profound and revealing thoughts! Genius!

-MUTHA

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Welcome to the USPTO Nightmare - (Anonymous), 2008-07-14 02:53 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Welcome to the USPTO Nightmare - (Anonymous), 2008-07-25 02:11 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Welcome to the USPTO Nightmare - (Anonymous), 2008-07-25 04:39 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Welcome to the USPTO Nightmare - (Anonymous), 2008-07-25 12:52 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Welcome to the USPTO Nightmare - (Anonymous), 2008-07-25 11:04 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Welcome to the USPTO Nightmare - (Anonymous), 2008-07-26 01:52 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Welcome to the USPTO Nightmare - (Anonymous), 2008-07-26 10:42 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Welcome to the USPTO Nightmare - (Anonymous), 2008-07-26 10:45 pm UTC (Expand)
Hey MUM or anUTHER ~
(Anonymous)
2008-07-14 12:49 pm UTC (link)
The IP system is not going to permit monopolies without an examination of some sort; so we're here to stay. By the same token the IP system is not going to permit Inventorship to "have it their way" like this were Burger King (c). So we're stuck with YOU guys too.

We (attorneys & examiners) have one of two choices here:

Continue with the bashing and thrashing where apparently there exists some sado-masochistic pleasures derived from many, otherwise why would it continue? Think Batman & his various nemesis, the most timely example being the Joker. There would be no need for one without the other, they need and feed off of one another. So. . . I guess each can relish in simply "taking/giving it".

OR ~

We can aim to "fix" that which is "wrong" on both sides of the fence, openly and honestly assessing the "problems" each contribute thereby taking "ownership" and committing to rectify the egregious behaviors from within both camps.

My money is on the Batman & Joker routine. Why? Simple, testosterone. . . too much of it within and throughout the organizations. "Taking ownership of one's contributions to a problem" = "weakness". Ooooohhhhh gawd forbid one admits there may've been a mistake; case in point, the latest rule changes that were to go into effect last November.

Don't get me wrong. . . I don't think a female dominated organization would run any better. My opposition lay in the "dominance" of any group within an organization. There's a reason why God created BOTH men & women in many colors.

Look at it THIS way~ the "more legs" a table has the more "stable" it is. . . right now IP system is a "table" being held up by two, occasionally 3 legs. Those "legs" being representative of the types of individuals found in management at the PTO and governing IP Law firms; doughy middle-aged white guys, peppered with a couple of token women who've morphed to "fit" and the rare individual who actually thinks for themselves and isn't afraid to speak up.

So~ we've got a while before the culture changes so until then. . . BAM! WHACK! SMACK! BOING!

~AYS

(Replies frozen)(Thread)(Expand)

Re: Hey MUM or anUTHER ~
(Anonymous)
2008-07-14 01:26 pm UTC (link)
what an utterly ridiculous post.

BTW, what are "governing IP Law firms"?

(Replies frozen)(Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

Governing . . . see 1b - (Anonymous), 2008-07-14 03:12 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Hey MUM or anUTHER ~ - (Anonymous), 2008-07-14 02:26 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Hey MUM or anUTHER ~ - (Anonymous), 2008-07-14 03:48 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Hey MUM or anUTHER ~ - (Anonymous), 2008-07-14 04:01 pm UTC (Expand)
Apparently someone needs clarification . . . - (Anonymous), 2008-07-14 04:13 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Apparently someone needs clarification . . . - (Anonymous), 2008-07-14 04:24 pm UTC (Expand)
If you MUST engage in one-upmanship
(Anonymous)
2008-07-15 11:42 am UTC (link)
Play chess; www.redhotpawn.com there's room to talk smack to your opponent or you can come back HERE and tout your prowess against your opponent.

As well as use THIS forum to facilitate progress rather than just tearing each other down.

I can appreciate wanting to keep your canines, claws, tongue, whichever, sharpened, but there ARE ways within which to do so that are not destructive.

~AYS

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2008-07-15 04:50 pm UTC (link)
Incidentally, that allowance I was talking about that the LIEs kept kicking back to me with made up rules just came back again... still insisting that the spec has to have the patent numbers after the serial numbers of the parent apps in the continuation (nevermind that I cited 37 CFR 1.78(a) to the LIE showing her where it says only serial numbers are required; she probably never even read it)... At this point, I'm going to just do an examiner's amendment to put them in, just to get the damn thing mailed. Ridiculous.

-MM

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)


(Anonymous)
2008-07-15 06:04 pm UTC (link)
Incompetence and ignorance are sure fire indicators of success at the PTO. I'm sure that LIE is rated outstanding every year.

In the real world, people like that are quickly fired.

It's not just LIE's though, I frequently get OA's in which the examiner tells me I'm required to provide the patent numbers. It's easier to just amend than try to educate the uneducatable.


