USPTO Seeks to Rehire Limited Number of Former Examiners

The USPTO has had a fairly large attrition rate over the past 15 years. Part of the cause of the attrition has been within USPTO. However, I believe that the real driving forces have been (1) the private great demand during that time for patent law professionals; and (2) the fact that many of the USPTO new hires were young college graduates who expected to leave their first job within a couple of years.

Training of replacement examiners is slow and expensive and also frustrates patent applicants who expect a professional examination for their $1000+ fee.

Now that the private law market has shifted, the USPTO now sees its opportunity to hire experienced individuals — folks who will “hit the ground running” and who will likely be more stable in their life goals. As a first step, the USPTO is “reaching out to former patent examiners, inviting them to return to the agency.”

In a media quote, USPTO Director David Kappos said: “These examiners can have an immediate impact on the patent examination backlog and reducing the backlog is our top priority.”

The immediate limited program is focused on former examiners who passed their probationary requirements and who resigned less than three years ago or have more than three years experience examining patents. See www.USAJobs.gov (GS 9–14).

123 thoughts on “USPTO Seeks to Rehire Limited Number of Former Examiners

  1. 123

    I left the PTO because the SPEs were just horrible…they like to sit with other SPEs and gossip about the examiners — many of the SPEs only would make the junior examiners reject! reject! reject!!!

  2. 122

    Often we forget the little guy, the SMB, in our discussions of the comings and goings of the Internet marketing industry. Sure there are times like this when a report surfaces talking about their issues and concerns but, for the most part, we like to talk about big brands and how they do the Internet marketing thing well or not so well.

    http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com

  3. 121

    “My question remains how the SPE role has not received attention/scrutiny in the agency’s efforts to improve patent quality/pendency.”

    speaking of the devil…

    link to uspto.gov

    see the “Wednesday Dec 23, 2009 SPE Performance Appraisal Plan-Award Taskforce” blog

    EXCEPT – this ‘plan’ appears to be more about appreciating and properly rewarding the superior work and dedication of the SPE’s and not really designed to deal with the sentiments expressed here…

  4. 120

    6: “To clarify, the subject is…”

    Znutar: “To be clear, “wearing down an examiner” as I use it means to keep knocking down bad rejections.”

    6: “Also, I’m faving this comment as evidence that “wearing down of examiners” is not a myth and such is admitted by the bar. Or perhaps Noise could simply take note…”

    6 – as the above string shows, you are, yet again, wrong.

    Stop digging.

  5. 119

    “just so I understand 6, so you are saying that it is perfectly ethical to make a rejection that you do not believe is kosher?”

    Does kosher = solid?

    And noise, if you could read you’d see that I was not saying that I was “talking about something else”. Except the part about Bollywood, which nobody seems to have answered yet.

    To clarify, the subject is wearing down examiners generally, not necessarily specifically in the instance that Znutar happened to get lucky and knock down one of the thousands of bad rejections that go out of here.

  6. 118

    way to turn your erroneous “admitted by the bar” stance into a briar patch, but-I-was-talking-about-something-else position, 6. Especially when you are (yet again) wrong, as Znutar clarifies. How do you stand to be so wrong so often?

    Still up to your old tricks, even in the new year.

    “Solid rejections aren’t the only rejections that need to be made.”
    – just so I understand 6, so you are saying that it is perfectly ethical to make a rejection that you do not believe is kosher? Is this a part of the reject-reject-reject philosphy that you were trained under?

  7. 116

    “Look up the word “irony”. ”

    How about while I’m looking that up you look up sarcasm.

    ” While you are at it, go back and look up my reasoning on why it is impossible to “wear down” examiners. ”

    UNASSAILABLE REASONING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Facts to the contrary are simply left conveniently aside.

    “Once again, if the examnier has doen his job and the rejection is solid, no matter how many times the applicant fights it, the examiner’s work is done and will stand”

    IF the rejection is solid is a pretty big if. Solid rejections aren’t the only rejections that need to be made.

    “Tell me 6, how does this “wearing down” actually happen? Any examiner that COULD be worn done by the actions as Znutar alludes to should not be an examiner in the first place.”

    Perhaps 100% of examiner who are here shouldn’t be examiners. That’s not for either of us to say.

    Either way, what Znutar subjectively believes to be a bad rejection, or a bad rejection that he believes was knocked down, does not dictate reality. Who knows the context of his “successful” arguments besides him? Are the majority made before examiners who are wise to the slow ar se appeals process and would sooner send another rejection than go through it? Are they even correct arguments?

