Gary Locke (Secretary of Commerce) has again indicated the Obama Administration’s support for the pending patent reform bill S. 515. [Letter]. The letter also suggests that the PTO should be given authority to raise its fees, including “a limited interim fee adjustment.”
For many years, the PTO has been funded entirely by user fees. I hope that the same can continue to avoid such direct Congressional control over PTO spending. But the PTO clearly needs money, and the alternative of cutting PTO services is likewise highly unappealing. The third alternative: raise fees.
In the past, I have reported that patent applicant behavior is relatively inelastic to PTO fee changes. Although a 15% increase in fees would reduce the number of applications, the total revenue would increase.
If the PTO is going to increase fees – how should it structure that increase? Notably, should more the burden be placed on (1) standard application fees; (2) issue and maintentance fees; or (3) luxury fees for excess claiming (20+) extensions of time? All Universities qualify for the small-entity fee reduction. Does that still make sense?
Notes: The letter from Locke also promotes the idea of worksharing between patent offices when the same invention is being examined in multiple locations.
So 6 when you quitting?
“He could do your job with about 5 minutes of training. ”
Actually probably not. But he could try, he’s nearly schooled in my art, he just quit halfway through to join the military. Mostly because he got a few bad grades imo. I still think he should have stuck it out tho. Even all C’s could have landed him an ok job.
“It’s highly doubtful the applicants would notice any difference between you and him.
”
Only because you’ve never had an action from me.
“My bud used to sit atop a ‘guard’ post at a base in ‘friendly’ territory in Africa not long ago.”
If your bud’s job is so easy, feel free to trade places with him. He could do your job with about 5 minutes of training. It’s highly doubtful the applicants would notice any difference between you and him.
testing
“In fact only my fingers get much of a workout at all.”
Yup — the disconnect switch to the brain is in fine working order. Damm those who try to make me think.
“You have the easiest job in the federal government.”
LOL WUT? My bud used to sit atop a “guard” post at a base in “friendly” territory in Africa not long ago.
But you’re right, it is a pretty easy job in so far as we consider physical exertion. In fact only my fingers get much of a workout at all. Unfortunately ashats like yourself attempt to make the whole day nothing but a headache.
“You present these exceptional cases as the norm. They are not. ”
Maybe not in the toilet paper holder arts. But maybe you could take a step outside and breath a breath of fresh organic chem. or radiation sensing devices etc etc. And while they still might not be the “norm” they certainly are not uncommon or rare.
“Actaully that’s why I probably will not be an examiner the rest of my life.”
You’re not going anywhere. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it.
You have the easiest job in the federal government. Even you are capable of seeing that truth.
“For applicants, what is the good news under the proposed new procedures? So far I have learned that the appeals backlog will get longer and RCE’s will be acted on more slowly.”
I think the Office position is that it will motivate applicants to claim their invention quicker and aid in compact prosecution. Management also says the reduced counts for RCEs is an “initiative” for examiners to compact prosecution. Seems to me like it’s punitive rather than an incentive, particularly since the applicant generally controls RCE filings (some examiners don’t help the situation when they drag out prosecution for their own personal gain).
More bad news for applicants. I’m betting they raise fees per subsequent RCE, perhaps even increasing allowance fees depending on how many RCES it took. If they’re looking at providing “incentives” like this for examiners for compacting prosecution, I’m sure it will also be passed on further to applicant. After all, the compacting of prosecution fence swings both ways.
I actually don’t see this as much different from the incremental 1-5 month extension fees already in place. Any thoughts on this?
Notruths wrote “The safety net is a bait and switch. You vote for this thing thinking that management will forever keep track of your production under a new and old system, and a few years down the road the safety net goes bye-bye.”
Clearly, your anti-management sentiment is very strong. Not all of us think the “man” is out to get us. Old admin., perhaps. But things have changed. I do not think the new system is a permanent solution but it’s a start. Any change is risky, but to fear all change, well, that’s just silly.
“What you are saying is silly. They are not going to forever track your production two ways, allow you to choose the best of the two, and thereby undermining all the “de-incentiving RCE work” that they are supposedly accomplishing.”
I never said they would. However, I also think it’s silly to think they would keep a system that decreases production. They are the ones who risk the most in giving us more time overall (for most, apparaently not for all) without the guarantee of reduced pendency or increased production.
“The reason they have the safety net now is because of the transition, and the fact that they may revert to the old system.”
Yes, and their master plan is to take away more counts and give you less time to do them in. Mwah, hah, hah! Hey, do you also have those megamillion numbers for next week?
“** On a personal note, I don’t fault your duplicity in working these blogs HTTC. I know the new system must benefit your greatly. If it was not going to cause my great harm, then I would not care to be here.”
Good point, Nontruths. In fact, that’s the reason I’m here too. I think the plan benefits the vast majority of the examining Corps. and many of those that oppose it allege that it hurts them. If so, well then, we can just agree to disagree on the issue. However, I’m having a tough time buying this because I haven’t seen any math that proves it. Have you recalculated your production from last year based on the new system? That should be a good litmus test.
Anyway, I’ve spent way too much time on the issue and I’m done. Vote however you deem necessary (I think the last voting is today), but I implore you to consider every single fact including what we will lose and what we will gain, and fully weigh them out before making your decision.
what a corrupt place the PTO is lol. send all those gs-15 clowns back to examining – full time.
“Management promotes “gaming the system” in this regard so that examiners can meet production. Talk to SPEs, and talk to Academy Instructors if you don’t believe.”
“Management promotes “gaming the system”
’nuff said – it won’t matter what system you put in place if the the ethics of management are to game the system.
“Of course it’s a loss. If you post the cases right before the change instead of right after the change your FY10 production will be lower for exactly the same amount of work. This is really not a difficult concept. And every case where an FAOM has been issued that doesn’t have a disposal prior to the change is equivalent to our hypothetical FAOM mailed right before the change.”
Point taken. Not sure your point though. Are you arguing the .25 infamous count loss? If you hold FAOMs from Q1 to Q2, you will definitely gain counts for the FY. However, if you hold FAOMS from Q1 to Q2, then they wouldn’t be “grandfathered in” as you would get 1.25 for FAOM in Q2 and .75 disposal in the future.
