Patently-O Bits and Bytes: USPTO PPAC Morning Report

Financial:

  • USPTO budget for FY2010 limited by Congress to $1.887 billion dollars. Projected collections for FY2010 is expected to be $200 million over that limitation. Under the current law, all of that money will be sent to congress. Congress has already allocated $100 million of that overage on other non-patent items. Thus, to get that money back at this point, Congress would need to take $100 million from another source.
  • Budget for FY2011 — requested budget of $2.3 billion that includes a bump for significant technology upgrades at the Office.

Backlog:

  • In January 2009, PTO had about 765k unexamined utility patent applications.  That number is now down to about 735k.  The PTO is pushing a 699k campaign to drive the number of unexamined cases under 700,000 this year.
  • The PTO has made 62 new “experienced” hires this FY. 

18 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes: USPTO PPAC Morning Report

  1. 18

    It’s difficult to fathom how the USPTO can accomplish its stated goals, with Congress continuing to siphon off substantial amounts from the IP office’s coffers. Fee diversion practically constitutes a criminal assault against the patent law system. Unfortunately, Congress (1) is apparently incapable of passing any substantial patent reform legislation, and (2) being the fox guarding the henhouse, might never be willing to pass a bill that would prevent it from skimming off the USPTO’s revenue.

  2. 17

    I sincerely hope that the bill currently under consideration that prohibits fee diversion will manage to pass this year. However, considering that (1) Congress is apparently incapable of passing any substantial patent reform legislation, and (2) Congress, being the fox guarding the henhouse, might not be willing to pass a bill that would prevent it from skimming off the USPTO’s revenue, perhaps my hope is not realistic.

  3. 16

    The Strategic Plan includes the following hiring goals:
    250 IP-experienced examiners in FY 2010
    1000 examiners in FY 2011
    1000 examiners in FY 2012.

    Doesn’t say the net gain they are counting on to meet their pie-in-the-sky goals (50% reduction in backlog).

  4. 13

    Hey 6,
    What are you talking about I hired a Law firm to file and write the claims, and the spec. And of course do the Drawings HAHAHAHAAAA. I was told I could not have what was stolen. And you know who told me that. And when I wanted to argue the THIN WIDE AND ELONGATED… Now reading thin long and elongate… I was told oh don’t worry this is a cake walk. And then the next in line takes me down the trail. And then the next set take me even further down the trail.. of what is is? I ask you if a letter in a word defines the true meaning of the strength in the claim it’s the D. in elongated. So I ask you where did the d go in the ahem… Patent.
    So 6 what I need is the right to tell the WHOLE STORY, with all the evidence. And then lets see where the chips fall. So 6 don’t YOU be telling me I needed to write a better Patent. I paid for someone to write the better Patent, but as you know I didn’t not only not get what I paid for. I just got violated. And still am being violated. And remember when Nixon was removed for what he tried to do… How come all things are not equal there?

  5. 12

    Maxie,

    We had the “so samey” in the reject-reject-reject era. That is what spawned the RCE mountain – so the “consistent work product” goes with the backlog when that work product is consistently bad. It be consistently bad when the first actions are done in ignorance of the specification like some geriatrics proudly proclaim is the call of bRi and ignore their own case cites which plainly state that the claims must be read in light of the specification and not in deliberate ignorance of it.

    Isn’t one of Demings principles to aim at the right target first?

  6. 11

    I tried ping but it didn’t help. How much of what you wrote was with irony? I don’t know.

    I kept thinking that a positive attitude is everything and so, if (as you say) the Office gains 588 examiners with a good attitude and at the same time manages to shrug off 508 with bad attitudes, that should count as a major win.

    Then I thought that, contrary to what you are asserting, the seasoned examiners probably just resigned rather than were got rid of, and that their attitude was probably, on the whole, super good.

    I suspect that they simply exercised their right to choose, and voted with their feet, rather than manifesting a bad attitude by “refusing” to fit in.

    It is often said that running a patent attorney firm is like “herding cats”. Are you saying that PTO Examiners have a duty to be more cat-like? Is that what Applicants want? Or do they prefer a consistent work product, and no backlog? Me, I like it that EPO opinions on patentability are all so samey that you can’t tell which Examiner wrote them.

    Does McDonalds have toady SPE’s, I wonder. Do EPO Examiners whinge about “management”? Does any business without a backlog not have toady SPE’s, I wonder.

  7. 10

    PharmaPatents,

    Your math skills are accurate. If it helps, you might try to think of it in two sets:

    Set One: The Office got rid of 508 seasoned examiners, probably those with good conscience and hard work ethics who refused to kiss up to toady SPE’s and replaced them with 508 wet behind the ears bend over backwards neophytes that have to be taught at the applicants expense, plus

    Set Two: 80 additional wet behind the ears bend over backwards neophytes that have to be taught at the applicants expense as a freebee throw-in without losing any additional seasoned and hard work ethics minded folk who refuse to kiss up to toady SPE’s.

    That’s a loss-avoidance of 80!

    Plus at this rate, the Office will reach a goal of hiring 4000 additional examiners in only 50 years.

  8. 8

    ping: “(and we left Kucinich off the short list!?)”

    LOL. It’s like two jokes for the price of one.

  9. 7

    The collective membership of Congress could not run a pair of nylons much less a country. Too focused on getting themselves re-elected.

    Congress spends too much, and that’s not even including what they push on states, entitlements and Frannie/Freddie.

    We’re (collectively) to blame and need to elect folks who will make the tough (unpopular) decisions including entitlement reform, health reform (Part II- focus on costs), and spending reforms.

  10. 5

    “pretty sure Gore is not in congress…”

    I’m pretty sure the asylum recognizes distinguished alumni (Senator from Tennessee).

  11. 4

    O I believe the insanity extends well beyond the membership of the most current term (and we left Kucinich off the short list!?), so Al (I invented the internet) Gore is an appropriate member).

  12. 3

    Gore, Pelosi, Jackson-Lee just to name three.

    I’m pretty sure Gore is not in Congress.

  13. 2

    “Is Congress an insane asylum”

    Gore, Pelosi, Jackson-Lee just to name three.

    Is this a real question?

  14. 1

    “Under the current law, all of that money will be sent to congress. Congress has already allocated $100 million of that overage on other non-patent.”

    A special TAX ON INNOVATION. Is Congress an insane asylum?

Comments are closed.