    Mmmmm, I don’t know, but from the regular sampling of arguments I get, chances are against the later. Here lately it seems like most attorneys would be doing good to remember to address the combination of references in a 103 response. You simply wouldn’t believe the plague of people arguing about only one reference not containing a feature instead of arguing about the combination.

    You know what I would like sometime is a sample of Noise the Examiner’s perfect work. Work which demonstrates for all the world to see that there should never be an examiner that is “worn down”.

  8. 115

    To be clear, “wearing down an examiner” as I use it means to keep knocking down bad rejections.

  9. 114

    Quality answers from someguy and Primary #9.

    Nice to see examiners with brains and hearts posting here.

  10. 113

    Noise: I have said no to helping people, and I have put very strict limits on the times and circumstances that I can be available. Still, you wouldn’t believe how people need “favors,” etc. IMHO if you can’t work at least somewhat independently and then formulate a good question for a primary after giving things a reasonable effort, you shouldn’t be working at the PTO. I will say that I think the office has done a good job of letting those folks go that I felt were not up to snuff.

    Someguy: couldn’t agree with you more. Sometimes it isn’t practical or fair to turn down a request for help. The fact is, there are simply not enough examiners with the right expertise to offer quality help. Quality would suffer greatly if all primaries gave the ol’ bah humbug to everybody. A lot of SPE’s don’t know the art they are managing and rely on the primaries for determinations of allowability, etc and send the juniors our way. SPEs, especially new ones have very difficult jobs these days.

    Anon: Love the suggestion for more $$$, I wouldn’t turn that down. That’s why I think the performance plan needs to be changed so that the same duties are expected of all primary examiners.

  11. 112

    “…why not just say “no” to those besieging you and refer them to the SPE whose job it is?”

    As one of these besieged primaries, I can answer that question.

    1) At least in my workgroup, the SPEs already are overworked with the number of junior examiners that they have to train, reviewing cases, and do whatever else the PTO has them do.

    I know it’s the fashionable thing here to say SPEs don’t do anything, but like any other jobs, there are those who don’t care about doing quality work and those who do. From what I’ve seen of my SPE who does care about quality, being a SPE is very stressful work.

    2) Sometimes being a professional requires doing things that aren’t in your job description. Yes, there are examiners who do care doing quality work to the best of their abilities and being professionals. Think quality is bad now? Imagine if every primary said no to helping others out.

  12. 111

    “I’m faving this comment as evidence that “wearing down of examiners” is not a myth and such is admitted by the bar. Or perhaps Noise could simply take note of it now and stop blabbing about the mythical nature of such a thing occuring.”

    Fave away 6. It only goes to your continued (perpetual) ignorance of understanding things in context. Look up the word “irony”. While you are at it, go back and look up my reasoning on why it is impossible to “wear down” examiners. Surely you have that faved as well. Once again, if the examnier has doen his job and the rejection is solid, no matter how many times the applicant fights it, the examiner’s work is done and will stand. Tell me 6, how does this “wearing down” actually happen? Any examiner that COULD be worn done by the actions as Znutar alludes to should not be an examiner in the first place.

    Primary #9, since “[t]here is no requirement whatsover in a primary’s performance plan that he/she must mentor, train, or sign juniors’ cases”, why not just say “no” to those besieging you and refer them to the SPE whose job it is?

  13. 110

    Good comments #9! Face time is important, and its availability also draws people. And I know from past experience while at the PTO how demanding it can be to help others. Those are the reasons why I stated people like yourself deserve more money than some distant hoteling employee.

  14. 109

    I have been following this discussion with great interest. For now I would like to comment on the hoteling issue–while I can see the point made above that hoteling probably helps to retain examiners, from my viewpoint it has had a very negative impact on other office operations, in particular, training. I am the rare breed of primary examiner who wishes to remain on campus for the time being (call it a work-life balance issue). However, those of us who remain on campus(at least in my group) are beseiged by all manner of requests for help and office visits throughout the day. Yes, I get plenty of non-examining time for performing training duties, but the work is MUCH more demanding and exhausting than simply examining my own cases. There is no requirement whatsover in a primary’s performance plan that he/she must mentor, train, or sign juniors’ cases. This needs to be changed so that it is mandatory. I do not wish to be a SPE but feel like one most days. “Hiring our way out of the backlog” sounds great in principle but realistically, it is difficult to see how more people can be trained in a quality manner, in a way that fosters growth, critical thinking, and good examining habits. There is simply not the manpower to do so, at least in my art. I like my job and have no plans to leave the office, but I would like to see some of the imbalances with training among primary examiners addressed. I see that the director has convened a task force to address the SPE PAP, I think it is time for the same to occur with respect to primaries.