“Of course you didn’t. But if it goes abandoned in Q2…”
…it still is fictitious just like the “grandfathering in” count loss. Yes! You finally understand!
untruth: “Talk to SPEs, and talk to Academy Instructors if you don’t believe.”
That would be impossible. As an examiner, I could no longer stand to be in the same room with an SPE. I hardly ever see them anymore. Are they for real? What useful things do they do?
More untruths! I had “outstanding” production for about eight years, and was awarded the bronze after leaving the PTO. Spent many years training young examiners for no “other time.” And yes, I spent the great majority of my time on first action. The rest was easy!
200 claims? Restriction is in order. You present these exceptional cases as the norm. They are not.
BOGUS
appealho wrote: “Untrue! You get a certain amount of time for a BD. You can divide that time up as you see fit. You get time for interviews. Restriction is another issue, but reading the file must be done sooner or later so it all washes at disposal. I would use 85% fir first action. The rest is easy.
BOGUS!”
Really? 85% is all you needed on every single action you ever did. You never had an action that took you more time than was given to you. You never has a 200+ claim application?
Unreal. Look, here is a simple example that any third month patent academy student knows.
If you have a hard case on your docket and it takes you an enormous amount of time to complete it (maybe it is 200+ claims), then examiners are taught to do some quick and easy ones to offset the time-sucking hard one.
Thus, examiners are frequently confronted with not getting enough time in terms of hours/bd on the first action of a hard case, and must scrounge for time by either doing easy cases or RCEs.
Management promotes “gaming the system” in this regard so that examiners can meet production. Talk to SPEs, and talk to Academy Instructors if you don’t believe.
AppealHo your statement that you did all your first actions within 85% hours/bd given to you is not something any examiner would believe (unless your stay at the PTO was brief, and/or your quality really sucked).
I reiterate my bogus.
HTTC wrote “Nope. That examiner who goes on a detail will not lose out. They will revert back to the old system under the “safety net””
The safety net is a bait and switch. You vote for this thing thinking that management will forever keep track of your production under a new and old system, and a few years down the road the safety net goes bye-bye.
What you are saying is silly. They are not going to forever track your production two ways, allow you to choose the best of the two, and thereby undermining all the “de-incentiving RCE work” that they are supposedly accomplishing.
The reason they have the safety net now is because of the transition, and the fact that they may revert to the old system.
** On a personal note, I don’t fault your duplicity in working these blogs HTTC. I know the new system must benefit your greatly. If it was not going to cause my great harm, then I would not care to be here.
“Excellent question. Yes, you come out behind for the exact reason I’ve been arguing. That FAOM will be worth 1.25 counts in the new system (Q2) as opposed to 1 count in the old system (Q1). Now, you are going to argue that this is proof of the .25 count loss, right? Wrong. The “loss” of .25 counts is from the BD of a single case, not the shifting of cases between Q1 and Q2. Apples and oranges.”
Of course it’s a loss. If you post the cases right before the change instead of right after the change your FY10 production will be lower for exactly the same amount of work. This is really not a difficult concept. And every case where an FAOM has been issued that doesn’t have a disposal prior to the change is equivalent to our hypothetical FAOM mailed right before the change.
“Now, I have a question for you. If you did a FAOM in Q4 of last year (FY09), how many counts is the BD of that case worth if it goes abandoned in Q1 (FY10) just 1 quarter later? Hmm, in FY10 I believe that’s 1 count for a BD in that case. You just lost a full count!”
Of course you didn’t. But if it goes abandoned in Q2…
“HTTR, let’s put it this way. You do an FAOM in the week before the new system goes into effect. You have a choice between getting it counted the day before the new system goes into effect, or the day after. Do you not come out behind if you have it counted the day before?”
Excellent question. Yes, you come out behind for the exact reason I’ve been arguing. That FAOM will be worth 1.25 counts in the new system (Q2) as opposed to 1 count in the old system (Q1). Now, you are going to argue that this is proof of the .25 count loss, right? Wrong. The “loss” of .25 counts is from the BD of a single case, not the shifting of cases between Q1 and Q2. Apples and oranges.
Now, I have a question for you. If you did a FAOM in Q4 of last year (FY09), how many counts is the BD of that case worth if it goes abandoned in Q1 (FY10) just 1 quarter later? Hmm, in FY10 I believe that’s 1 count for a BD in that case. You just lost a full count! Of course, this is not true because we calculate production on avg. BD, not true BD. The 1 count loss is no more real than the .25 count loss given the way we calculate production on a quarterly basis. Think about it.
Another question? Say you’re adding up production for a quarter and you have 25 FAOM and 30 disposals. Does that mean you only get credit for 25 BDs toward your production? Again, the answer is no because your quarterly production is based on avg BDs.
FYI, I just calculated my scenario where I have no FAOMS, 100% 2nd RCES or greater. Under the new system that’s .75 counts for RCE first action and .75 counts disposal. 1.5 counts per BD vs. the normal 2. That’s a 25% loss in counts. However, under this worse case scenario of max count loss for RCEs, I received an extra 4.65 hrs/BD extra (yes, we receive 2+ hours depending on how many RCEs you normally do). That extra time put me at 131% production. Net gain = 6%.
“Besides, not doing any first actions can happen to anyone. If an examiner signs up for a 6-8 month detail, and gets like 65 hours of other time a biweek, then that examiner may not need to do any new cases that year. The proposed system will penalize that examiner for getting off the treadmill.”
Nope. That examiner who goes on a detail will not lose out. They will revert back to the old system under the “safety net”. No matter what is done, it will be impossible to make everyone happy and there will always be those who believe the system is unfair. I think it’s unfair that my boss does very little, is never around, and gets paid more than me. I also think it’s unfair that CEOs are cashing out multi-million dollar bonuses for doing nothing. However, I do think the proposed changes overall are a fair compromise. Don’t fall into the trap of just looking at what you lose, you need to also consider everything that you gain. Quid pro quo.
HTTR, let’s put it this way. You do an FAOM in the week before the new system goes into effect. You have a choice between getting it counted the day before the new system goes into effect, or the day after. Do you not come out behind if you have it counted the day before?
BigGuy “Dude, you’re a salaried employee working for the most reliable employer on the planet.”
Truly. Nothing to scoff at.
