Comments on: AIPLA Suggests Improvements at the USPTO http://www.waltmire.com/blog/archives/2008/03/05/aipla-suggests-improvements-at-the-uspto/ Patent Law :: Focusing on Software and Electronic Arts Sat, 02 Oct 2010 21:39:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Examiner A http://www.waltmire.com/blog/archives/2008/03/05/aipla-suggests-improvements-at-the-uspto/comment-page-1/#comment-23630 Examiner A Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:10:59 +0000 http://www.waltmire.com/blog/archives/2008/03/05/aipla-suggests-improvements-at-the-uspto/#comment-23630 For the first two points, there already is such a culture. I would much rather call the attorney and get an examiner's amendment to allow a case than write a final rejection that I don't get paid to write. I will also call an attorney if there are minor claim issues. I agree that Notices of non-compliant amendments are wastes of time, but often those notices are sent by the paralegals before they even reach the examiner's desk so sometimes we have no control over it. I get very few appeals requests but I disagree that the appeal submission process is flawed. The examiner has to be there to explain his rejection. OK maybe it's unnecessary to have the boss there, but, if anything, having more people there makes the case undergo more scrutiny. We are very careful to make sure that a rejection is reasonable before proceeding to the board. Examiner retention is a problem and the pressures of the production system is intense. I don't anticipate things getting better unless we get more time per case (which won't happen). As for quality monitoring, we already hugely afraid of the quality checking people and we don't get paid for the intermediate actions so there's already lots of incentive to get things done write the first time. For the first two points, there already is such a culture. I would much rather call the attorney and get an examiner’s amendment to allow a case than write a final rejection that I don’t get paid to write. I will also call an attorney if there are minor claim issues. I agree that Notices of non-compliant amendments are wastes of time, but often those notices are sent by the paralegals before they even reach the examiner’s desk so sometimes we have no control over it.

I get very few appeals requests but I disagree that the appeal submission process is flawed. The examiner has to be there to explain his rejection. OK maybe it’s unnecessary to have the boss there, but, if anything, having more people there makes the case undergo more scrutiny. We are very careful to make sure that a rejection is reasonable before proceeding to the board.

Examiner retention is a problem and the pressures of the production system is intense. I don’t anticipate things getting better unless we get more time per case (which won’t happen).

As for quality monitoring, we already hugely afraid of the quality checking people and we don’t get paid for the intermediate actions so there’s already lots of incentive to get things done write the first time.

]]>