  15. 108

    “Speaking of irrelevant art, thanks for your contribution, 6. Rather than sit in the corner, I think I’ll go back to wearing down examiners. All of those no-count actions have to hurt.”

    Hey, don’t get cranky, you asked. Also, I’m faving this comment as evidence that “wearing down of examiners” is not a myth and such is admitted by the bar. Or perhaps Noise could simply take note of it now and stop blabbing about the mythical nature of such a thing occuring.

  16. 107

    Speaking of irrelevant art, thanks for your contribution, 6. Rather than sit in the corner, I think I’ll go back to wearing down examiners. All of those no-count actions have to hurt.

  17. 106

    “Why do you say that? My take is that if the first examination is so shoddy that it can be overcome without amendment AND the powers that decide such things believe that it warrants another search and rejection rather than allowance, then the applicant should be entitled to a refund for being made to jump through the hoop an extra time. On the other hand, if the Office has to choose between allowing a case and collecting the issue fee where a rejection has been pursuasively overcome, or having an examiner do the work all over, without a count, and with a refund to the applicant, I think they’ll more likely just allow the case. Ideally, it should drive first actions to be better.”

    That just makes the issue fee sound like a bribe.

    “I’m trying to provide incentives to allowance instead of yet another non-final over increasingly irrelevant art. Got any other ideas?”

    Do nothing and sit in a corner quietly while the rest of us take care of things.

  18. 105

    “That would raise the bar substantially for getting an allowance and in the end probably cost the client more money.”

    Why do you say that? My take is that if the first examination is so shoddy that it can be overcome without amendment AND the powers that decide such things believe that it warrants another search and rejection rather than allowance, then the applicant should be entitled to a refund for being made to jump through the hoop an extra time. On the other hand, if the Office has to choose between allowing a case and collecting the issue fee where a rejection has been pursuasively overcome, or having an examiner do the work all over, without a count, and with a refund to the applicant, I think they’ll more likely just allow the case. Ideally, it should drive first actions to be better.

    I’m trying to provide incentives to allowance instead of yet another non-final over increasingly irrelevant art. I would think that a count for allowance vs. no count to issue another non-final would be enough incentive, but apparently it is not. Got any other ideas?

  19. 104

    >>refund of the examination fee

    That would raise the bar substantially for getting an allowance and in the end probably cost the client more money.

  20. 103

    Any non-final office action following a response that overcame all of the prior rejections without resorting to amendment should be accompanied by a refund of the examination fee.

  21. 102

    This posting is getting a lot of comments, and a substantial portion of the comments may be great suggestions, or at the least helpful input, for Mr. Kappos in his efforts to improve quality etc. They should be directed to Mr. Kappos (on his blog, or other PTO information site), or Dennis should make a complilation and forward to Kappos.

  22. 101

    “Incompetent SPEs and examiners, on the other hand, seem to stick around until they retire, unless they are very very bad”

    this is true of most government agencies. it’s why Mr. Kappos needs to unleash his business smarts and do a clean-up at the patent office, so that more qualified and deserving professionals are holding these jobs.

  23. 100

    Incompetent attorneys and agents eventually lose clients. The marketplace takes care of these guys. Incompetent SPEs and examiners, on the other hand, seem to stick around until they retire, unless they are very very bad.

  24. 99

    “I think the Bar could provide anonymous cases that illustrate such abuses/neglect.”

    The same applies to Amendments from the bar. We examiners have our own collection of incompetent responses to the office actions.

    Of course there’re incompetent examiners (as well as SPEs, attorneys, agents). Proper procedure should be carried out to monitor their progress and retain or terminate them accordingly.

  25. 98

    @A plurality of thresholding units

    thanks for the clarification. the info about the inventory or backlog is not as useful as how long to expect the first office action. not having the latter, the inventory number is the only indication available that reflects the (mis)management of staffing.

    or is this job insurance for those in that area? that your job is guaranteed for the next 10+ years!

  26. 97

    someguy, it’s the SPE’s job to weed out the incompetent ones. we don’t have such issues in our AU–the SPE doesn’t, or rarely, reassign overdue amendments to others, or is directly coaching the weak ones.

  27. 96

    Someguy makes great points:
    Therein lies one of the main problems:
    “incompetent at their jobs… never even bothered to read the specification, can’t explain the claimed invention…”
    These folks should be fired or reassigned to clerical duties
    At a minimum, Examiners and their superiors should have a certain amount of literacy (oral and written), legal, and technical abilities. There are too many miserable Actions issued. I think the Bar could provide anonymous cases that illustrate such abuses/neglect. There is a website that discusses PTO Examiners
    link to usptoexaminers.com

    How much money does the patent part of the PTO take in annually?
    How much goes out paying its employees and providing benefits?