“2. a. Have you ever worked for clients who didn’t pay you within about 5 mo?”
Or one who just filed for bankruptcy with a large unpaid invoice.
“From my point of view, every case should be allowable from the set of claims present at first examination, or it should not be allowable period.”
As Dan Quayle said, “…what a waste it is to lose one’s mind or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is.”
“2. a. Have you ever worked for clients who didn’t pay you within about 5 mo? b. Have you ever worked for clients (or employers) who pay you half up front, then pay you half later? c. How about clients who do the second payment plan above, except, if you quit your job tomorrow you’d never get those final payments?”
Dude, you’re a salaried employee working for the most reliable employer on the planet. You get paid regularly, don’t have to worry about your income falling appreciably, clearly don’t have to worry about malpractice, and never, ever, have to wait “about 5 mo” to get paid. Enough with the feeble attempts to analogize your situation to ours. Nobody’s buying it.
“What about if you were suckered into turning down other jobs and moving to DC before they explained how they were going to fck you with this plan?”
Yeah, tell us about those lucrative job offers you turned down because you calculated that the PTO’s performance plan would actually be more profitable. You were happy to get one job offer.
Actaully that’s why I probably will not be an examiner the rest of my life.
“From my point of view, every case should be allowable from the set of claims present at first examination, or it should not be allowable period.”
This is why you will be an examiner for the rest of your life. 😉
Well Broje, you knew I had to head you off at the pass.
I answered your questions, so answer a few of mine.
1. In all srsness, what do you not understand about “slightly/maybe “better” delayed credit” not being anywhere near as good as “instant credit”?
2. a. Have you ever worked for clients who didn’t pay you within about 5 mo? b. Have you ever worked for clients (or employers) who pay you half up front, then pay you half later? c. How about clients who do the second payment plan above, except, if you quit your job tomorrow you’d never get those final payments?
3. a. How do you think you’d feel about entering into an arrangment like c above? b. What about if you were suckered into turning down other jobs and moving to DC before they explained how they were going to fck you with this plan?
“b. sure, but we’ve never had such a system”
/facepalm
answer to c*
“How much time do you need to check 2 boxes on a form?”
Some spe’s require all arguments to be addressed in addition to those two boxes. This can take anywhere from 10 minutes to 4 hours. Or more. Jebus you wouldn’t believe the long arse responses we get sometimes, just chock full of bs.
“Would you say that any system that rewards Examiners for rejecting cases, or that punishes Examiners for allowing cases, is a broken system?
Would you agree that a system that lets Examiners do less work for the same amount of credit if they reject a case rewards Examiners for rejecting cases?
Would you agree that an Examiner who is already familiar with a case and has already searched the art for those claims or very similar claims has to do less work than they would have to do for a new case with which they are unfamiliar?
”
a. Sure, the only ideal system rewards either action equally. Right now unfortunately we have a system that unfairly rewards allowances 🙁 Especially first action allowances.
b. sure, but we’ve never had such a system and they’ll probably never suggest, much less approve one.
c. It’s case by case. On the whole, you would certainly think so, but in practice it doesn’t necessarily work out that way.
Take for instance today, I have an RCE on my docket. It has a pretty good amendment with it. I’d say that I’ll look over my tagged docs in EAST, maybe run through the classification search right fast (not in depth), do an interference search and allow it.
But then take for instance last week. The guy comes in with a new claim for the same embodiment he used to be claiming that is WAY broader than the rest of the old claims, except he used different terminology for this claim. Well sister, you may as well call that a new case, especially if we have a new slew of deps. A new case with the old claims still in there for “flavor”. amirite?
Now you might think, but 6, that first example case was so ez!!!!!!!!!OMFG!!!!!!!!!!EZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111111111!
Right?
Well, not necessarily. It depends on your point of view. From my point of view, every case should be allowable from the set of claims present at first examination, or it should not be allowable period. At least in so far as “substance” is being considered. Any case that legitimately gets to final rejection is, in my opinion, already not rewarding me anywhere near the maximum amount. Nowhere close. And any case that wasn’t a first action allowance is already not rewarding me all that close to maximum. And an RCE doesn’t even begin to make up either of these two differences even under the current system. 2 counts up front is about 100x better than 1 count, then 1 count a year later, then 1 count 2 mo later, then 1 count another year later, then 2 counts 2 mo later. I could literally do 3 cases per bi week, have no “workflow” nonsense to worry about, and be ready to get a promotion simply by doing an extra case every ~TWO MONTHS.
So, the question to c also depends heavily on your point of view.
Wait a minute though, haven’t we been over this like a million times?
“Your arguments are bogus. Examiners get no time for advisory actions…”
How much time do you need to check 2 boxes on a form?
“…not enough time for interviews”
You get an hour to sit there and listen to applicant’s representative, and then conclude that you’ll have to do an update search. That’s not enough time?
“…not enough time for restrictions”
How long does it take you to flip to the claims, see that some claims recite an apparatus and other claims recite a method, and generate an OA that says they’re patentably distinct because the method can be performed by hand? I mean, really, how much time do you need for that?
Or you review the brief description of the drawings and see that they show a first embodiment, a second embodiment, etc., and you generate a species election that is verbatim the brief description of the drawings. Do you really need more than an hour for that?
“…plus they may need the ‘extra’ time on RCEs to make up for their originally low hours/bd on the first action.”
I thought examiners didn’t game the system to generate RCE’s to try to score 4, 6, 8, etc. counts out of every application because they think their hrs/BD is too low. Did I miss something?
“Besides, not doing any first actions can happen to anyone. If an examiner signs up for a 6-8 month detail, and gets like 65 hours of other time a biweek, then that examiner may not need to do any new cases that year. The proposed system will penalize that examiner for getting off the treadmill.”
No one is forcing you to do details. lol
Appeal Hoooo
“Your arguments are bogus. Examiners get no time for advisory actions, not enough time for interviews, not enough time for restrictions, plus they may need the “extra” time on RCEs to make up for their originally low hours/bd on the first action.”
Untrue! You get a certain amount of time for a BD. You can divide that time up as you see fit. You get time for interviews. Restriction is another issue, but reading the file must be done sooner or later so it all washes at disposal. I would use 85% fir first action. The rest is easy.
BOGUS!