Let us know when you get out. It will be fun hearing your perspective once you are unshackled from the dumb and dumber over there.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)(Expand)

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-07-15 07:43 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-07-15 07:53 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-07-15 09:31 pm UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 06:30 am UTC (Expand)
MM - re: kickbacks . . . - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 01:57 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: MM - re: kickbacks . . . - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 03:45 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: MM - re: kickbacks . . . - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 04:00 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: MM - re: kickbacks . . . - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 04:42 pm UTC (Expand)
Nothing comes of nothing. . . . - (Anonymous), 2008-07-16 05:18 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: MM - re: kickbacks . . . - (Anonymous), 2008-07-17 12:19 am UTC (Expand)
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2008-07-24 06:10 pm UTC (Expand)
Are you guys serious?
(Anonymous)
2008-07-17 05:29 am UTC (link)
This is border-line comical, among the mudslinging I have been reading on this board, we have a lawyer is advising patent examiners how they can make a better contribution to society by quitting their jobs and shouldn't justify a "loser job" with high pay.

Really? A lawyer, whose ultimate professional goal is to milk as much money out of clients as possible, is teaching public servants (competent or not) about being useful to our society and not chasing the buck. Am I the only one finding that ironic? Quick, anyone have a favorite lawyer joke to share?

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

Re: Are you guys serious?
(Anonymous)
2008-07-17 11:33 am UTC (link)
ROFLMAO

Your nobility is so uplifting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Are you guys serious? - (Anonymous), 2008-07-25 08:54 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Are you guys serious? - (Anonymous), 2008-07-25 11:47 am UTC (Expand)
Re: Are you guys serious? - (Anonymous), 2008-07-25 08:47 pm UTC (Expand)
Re: Are you guys serious? - (Anonymous), 2008-07-25 10:58 pm UTC (Expand)
Cases being kicked/bounced back ~
(Anonymous)
2008-07-17 12:54 pm UTC (link)
What are you dealing with (as succinctly as possible)?

1) BIB Data sheet gets saved into eRF with an automatically assigned 8-digit number. LIE kicks it back wanting me to re-name the doc BIB DATA SHEET.

Renamed BIB DATA SHEET gets bounced back because it won't open for the LIE because of the name change (no the extension was FINE, thank you).

2) Cases getting kicked back because the "PTO-### document" needs to be redone. REDONE? WTF does THAT MEAN? Redone, it's there, it's filled out as it's been filled out many times before, what's your problem with it!

*** The best so far ***** Certain documents we use are available in TWO forms; CUSTOM (Old) forms (much more user friendly) and FWF (new) (heinous).

WHO'S using what?

I'm getting kick backs because upon Allowance the LIE doesn't see an "Index of Claims" yet does not consider the old "Issue Classification" form covers BOTH the Issue Class & the Index of Claims.

Do you (Examiners) find these "New" FWF forms good/bad neither. . .numb to the fact we're being asked to replace ONE document with TWO upon Allowance.

Whose developing these forms anyway? Do they have a suggestion box?

~Progress is a good thing

(Reply to this) (Thread)(Expand)

Re: Cases being kicked/bounced back ~
(Anonymous)
2008-07-17 03:47 pm UTC (link)
I've only ever used the FWF forms since I came on board, so I can't really speak to that issue... Though I can certainly see LIEs kicking it back when it's not the same as the majority of forms they get.

One thing I'll mention that we've discovered in my AU that may help... you say you get the "PTO-### needs to be redone," if that's the PTO-37, I'm pretty sure the problem is the checkboxes at the bottom. We've found that if you check both "examiner's amendment" and "examiner's statement of reasons for allowance" on the 37 when you are allowing with an examiner's amendment, the LIE expects TWO separate documents. So as a result, I only check one or the other, when in fact I have both in my document.

That was discovered by trial and error. The "reason" they give for kicking it back is typically less than a sentence and often cannot be construed to mean anything no matter from how many different angles you look at the randomly selected words they slapped together.

These LIEs make me feel the way incoherent examiners must make attorneys feel. I guess to be fair I should assume that there are LIEs that do a good and thorough job (in fact I know there are, we had one for our AU, but with the new eRed folder program all our actions now go to random LIEs) just as there are examiners (like me heh) who communicate actions clearly.

-MM

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Cases being kicked/bounced back ~ - (Anonymous), 2008-07-18 02:35 am UTC (Expand)
Interesting Article in Scientific American
(Anonymous)
2008-07-22 03:51 pm UTC (link)
Tough Choices: How Making Decisions Tires Your Brain

The brain is like a muscle: when it gets depleted, it becomes less effective.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=tough-choices-how-making

Choosing which references to use, how to apply said references etc etc. . .

~Tired Grey matter

(Reply to this)


[info]gordwick
2009-03-26 04:47 pm UTC (link)
Self motivation and quality... no wonder you have such a great feedback on the topic, people have different visions on this. Of course it matters what you do, of course doing your job the best that you can is an important motivator but let's not deny that we all want to be appreciated for what we do, we all want recognition and benefits from incentive programs.

(Reply to this)


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