    The office could attract attorneys/agents with virtual opportunities (there or plenty of video app and desk sharing apps), signing bonus, merit bonus, etc.

    Provide a preliminary outsourced search from credible searchers (e.g., EPO) to each Examiner with a basic summary

  28. 95

    someguy – stop being a part of the problem by helping these people. if forced to help, have it noted in their personal record.

  29. 94

    “How could Kappos and his team make the job of an examiner more enjoyable (aside from increasing wages and reducing production requirements)???”

    Hookers.

    No, seriously though, increased wages and reducing production requirements are two things that would go a long way into making the job more enjoyable.

    I would also like to see more of my co-workers fired who are not doing their jobs well. It gets old real fast having to pick up the slack for those who are incompetent at their jobs by helping to process their overdue amendments, take over on cases that they screw up over and over again, and having to give them help on how to examine their cases when they never even bothered to read the specification, can’t explain the claimed invention, and refuse to provide their search notes even after being repeatedly asked to do.

    I know the Office has a retention problem, but retaining idiots demoralizes those who care about doing their jobs well and slows down overall examination of cases because resources have to be diverted at some point to fix the mistakes and carelessness cause by idiots who should have been fired long ago.

  30. 93

    curious,

    Open offices other than in Alexandria. It would be a pay raise without costing Applicants or taxpayers any more money. It would also allow some people who leave to be closer to the families to be closer to their families without leaving.

    As I said above, give them some autonomy. They’re hired for their intellectual abilities and then forced not to use them. If something is allowable, let them allow it. Beating someone up and fourth guessing them, making them undergo a formal review, etc. just makes it not worth the hassle/scrutiny/time.

  31. 92

    anonymous writes: “Only one or two of my co-workers actually enjoy their jobs”

    How could Kappos and his team make the job of an examiner more enjoyable (aside from increasing wages and reducing production requirements)???

  32. 91

    Anon:
    “Hotelers should make less money than someone of otherwise equal pay grade, but who is readily accessible to help and mentor junior examiners and other colleagues. The difference in pay between such individuals should be significant, say $10,000.00.”

    I have no trouble getting access to one of the primaries who hotels when I need help. No reason why they can’t do the mentor thing over the phone. The hoteling program seems to be one of the things the PTO does rather well imho.

  33. 89

    nonymousless:

    “Inventory” is different from “pendency”. That is, given the current rate of production, the estimate is that art unit could work through their backlog in 11 years.

    To look at it another way, suppose an art unit gets a million new applications filed in it today. Their inventory would skyrocket even though their pendency (at least for now) would remain the same. If they didn’t go on a hiring binge or some such to attack the problem, eventually their pendency number would approach their inventory number.

  34. 88

    NWPA replies to my written submission:

    “The biggest weakness I see in the EPO examiners is their arrogance.”

    but NWPA, I’m not an EPO Examiner. And EPO examiners are examining anyway under civil law, not common law, Rules of Play. So, EPO Examiners are not arrogant, just doing their job, under the applicable Rules of Play. Clear now?

    Number 9: Sorry. As I’m not an EPO insider, I have no knowledge with which to answer your question how many hours an EPO Exr is allotted, to examine an app.

  35. 87

    Anon:
    “Hotelers should make less money than someone of otherwise equal pay grade, but who is readily accessible to help and mentor junior examiners and other colleagues. The difference in pay between such individuals should be significant, say $10,000.00.”

    I’d love to hear your rationale?

    First, I note that primaries get other time (excused time where they aren’t responsible for examining) for mentoring.

    Second, hoteling is a significant goal for many examiners. At least half of my ex-colleagues came to the PTO precisely for this benefit, and the other half of them look at the job as a short term gig. In my opinion, doing away with hoteling would make those attrition numbers skyrocket and make future recruitment more difficult.

  36. 86

    Max, just curious is there any listing of how much time EPO examiners get per art unit?

    I agree with NWPA suggestion, I spend 75%+ of my time arguing dependant claims that will never see the light of day. Really drags down examining time and quality as a whole.

  37. 85

    “this person should be fired immediately. anyone who trained this person should be fired immediately.”

    not sure who is being called to get fired, but i have some different folks in mind: the people who manage the AU that have the current backlog of almost 11 years.

    link to intelproplaw.com

    ELEVEN YEARS!? unless it’s a misprint. the management of the Office having over 6000 examiners cannot incentivize or motivate a handful of examiners with basic computer knowledge to join the AU tackle the backlog? the SPE and the Director of the AU and TC, respectively, gotta go. that’s pure mismanagement. there’s simply no justification for Applicants having to wait over 10 years to receive the FAOM.