HTTC said “f you’re not allowing and not doing FAOMs), then you’re not doing your job”.
HTTC you are assuming all units allow at the same %. No true. Some allow 25% of applications, some 75%. If you allow 25%, then it is likely only after a long hard battle in RCE/103 land.
Besides, not doing any first actions can happen to anyone. If an examiner signs up for a 6-8 month detail, and gets like 65 hours of other time a biweek, then that examiner may not need to do any new cases that year. The proposed system will penalize that examiner for getting off the treadmill.
Broje wrote “Would you agree that an Examiner who is already familiar with a case and has already searched the art for those claims or very similar claims has to do less work than they would have to do for a new case with which they are unfamiliar?”
Your arguments are bogus. Examiners get no time for advisory actions, not enough time for interviews, not enough time for restrictions, plus they may need the “extra” time on RCEs to make up for their originally low hours/bd on the first action. As an examiner, you are told that you take time away from your hours given for an action and use them on these other places where you get insufficient time.
Management proposes to setup a production system that requires examiners to “game it”. So they can get time on the other things that management is not giving sufficient time to do.
6, since MM never answered my question, maybe you have an opinion.
Would you say that any system that rewards Examiners for rejecting cases, or that punishes Examiners for allowing cases, is a broken system?
Would you agree that a system that let’s Examiners do less work for the same amount of credit if they reject a case rewards Examiners for rejecting cases?
Would you agree that an Examiner who is already familiar with a case and has already searched the art for those claims or very similar claims has to do less work than they would have to do for a new case with which they are unfamiliar?
“you don’t do any new cases in a year, and yes, this is common in some arts” – WTF, and you don’t even see this as a problem? churn baby churn, game that system – why shouldnt this be punished?”
That behavior won’t stop. It can’t be stopped from the PTO’s end. The applicants will see to it that it doesn’t stop. They are in full control of when prosecution ends.
Watch.
And it isn’t necessarily gaming the system. Believe it or not, some cases are legitimately rejected past final *gasp*. If they want to keep going I see no reason not to charge them. Do you?
“I’m in favor of the proposal anyway, since you making your counts is easy regardless of the system, it’ll help reduce first action pendency, and the RCE going to the Special New docket (which is actually the most important change introduced here) will be beneficial to examiners”
Actually I thought the same thing about the RCE’s going to the special new tab, but then I realized there is a substantial possibility that the RCE’s may begin to build up pretty far, especially if they’re 2nd+ RCEs.
“HTTR is wrong on everything …
1. On POPA’s website there is a document called “Examiner Expectancies” in their “latest headlines” that says if the new count initiatives are ceased and we revert to the present system, then the examiners will get a 1 hour increase in hours/bd.”
It actually does say “If the 2010 Count System Initiatives later expire or otherwise cease, the Agency will provide the [1 hour])”. However, if it doesn’t get initially passed, how does it “later expire” or “cease” if it never passes and is never implemented? Looks like if it gets voted down we get nothing.
“2. If you are in TC2100 and you don’t do any new cases in a year, and yes, this is common in some arts, then you lose big time under the proposed production system. There is no need to do any “HTTR math”, because it should be obvious to anyone that an increase in 2 hours/bd cannot possibly offset a loss of .25 and .5 counts per every RCE.”
If you’re not doing any new cases in a year, you’re part of the problem. Contrary to many, it’s not “us versus them”. Attorneys and examiners both work for the applicant (they’re the ones paying the bills) and we should be working to help applicant get a patent. If you’re just churning RCEs over and over (which you must be if you’re not allowing and not doing FAOMs), then you’re not doing your job.
For the record, I’m not exactly pro-management. But I’m not nearly as pessimistic as so many of the naysayers either. I base my position on logic and reason. Every examiner should fully analyze the true math, perhaps run their numbers from last year using the new count system, and go from there. Plus, with that safety net you cannot go down in numbers. Fair to all? No. No system is, including the current system. If you’re waiting for a 100% “fair” system, you’re in the wrong line of work.
When the new deal expires, they are not going to make it more difficult for examiners to make production, that is, unless they fully intend to sabotage themselves and crumble this place to the ground. IMHO, I just don’t see that happening. In fact, POPA’s website apparently says we are guaranteed the 1 hr once the new system expires or ceases (see your argument above). Taking everything into consideration, I this as an improvement over the old system.
“This is only true if your amount of FAOMs is equal to your amount of disposals.”
For every FAOM there must be a disposal. So, this balances out in the long run. It’s analogous to flipping a coin. You can flip heads 5 times in a row, but it’ll average out 50/50 in the long run.
Untruths incidentally gives the exact reason why this should pass – stop the churn and get to the FOAMs:
“you don’t do any new cases in a year, and yes, this is common in some arts” – WTF, and you don’t even see this as a problem? churn baby churn, game that system – why shouldnt this be punished?
“then you lose big time under the proposed production system.” Exactly – that’s the idea numbnuts – punish the churning behavor youve become addicted to. force you to actually pick up a new case and examine it and start getting rid of the ever building backlog.
(passerby thinks) better think that there is no such thing as a free lunch, else he will wake up to a very rude good morning when the Chinese own the US (not too far away as it is).
A few months ago “Tea Party” government-waste-protest people held a national one day event where they stood outside government buildings and held signs that expressed their anger at the wasteful activities of the government of the USA. I happened to be driving by the city hall building in my town on protest day, and I saw a lone protestor guy on the corner with a sign. He was stopping people as they walked by and conveying his message to them.
“inviting body punches” reminds me of that guy.
I am sure everything he was saying was accurate. Government waste, government employees are largely incompetent, government employees get paid more than they are worth, the federal government is overspending trillions, etc, etc ..
[Passerby thinks} Is that guy on the corner for real?
We are running up trillions in debt this year alone, and that lone guy on the corner “inviting body punches” is holding up signs about a proportionally insignificant waste and incompetence at USPTO when compared to the entire government. Are you kidding me?
[Passerby thinks] Is that “nut” still on the corner with his sign ?
Give me my free health care! Give me my free housing tax credit! Give me my cash for clunker! Spend, spend, spend. Me. Me. Me.
[Passerby thinks] He better not stand in the way of my free government handouts.