  38. 84

    “hit the ground running”
    “reaching out to former patent examiners, inviting them to return to the agency.”

  39. 83

    >>This is an EPO I do not recognise. Is this >>really how you see prosecution at the EPO? >>Fascinating.

    Yes. The biggest weakness I see in the EPO examiners is their arrogance.

  40. 82

    I was speaking with an Ex examiner, PHD the other day who said, “They should just rename it the rejection office. I have a PHD and this XXX isn’t obvious to me. How in the XXX is it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art or my retarded primary?”

    Doesn’t this say it all? They’re hired for thier intellectual ability and then told not to think or use any common sense. I see a disconnect there that would/did make me very unhappy.

    In my last private practice gig, we had a massive client where saying “appeal” was worse than dropping an f-bomb on them. We’d be 6 or 8 actions deep with the Examiner CLEARLY wrong, but appeal was out of the question. Obviously, this happened with the 1yr type Examiners who weren’t allowed to allow anything, but wanted to because they couldn’t come up with a rejection that they believed in (because it should be allowed). I was being paid to overcome the rejection, but we all knew the rejection was junk, including the guy issuing the rejection. That’s why I left that gig. The Examiner and I both wanted to end many cases (probably his whole docket) one way or the other (appeal/allow), but we weren’t allowed to. He left before I did, but we both left our positions. I wonder how long the new guy is going to last with that docket…

  41. 81

    NWPA, my jaw dropped when I read your technique for getting to issue in the EPO:

    “What usually you have to do is rephrase the dependent claim that the examiner has dismissed as adding nothing so that the examiner doesn’t exactly recognize it, or at least has a face saving way of saying you have changed it. Then you get an allowance.”

    This is an EPO I do not recognise. Is this really how you see prosecution at the EPO? Fascinating.

  42. 80

    “It isn’t a service job.”

    the nut of the problem. this person should be fired immediately. anyone who trained this person should be fired immediately.

    “Place a higher standard on the quality…”
    dont you have to recognize what “quality” means first? how do you expect a higher standard when the current lower standard cannot be met?

  43. 79

    “I think the PTO should move towards JPO office action styles. Short and sweet and burden on the applicant.”

    lol, then your production requirement should double.

  44. 78

    Another Examiner: “…a new-ish examiner, most of those counts come from new cases (only the rare abandonment or allowance and no RCEs yet). This is hard enough, but add 3-4 amended cases (no counts and negative workflow points if I don’t finish them) and the occasional after-final action and it gets harder.”

    There’s a 6 month period, theoretically between month 8 and month 14 after your first ever FAOM, where you are not getting disposals but are doing full pipeline work. Suck it up and work through it like every other examiner.

    I think the PTO should move towards JPO office action styles. Short and sweet and burden on the applicant.

  45. 76

    Actually, you know, if the PTO wants to fix things fast, an easy fix would be to stop rejecting all the dependent claims explicitly. Do the independent claims in the first action and then let the applicant pick dependent claims that they want to argue for in the second action.

    Place a higher standard on the quality of the rejection of the dependent claims.

  46. 75

    MaxDrei, I understand what you are saying and actually I think that the EPO system is better. I think the PTO should focus on the independent claims and then say if you want more then pay up for more time. My guess is that over 50 percent of the references examiners have to find is for dependent claims.

    One point I would slightly disagree with you with is that at the EPO what I’ve seen more than once is that the dependent claims actually do recite elements that are patentable over the prior art. What usually you have to do is rephrase the dependent claim that the examiner has dismissed as adding nothing so that the examiner doesn’t exactly recognize it, or at least has a face saving way of saying you have changed it. Then you get an allowance.

  47. 74

    NWPA: you put your finger on it when you write:

    “EPO examiners have it easier in that they don’t have to examine in detail so many claims.”

    That’s the essential difference between adversarial English common law, and continental European civil law.

    There is a misapprehension here. EPO Examiners do energetically scrutinise every dependent claim. They really do want to alight upon something they can allow. If they find such a thing they sure flag it up, as clearly as is humanly possible. They want their disposal point, on the next submission from the Applicant.

    I’m sorry that it is your experience that EPO Examiners give your dependent claims scant respect. If claim 1 falls as obvious, are any of your dependent claims not? I regret to say that in my experience many US dependent claims are in there for claim differentiation purposes, and provide no better basis than claim 1 for staving off an obviousness objection. In the EPO, they get short shrift. Examiner writes: Go look at the condensed presentation of my novelty and obviousness objections as revealed by proper study of my search report, and then Go Figure.

    NWPA, look carefully at an EPO Search Report. Each reference is applied claim by claim, identifying page and line numbering in each search reference, relative to each claim. Why repeat all that, all over again, in longhand, in the Exam Report. These official communications are not inter Rustico’s, are they?

    Instructive would be a week or two as a fly on the wall, watching how an EPO Examiner works, and how a USPTO Examiner spends his time in the office. EPO Exrs would realise how lucky they are. USPTO Exrs would realise how much of what they do is a pure waste of time.

  48. 73

    >>EPO Examiners seem to me to have no great >>difficulty quickly to come up with claim->>busting obviousness attacks. Do they have it >>easier? Is what is filed at the USPTO of >>better quality than what EPO Examiners >>scrutinise?

    From what I’ve seen EPO examiners have it easier in that they don’t have to examine in detail so many claims. I think examiners spend a lot of time on dependent claims whereas the EPO they seem to go at the broadest claim and then just say there isn’t anything else there. So, I think they do have it harder.

    With that said, from what I’ve seen from both offices, I’d say the PTO does a better job rejecting claims in general.

  49. 72

    n00b writes:

    “A huge chunk of my time is spent coming up with weak 103 rejections for material that I just can’t find in the prior art. This time could be better spent starting up a new case.”

    which rather shocks me. Why does he do it? Is it that he “knows” that the claim embraces something obvious but can’t prove it, or because he is obliged to continue for such long periods because he’s been told to find such evidence, however long it takes.

    Do USPTO Examiners need new orders, or better search tools?

    EPO Examiners seem to me to have no great difficulty quickly to come up with claim-busting obviousness attacks. Do they have it easier? Is what is filed at the USPTO of better quality than what EPO Examiners scrutinise?

  50. 71

    Seems like the quality of a SPE can vary greatly from unit to unit, although I don’t know how uniformity could be imposed. From my perspective as a new GS9 examiner, the count quota isn’t too hard to maintain, but letting us allow more material would free up more time and probably improve attrition.

    A huge chunk of my time is spent coming up with weak 103 rejections for material that I just can’t find in the prior art. This time could be better spent starting up a new case.

  51. 70

    Hotelers should make less money than someone of otherwise equal pay grade, but who is readily accessible to help and mentor junior examiners and other colleagues. The difference in pay between such individuals should be significant, say $10,000.00.

  52. 69

    I also forgot to note the obvious: bad rejections forced by these SPEs cause a lot of problems, not only for the client, but for the examiner.

  53. 68

    “The only reason to have an SPE is to train and guide and lead by example, and those who don’t should be demoted to examiner. Examiners should be required to review their SPEs performance every six months, paying particular attention to the quality of mentoring and guidance offered.”

    I agree 100%.

    There is currently very low accountability standards for SPEs. Generally, examiners working for “bad” SPEs just want to keep their heads down and not be targeted. I agree that there needs to be some feedback loop wherein examiners can semi-anonymously rate their SPEs, or somehow rate their SPEs without a backlash.

    It isn’t about “liking your SPE”. However when 90% of the Junior examiners under that SPE reject a couple cases every quarter that primaries have confirmed are allowable, then the SPE forcing the junior examiners to make the bad rejections might be precisely what is driving a high attrition rate in that art unit. Currently, this type of feedback isn’t seen until the the directors notice a trend at the Board… and that is all assuming the Directors are paying attention and the PTO’s clients are willing to take these bad rejections to the board.

  54. 67

    “a glimmer of the problem.”

    Indeed. The expectation of entitlement.

    “It isn’t a service job.”

    It is, by every definition.

  55. 66

    Just curious… why is there hardly any posting on Kappos’ blogs after the very first one in early Nov., which prompted some 34 postings? The rest of the blogs gather only 3 postings each on the average. DC must have developed a loyal fan base!

  56. 65

    “My question remains how the SPE role has not received attention/scrutiny in the agency’s efforts to improve patent quality/pendency.”

    speaking of the devil…

    link to uspto.gov

    see the “Wednesday Dec 23, 2009 SPE Performance Appraisal Plan-Award Taskforce” blog

  57. 64

    A JD and admission to the bar should be the *minimum* requirement for any GS-15 primary/SPE/SPRE/QAS/TQAS or TC director.