HTTR is wrong on everything …
1. On POPA’s website there is a document called “Examiner Expectancies” in their “latest headlines” that says if the new count initiatives are ceased and we revert to the present system, then the examiners will get a 1 hour increase in hours/bd.
2. If you are in TC2100 and you don’t do any new cases in a year, and yes, this is common in some arts, then you lose big time under the proposed production system. There is no need to do any “HTTR math”, because it should be obvious to anyone that an increase in 2 hours/bd cannot possibly offset a loss of .25 and .5 counts per every RCE.
The RCE adjustment is what balances everything out. In my art you can get a +10 total increase to hours/bd. Is the RCE adjustment here stay forever? No. Is the safety net here to stay forever? Probably Not.
I hope there are people like HTTR in management who believe what HTTR is saying, so we can get them to agree to permanently enshrine the safety net, because as HTTR says “Why would your union support making changes that would take time away from you? Answer: They wouldn’t”.
For applicants, what is the good news under the proposed new procedures? So far I have learned that the appeals backlog will get longer and RCE’s will be acted on more slowly.
Special New docket is the docket with divisionals and continuations. Policies on managing this docket vary by area but needless to say the time frame for acting on most RCEs will be a lot longer than two months. This will also discourage applicants from filing RCEs but you have to do something after final and the appeals backlog is only getting longer…
IOW there won’t be an after-final route that guarantees a relatively quick advancement of prosecution. For examiners this will be beneficial because it means fewer two-month amendeds due each biweek leading to more time for first actions, plus the difficult RCEs won’t be due for a long time while you can still turn the easy ones around right away.
I should correct my above post–the 1+0.75=1.75 of course applies to every case currently in prosecution that hasn’t had a disposal yet, not just the ones being mailed out now.
What is the “Special New” docket?
“thus, the “loss” of the .25 count is simply not true. In the new system, your DISP of .75 counts will be offset by a new FAOM of 1.25 counts in that particular quarter.”
This is only true if your amount of FAOMs is equal to your amount of disposals.
“Under the old system, it was FAOM + DISP: 1 + 1 = 2. The new system is FAOM + DISP: .75 + 1.25 = 2.”
Unless you post your FAOM in the next couple months, in which case it’s 1 + 0.75 = 1.75. This is mitigated by the fact that no one with a brain will send out more FAOMs than required until December 21st if this goes into effect. Upside for applicants is that a lot of allowances will go out before then.
I’m in favor of the proposal anyway, since you making your counts is easy regardless of the system, it’ll help reduce first action pendency, and the RCE going to the Special New docket (which is actually the most important change introduced here) will be beneficial to examiners.
“Alas, I can be a fountain of ignorance everywhere at one time.” – 6
Fixed your sentence for you!
“What they actually said was that under the new system, your NET hours would be no less than 1 hr/BD from balancing out between the loss of counts from RCEs and the extra 2+ hours per BD.”
Um no you mor on. Does “Director Kappos is committed to giving at least an hour per count regardless of whether the change goes through or not” sound familiar? If it doesn’t then you A. weren’t at the briefing or B. weren’t listening or C. didn’t go to the right meeting to hear it.
I had another response typed out for the rest of your nonsense at home but I must have forgotten to post it.
You’re a sucker. Plain and simple. Be proud of it, by all means. Think your simplistic “let me explain to you how examiner’s counts are calculated” will suffice for you.
You need to look at the big picture ya bozo.
When you’re ready to get the sht kicked out of your “beliefs” on this subject then we can meet up at starbucks for 10 minutes and you’ll be all set to meet the world head on with a renewed understanding.
The only person out of about 35 or so that hasn’t been convinced entirely of my position after having discussed it in person is the self professed stup id guy who is by bud. And the only reason he isn’t convinced is because he <3's the management for taking it easy on him and letting him get away with so much sht. (He admits it straight up) So he feels like we should just go along with whatever they want to try out.
At least I persuaded him not to vote at all.
Alas, I can't be a dispeller of ignorance everywhere at one time.
Results of Search in US Patent Collection db for:
ACLM/”content object”: 206 patents.
inviting body punches:
“sophisticated and nuanced legal expertise”
Now that’s funny.
Today, I read a response from one of these “legal experts” that: a) amended the independent claim to read “retrieving a CONTENT object from said library” (as opposed to “retrieving an object from said library”); and b) argued that the claim amendment distinguishes the claimed invention from the cited prior art.
If that is not cranking the “billable hour” handle (i.e., intentionally prolonging prosecution to generate billable hours), then I don’t know what is.
FREE ADVICE to the “legal experts:” putting an adjective in front of the term “object” will very rarely (never?) distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art.
Boss12, I believe the math that inviting body punches is using is the productivity percentage increase:
( (private sector prod. – examiner prod.) / examiner prod. ).
The infinity comes from the division by 0, the value of examiner productivity.
inviting body punches:
“Any good patent attorney or agent could be paid the same in the patent office as in the private sector (reasonably), and be INFINITELY more productive than any current patent examiner.”
Oh yeah??? Please . . . explain the rationale that supports your statement.
Overall, nice posts HTTR – good to see intelligence in the corp.
“That’s what “6” said and that is completely meritless.”
Another examiner coming into the light.
6, your famoosity is spreading.
HTTR: However, if they did their job right in the first place and compacted prosecution a little better, they wouldn’t be in that position.
—-
Thank you!
“Still, I have analyzed the numbers at higher than a fifth grade level and I am going to vote against the change today because the 1 hour / BD represents a better deal for the majority of examiners.”
So…you’re voting against the system because it’s a better deal for the majority of the examiners? Maybe it’s not your math that’s the issue here.
“Not speculation. Focarino or Budens said it at the briefing, although I believe is was one hour per BD, not two.”
Ned,
Your not telling (or hearing) the whole story here. At no time was it EVER stated that we would get 2 hrs regardless of passing of the new system. That’s what “6” said and that is completely meritless. What they actually said was that under the new system, your NET hours would be no less than 1 hr/BD from balancing out between the loss of counts from RCEs and the extra 2+ hours per BD. For most, the RCE loss is less of an issue (~5% loss) while the gain will be the full 2 hrs (10-15% gain). For those essentially living off of RCEs, then they will probably net the 1 hr. However, if they did their job right in the first place and compacted prosecution a little better, they wouldn’t be in that position.