    The PTO should also do more to actively recruit newbie JDs interested in patent prosecution. Presumably, a 25+ year old law student with a real interest/background in patent law will have a better understanding of what they’re getting into as an Examiner than a 22 year old engineering grad who doesn’t even know what a patent is – i.e. hire people who actually have some basic understanding of patents and actually like this stuff and *want* to work here. Maybe partial tuition/CLE reimbursement would be an added plus to attract such folks. Hiring a better educated/qualified/motivated workforce would probably go a long way toward improving the OA quality that is constantly complained about on this board.

  58. 63

    It isn’t a service job. The USPTO earns 100% of its operating income. It doesn’t take a penny from the federal government or from your taxes.

    Also, upper management is typically lazy in any industry (private or government).

  59. 62

    “they have earned the right to become the typical lazy upper management worker.”

    a glimmer of the problem.

    people in service jobs need to recognize what service means.

  60. 61

    Many examiners wouldn’t be at the office if the promise of getting out of examining hell wasn’t there (becoming a SPE). A lot of SPEs have dedicated a decade or more toward examining..they have earned the right to become the typical lazy upper management worker.

  61. 60

    Although examiners work 40 hour weeks, it is 40 hours of studying and researching. There is a joke in the office that the job is like studying for a test every single day of your working life. Most employed engineers left all that crap back at school. “Working” 60 hours is different than researching for 40. In fact, I had one of those 60 hour jobs at a job site for 5 years before coming to the office. What I wouldn’t give to have that job back (travel and all). The pay isn’t enough, the production is unreasonable and one can never get ahead here.

  62. 59

    Just to give an example (while hopefully maintaining my anonymity — I have enough problems): as a GS-9 working in an electrical art, I need to average 6.5 counts per bi-week (assuming 80 hours examining time) to meet 100% production. As a new-ish examiner, most of those counts come from new cases (only the rare abandonment or allowance and no RCEs yet). This is hard enough, but add 3-4 amended cases (no counts and negative workflow points if I don’t finish them) and the occasional after-final action and it gets harder. Then there’s time spent trying to transfer cases, for which no time is given if you transfer to another electrical area, etc., etc. God forbid you get a case that you don’t understand, has lots of 112 issues or that you want to allow. Sorry folks, but allowances take up too much time because you have to “prove” it’s allowable (i.e., search the 10,000 or so patents in the subclasses, plus any relevant NPL). There’s no time to have meaningful discussions with other examiners, or eat my lunch for that matter. As I said, I’m a new-ish examiner, so I can’t speak for the more experienced types.

    (Sigh)…it really could be a good job. Director Kappos is taking positive steps and many of the suggestions above are good. I hope I don’t burn-out before then. As far as I’m concerned, the pay is good, so throwing more money at me won’t help. I just want to do interesting work that I feel has some value. Crazy, right?

  63. 58

    My question remains how the SPE role has not received attention/scrutiny in the agency’s efforts to improve patent quality/pendency. I’m not sure what an SPE pay range is. With the comments posted, it would seem like it’s somewhat wasteful(?)

  64. 57

    “…In my personal experience, most examiners were able to reach their production goals while working a 40-hour week…”

    There’s a difference between being able to meet production requirements within 40 hrs/week vs being able to meet it and being able to also produce good quality work within the time officially allotted.

  65. 56

    Yes, generally speaking I’m in favor of open source informal examination of all applications, whether the applicant likes it or not, to supplement the work of the Examiner. At least up to the 1st Official Office Action on the merits. Examiner’s would be free to chuck these submissions into the trash or copy them verbatim as they (subject to the quality control apparatus above them) saw fit.

    As others have noted, demoted SPEs probably would not present too much of a problem in the long term. More important than their possible happiness in their demoted state is the fact that a bad SPE can do more damage than a bad Examiner. Those unable to hack it as examiners would be encouraged to pursue other opportunities in life.

  66. 55

    “Serious question – did the peer to patent program really demonstrate that a great deal of useful information is available outside of the patent bar?”

    I recall reading something on their site about a survey they did as part of the pilot – apparently patent examiners think a lot of useful non-patent information was submitted through the pilot.

  67. 54

    “Examiners, are you serious that the quotas (production requirements) are the “main reason for attrition.” Is the problem that the requirements force examiners to work too many hours? DC”

    It was as of a few years ago. POPA did a survey of like 500 people who were leaving and it was the no. 1 reason by a wide margin. Of course, things could be different now, but I doubt it. Pretty much anyone that gets fired, or would quit before being fired is leaving because of production and that’s a chunk of the people that leave. Of the remaining people leaving obviously that’s chief on many of their minds. It’s cheif on a lot of people’s mind even though they’re not leaving.