Oxides,
I’ve actually heard this before but the math actually doesn’t add up because it is not based on how examiner production is truly calculated. Let me explain:
Examiner production is based on quarterly numbers (i.e. counts added up per individual quarter). You cannot add up counts (i.e. FAOM + DISP) for any single case to calculate this production because those counts for any single case are not received in the same quarter (unless it’s a first action allowance which is 2 counts in the new and old system) since the time between counts, like you said, can be 6 months.
Your production is based on average balance disposals (FAOM + DISP) every quarter and not a FAOM + DISP of the same case (which is required for your math to hold water). So, in order for your math to be true with respect to how examiner production is calculated, it would have to be considered with respect to any indivudual quarter. Thus, the “loss” of the .25 count is simply not true. In the new system, your DISP of .75 counts will be offset by a new FAOM of 1.25 counts in that particular quarter. That’s still 2 counts per average balance disposal.
What you receive before or after that quarter is irrelevant with respect to how examiner production is calculated. Cases come and go, it’s a perpetual cycle. For every old case that goes abandoned/allowed, there is another new case first action. Under the old system, it was FAOM + DISP: 1 + 1 = 2. The new system is FAOM + DISP: .75 + 1.25 = 2. Your aggregate loss is a product of fuzzy logic, not true calculations based on the quarterly production system. My suggestions is to take your last year production and plug in the new count system for the last 3 quarters like I did. You will see this to be true.
Now, coupling THIS with the RCE count loss and 2 hrs additional time more than compensates us and is a net gain for examiners. Question: Why would your union support making changes that would take time away from you? Answer: They wouldn’t.
Is part of the trepidation the time frame of the safety net, considering that an examiner’s docket may not turn over before the safety net is removed?
“THIS IS A HILL TO DIE ON.”
Mission accomplished!
“Oh yeah, I loved your comment on Dir. Kappos giving examiners 2 hrs regardless of the passing of the new proposal. Pure speculation, as usual.”
Not speculation. Focarino or Budens said it at the briefing, although I believe is was one hour per BD, not two. Still, I have analyzed the numbers at higher than a fifth grade level and I am going to vote against the change today because the 1 hour / BD represents a better deal for the majority of examiners. Another factor is that there is no transition cost with a flat 1 hour / BD addition.
GTTR I believe you are mis-construing 6’s original stand on the new count system.
Any case that has been worked on now is worth two counts; one count for FAOM and one count for disposal.
So lets say an Examiner does a FAOM right now, six months from now it goes abandoned. Under the new system the Examiner only goes 0.75 counts for that, old system one count.
Total counts available
Old system: FAOM + DISP: 1 + 1 = 2
New system: FAOM + DISP: 1 + 0.75 = 1.75
Aggregate loss of 0.25 counts.
Couple that with the quarter count loss on first RCE and the two hours fails to make up for this loss.
Now the ‘safety net’ is there to cover this problem, still some people are skeptical of it.
Noise–
“Challenge motif”! I don’t quite know why, but the gentle derision and irreverence I perceive within that term I find really enjoyable.
HTTR–Public sector employees, if not selected for the trait, are generally conditioned to be oppositional in the face of change. Mobilization and resistance is their ethos, and rationalization rather than rationality is the norm.
They do not accept any other party’s contribution to debate. When presented with a proposal, they will generally proceed not to modify that first proposal, but instead to reject it entirely and substitute it with one or more of their own.
How one responds to this is determined in part by one’s basic emotional and cognitive constitution. Me, I get mad as hell. Obviously.
“I understand it’s human nature to fear change, and the “big brother” mentality of the previous management sure didn’t help.”
Well said, HTTR, along with the rest of your well written comments.
“Union and management MUST work together to improve the Patent Office”
That’s what they did arriving at the new count proposal. Six weeks of negotiating and compromising to achieve the newly proposed system.
Ok “6”, I understand your position. Apparently subtracting .25 counts, adding .25 counts, adding 2 hrs per balance disposal for the examiners, etc. is “college” math. Maybe for you but I could work that in grade school (if you need my 9 yr old niece to tutor you, it will save you money in having an “accountant” do it for you).
So far the only fact you have presented is the loss of .25 counts on the disposal. What you fail (or simply refuse) to recognize is that the system is a perpetual system, the examiner’s production is based on quarterly production numbers, and that the .25 count lost will be offset by the gain of .25 count from a new first action in that particular quarter (is it not a fact that examiner production is calculated quarterly?). That new first action will only receive .75 counts for a future disposal (i.e. loss of .25 counts) which will most likely happen in the subsequent quarter, which will also be offset by another new first action (1.25 counts). The AVERAGE balance disposal per quarter will always be 2 counts no matter how you try to spin it. Oh yeah, and the examiners are given 2 hours per balance disposal (~10% extra time) which more than compensates the loss for the reduction in RCE counts. I minored in math and have a Ph.D. in physics so to me this is pretty remedial math and do not need an “accountant” to work this math (apparently unlike some of us). Your argument of .25 count turning to “vapor” is no more true than the addition of .25 counts being “creation of matter”. Like I said, per avg. balance disposal for a new first action and disposal will be 2 counts in both the old and new system (my neice and accountant have both confirmed this fact).
Now, if you have any FACTS to support your illusionary, speculative arguments, then perhaps someone will take you seriously (feel free to continue berating and degrading if it makes you feel better, it appears to be your only strong suit). Now, I’m more than happy to educate you in how the math works if you are still struggling. This is quid pro quo, your piecemeal analysis focusing only on what the examiners lose is only part of the math. Feel free to provide some facts (and math) to support how cumulatively the system does not favor the examiners. Until then, enough with your ridiculous propaganda! Sounds like you’re just a disgruntled employee who lacks logic and reason. If you’re that dissatisfied with the PTO, get a new job! Problem solved. No need to try to sabotage the remainining examiners in receiving this unprecedented offer from management.
Oh yeah, I loved your comment on Dir. Kappos giving examiners 2 hrs regardless of the passing of the new proposal. Pure speculation, as usual.
Union and management MUST work together to improve the Patent Office.
“It is the avg. first action and disposal that make up the production in any given quarter.”
Okay… so what is your point? Do the counts lost simply go to the vapor as a manager in charge of the project recently said? If I told you today that some of your counts will go to the vapor how would you like that?
“Arguments to the contrary simply cannot do 5th grade math.”
First of all arguments don’t do math. People do math. And you’d be right that that people who argue against adopting the proposal don’t do 5th grade math, we do college Accounting math. I know, I know, it is a bit above your head and that’s why you don’t understand what is going on.
But besides your lack of understanding let’s go one further. Did you know that Kappos will give us the extra 2 hrs per bd even if we keep the old system? Does your outlook change any knowing this?
“FYI, the vast majority of examiners have common sense and recognize that this is an unprecedented offer from management to give extra time per case overall and APPROVE the changes. ”
You’re right, they do have common sense, but they apparently don’t know how to do accounting at the basic 101 level.
“However, step back and take a good look at the big picture and you will see that it is a huge advantage to the examiner.”
You’re right, but not as much of an advantage as voting it down will be. If the math wasn’t so complex you’d know this 🙁 You should contact your accountant.
“The fact that the head of the union approves the new system speaks for itself (the union NEVER agrees with management).”
It proves that the fat man is about as smart as I’ve known him to be for a long time now. Not very. In any event I’m going to have a chat with him and with his advisors. We will see if they still support the package. Keep in mind, they support the package right now not just because of production, but because of the other concessions made. Which are basically “we’ll stop beating the workers for stupd things” concessions. So they might still support the new package anyway.
While the examiners are losing counts for disposals under the proposed system (i.e. the notorious .25 count “stolen” by the PTO), they are also gaining counts for new first actions (from 1 to 1.25 counts) PLUS getting 2 hrs additional per balance disposal. This is pretty simple math – advantage examiners.
The issue of the .25 count loss is extremely deceptive and the examiner will not lose ANY counts per avg. balance disposal per quarter. That’s a fact. Last time I checked, the examiner production is based quarterly. Given the fact that a first action and disposal on any individual case rarely occurs in the same quarter, the doom and gloom of the .25 count loss is simply irrelevant. It is the avg. first action and disposal that make up the production in any given quarter.
For example, in the 1st quarter and under the old count system, examiners get 1 count for new first action and 1 count for disposal (i.e. abn or allowance) for a total of 2 counts per avg. balance disposal.
In the 2nd-4th quarter under the new system, examiners get 1.25 counts for new first action and .75 for disposal also for a total of 2 counts per avg. balance disposal. I call that a wash. Plus, examiners get 2+ hrs per balance disposal which more than compensates for the loss from RCE adjustment. Now it doesn’t take a math wizard to figure out that each examiner will OVERALL come out ahead. Fact. Arguments to the contrary simply cannot do 5th grade math.
For the naysayers, stop spreading your propaganda. This system is overly fair to examiners if anything. I understand it’s human nature to fear change, and the “big brother” mentality of the previous management sure didn’t help. However, step back and take a good look at the big picture and you will see that it is a huge advantage to the examiner. The new management is a stark contrast to the previous “leader”. In fact, it is management that is taking the big risk of giving examiners extra time without anything (i.e. production) in return. The fact that the head of the union approves the new system speaks for itself (the union NEVER agrees with management).
FYI, the vast majority of examiners have common sense and recognize that this is an unprecedented offer from management to give extra time per case overall and APPROVE the changes. It will be approved regardless of people like “6” spreading their anti-management propaganda and incomplete analysis of the proposed system. The new system will be passed thanks to level-headed examiners (at least the majority of them). Book it!
inviting,
If I were an examiner with intials MM, I’d be mad that you were trying to one-up my challenge motif and call you a TROLL.
As it is, I applaud your efforts. Well done.
I will advance this in favor of existing examiners: all other things being equal, examination quality would improve if there was any clear guidance on 101, 103, and 112. I don’t believe that examiners are all intrinsically maniacs.
I appreciate the difficulty of trying to decipher the horrible court opinions that have come down recently, and to communicate findings to others. Those who are charged with this task at the PTO have just as hard a time of this as anybody else, and it is no small wonder that examiners don’t really understand what it is that these people are saying, or how to apply it in various situations.
In my opinion, the inadequecies of the patent office result BOTH from institutional public-sector culture and inadequate articulation of the law by the courts.
But it is still the job of the patent office to do the best that it can at getting good interpretations to the examiners, and at getting examiners of sufficient intelligence and commitment to understand the substance and limits of those interpretations. It is the job of individual examiners to not be arbitrary and capricious, to set their ego aside and be rational, and to ask for help when their capabilities are exceeded.
More of the same from Examiner Number 9.
You’re doing nothing to prove me wrong, and everything to prove me right.
Plurality, the coherent argument by a comrade that ‘punches’ was referring to:
“While I shouldn’t feed the troll”
Sadly, 6’s response is typical of the level we’ve come to expect from examiners.
They kick and scream in the face of evidence that proves them to be wrong, instead of presenting evidence tending to prove that they are correct.
Grow up and try again, 6. And others.
You haven’t even made a reasonable attempt to take the hill. I’d like to hear from one of the few erstwhile, intelligent examiners out there, but the chances of that are slim–they’re too busy working.
Everybody acknowledges that there are insufficiencies in the suite of services offered by the Patent Office–we just disagree on why those insufficiencies exist, and as a result on how to remedy them without introducing new and greater insufficiencies.
You threw out a couple of reasons.
I proved your reasons to be false and substituted my own reasons.
They have easily withstood your less-than-feeble challenges and taunts.
You guys really are lame–you’re just like the proverbial bullies on the playground. As soon as someone stands up to you, you are relegated to a position of ridicule, from which you attempt to continue your bullying ways in a more oblique fashion, one that is insufficiently important to merit a head-on response.
I SAY AGAIN–BRING IT ON
Trollin’ Trollin’ Trollin’ Whpppppshhhhhh RAWHIDE!
Plurality–
The argument was made by YOU GUYS, I’m merely responding to it. And it was not merely semantic, it was substantive.
Someone’s assertion was that life for examiners is bad enough as it is, that is why there is attrition, and that lower wages would lead to less applicants, less accepted offers, and emptying art units.
There is NO attrition, life for examiners is better than it should be although possibly getting worse, and while getting worse, there is a net gain–no emptying art units.
You guys are worse than useless–you are counterproductive and obfuscatory.
A problem? THE problem is that by far the vast majority of you examiners are INCOMPETENT, and even if competent, are working under incompetent direction, and even if competent and working under competent direction, are ENTIRELY SELF-INTERESTED AND TACTICAL.
You’re incompetent because it is impossible to administer a law correctly or appropriately without understanding that law. You lack sufficient basic knowledge of things like the limits of your authority to regularly lawfully effect the edicts of your superiors. The PTO has misallocated resources such that there are now insufficieint resources allocated to oversight of your activities. That misallocation was and is the result of unsustainable policies of both congress and the executive branch, and the unsustainable de facto policies articulated in US Supreme Court decisions.
Those policies reflect the failure by the relevant bodies to give full effect to the interests of the entire citizenry in favor of a particular segment thereof.
Over time, your granted powers beget an institutional culture that identifies its own interests apart from those of the entire citizenry, and the individuals within that culture adjust their attitudes appropriately.
You’re not working for US, your’re working for yourselves.
You as an individual are incompetent (by selection and lack of training), ego-centric (by total enmeshment in the institutional culture), and totally inarticulate (by individual failure). Not only can you not formulate a cogent argument, you cannot even recognize when one of your comrades has done so.
Inviting: The PTO hired about 600 new examiners in FY’09, and that translated into a net gain of 80 examiners. Whatever pointless semantic arguments you want to have over this, it still represents a big problem.
Anon–
Thanks for making that comment–it gives anybody watching an idea of just how useless you are to any meaningful treatment of this issue.
“ridiculous parsing!”
no kidding!
Anon and Plurality–Are you guys insane? You must totally eschew the western tradition of rational inquiry.
“attrition among new examiners”–ridiculous parsing! That’s like me saying “no attrition among senior male examiners 48-52 yrs of age”.
“having more people means getting it done faster”–NOT in the public sector. It might mean more activity, but does not certainly translate into effective task completion.
“fewer examiners”–show me from PTO sources where it says that there has been a net loss in the number of examiners say, over the past 5 or 10 or 20 years.
You guys are so entirely full of crap–from the PTO website, the total number of examiners in utility, plant, and reissue by quarters of FY2009
6063, 6229, 6157, 6143.
A NET GAIN OF 80 EXAMINERS IN FY 2009.
“filings rising at an increasing rate”–BULLCRAP. From PTO Statistics for 2008, 07 versus 06, +11.2%; 08 vs 07, +1.8%; expected 09 vs 08, -10.0%. Not only is the rate of increase not increasing, there isn’t even a sustained increase!
“losing 10% of your workforce every year”–ridiculous parsing!!!!! The net workforce is RISING. And NO, it is NOT AN ATTRITION PROBLEM–IF A PROBLEM AT ALL, IT WOULD BE A TURNOVER PROBLEM.
KEEP COMING, WANKERS–I WILL NEVER STOP.
THIS IS A HILL TO DIE ON.
Inviting: “Anon–Attrition–a reduction or decrease in number, size, or strength. According to xmnr-not6’s recital of the GAO report on 2002-2006, the PTO hired 2 examiners for every 1 that left.
Just because you claim that there IS “an attrition problem” doesn’t mean it’s true, friend. You have proven neither attrition or the fact that it is a problem.”
So, why do you suppose that the PTO was hiring two examiners, at the rate of 1200 per year, for every one that left? Could it possibly be because of an *attrition problem*?
Do you not consider losing over 10% of your workforce every year to be an attrition problem?
You have proven neither attrition or the fact that it is a problem.
I don’t need to prove it, thanks. Just trying to help you understand the basic math of the situation.
There is significant attrition among new examiners. There is a relationship between number of examiners and pendency. Regardless of the quality of the work put out, there is a certain amount of work to be done, and having more people means getting it done faster. As filings are rising at an increasing rate on a long term scale, that means that even if there was no hiring and no attrition, the office would still be losing its capacity to meet the level of work needed. Attrition, ceteris paribus, works directly against this need. Fewer examiners, less work accomplished, growing backlog.
Attrition is a problem. Attrition also exists. But if you don’t want to believe it, it doesn’t really affect me either way.
Oh, and I forgot to include: OVERHEADS. All the costs of doing business, something public sector employees wouldn’t understand.
Anon–nice totally meaningless response.
Anon–Attrition–a reduction or decrease in number, size, or strength. According to xmnr-not6’s recital of the GAO report on 2002-2006, the PTO hired 2 examiners for every 1 that left.
Just because you claim that there IS “an attrition problem” doesn’t mean it’s true, friend. You have proven neither attrition or the fact that it is a problem.
A race to the bottom wrt fees might happen, as did a race to the top. That is market cycling at work. At some point, people will be able to make a better living doing something else, some will leave the field, some will choose to do other things and not enter it in the first place.
SO WHAT? I live in the real world, and these things happen. You adjust accordingly, plan for the worst, and work for the best. It is called life, with all of its natural triumphs and pitfalls.
The public sector, on the other hand, is deeply unnatural. When I was a kid I used to naively believe that the patent office, and patent work, would be different–boy was I wrong. It SHOULD be different–it should be a co-operative system, and not coercive and penal like other government systems. It has turned into sort of an incentive program, not unlike federal monies available to schools that meet federal requirements and jump through the appropriate hoops.
With the same public sector employees that hop around the different agencies.
I’m still waiting for ANYBODY to provide any sort of a substantive rebuttal to my basic position: the contracts negotiated with public sector unions, including those “representing” patent examiners, weigh much too heavily in favor of the unions and against the public interest. They were improvidently negotiated on a tilted playing field. We realize this now more than ever, with EVER DECREASING LEVELS OF SERVICE AND EVER INCREASING LEVELS OF COST IN ALL AREAS OF SERVICE PROVIDED BY GOVERNMENT AT ANY LEVEL.
BRING IT ON
“Because of the potential value involved, the expertise, knowledge, and education required”
Care to indulge us as to your technical expertise? Master’s? PhD? or BS degree from 20+ years ago?
“And so what if “the supply continues to outpace demand”? Even if true, we are subject to market forces, and things will adjust accordingly.”
Do you mean a “race to the bottom” with regards to your fees?