  68. 53

    “I think that an expansion of this program (obviously with tweaks) would be a great way for the agency to get useful input, not only from the patent bar, but anyone with knowledge and interest in an art area.”

    For instance, we could get useful input regarding Turing-complete looms from the anti-software-patent folks.

    Serious question – did the peer to patent program really demonstrate that a great deal of useful information is available outside of the patent bar?

  69. 52

    “Concerning “Peer to Patent”, this program never included a large enough selection of applications and was, I believe, voluntary. ”

    Are you suggesting, then, a program that solicits (or accepts) input from ‘members of the patent bar’ and it would NOT be voluntary?

    Also, if I’m not mistaken, I think the peer to patent program demonstrated that a great deal of useful information is available outside of the patent bar.

    I think that an expansion of this program (obviously with tweaks) would be a great way for the agency to get useful input, not only from the patent bar, but anyone with knowledge and interest in an art area.

  70. 51

    Jane, I picture the demoted ones, after examining for a few biweeks, sitting in the kitchen with the gas on. Things like this have a way of working themselves out.

  71. 50

    “They should create an art unit examiner/lawyer position and give them a GS-20 salary. They would both examiner and advise on the law when needed. They could also give little classes from time to time on the latest law and procedure.”

    this would definitely go a long way to improving the quality of patents, and help to reduce pendency. It can prove to be cost-effective too – by making this a hybrid of the SPE position (ie. eliminate an SPE position that appears to be an examiner who just had the nerves to stick out examining long enough to be promoted to SPE position, and probably was motivated to stick it out because they knew becoming an SPE would bring fringes).

    Yes, I totally vote for an unit employing patent attorneys who will examine cases and do some management stuff, including regularly updating and training examiners on patent rules.

  72. 49

    Bobs, do you really want a SPE who has proven he/she doesn’t know how to examine as evidenced by the spawn of poorly trained examiner he/she have created to go back to examining?

  73. 48

    Also, many have questioned the role of the SPE. The only reason to have an SPE is to train and guide and lead by example, and those who don’t should be demoted to examiner. Examiners should be required to review their SPEs performance every six months, paying particular attention to the quality of mentoring and guidance offered. Otherwise, the job might as well be just another clerical position within the PTO bureaucracy.

  74. 47

    BigGuy, in fact I would let you draft a first action issue on your own applications. Of course, I would insist on a Statement of Reasons for Allowance, which would become part of the record. (Also, in case I did not make this clear – NO ANONYMITY would be allowed here.)

    Concerning “Peer to Patent”, this program never included a large enough selection of applications and was, I believe, voluntary. What I propose would not be, and submissions would have to be in a form familiar to Examiners. In other words, they’d look just like ordinary Office Actions, even down to the use of form paragraphs. If the Bar gave Patent Examiner’s a helping hand and guidance, Examiner QOL would rise and so too would the respect accorded their work product.

  75. 46

    I disagree with anon inasmuch as (some) SPEs actually do fill a necessary role here. A good SPE (or a good primary) can make a junior examiner’s time here a cakewalk. But a bad SPE can be worse than no SPE at all, because they actually add to a junior examiner’s workload above that which the examiner makes for himself by the quality of his actions. I suspect that the examiners who think SPEs are a waste of space probably have had one or more bad SPEs during their time here, and don’t realize that some SPEs have a very full plate when it comes to managing their art unit.

    Really, what’s needed (and what is apparently on the way) is a way to critically review SPE performance as it relates to mentoring junior examiners and helping them get good-quality actions out the door.

    That review process should also take into account the primaries that have been chosen to assist in this role. A primary who does a poor job of mentoring should have that reflected (a) on their own performance review, (b) on the SPE’s performance review, and (c) by the primary no longer being permitted to mentor junior examiners.

    I’d also like to see more SPEs drawn from the art units they are managing. Having expertise in the art is obviously extremely important. Unfortunately, some art units are small enough or “green” enough (with lots of junior examiners and few primaries) that this isn’t really feasible.

  76. 45

    They should create an art unit examiner/lawyer position and give them a GS-20 salary. They would both examiner and advise on the law when needed. They could also give little classes from time to time on the latest law and procedure.

  77. 44

    “…a completely “open examination” process by which members of the patent bar would be invited to draft preliminary, first cut Office Actions.”

    do you mean to suggest the agency should extend the PEER TO PATENT pilot program (www.peertopatent.org), and incorporate it into regular agency practice?

  78. 43

    there seems to be a great deal of consensus on this and other boards that SPE’s are simply not needed, or even a hindrance. Are they just flying under the radar? with so much scrutiny around examination and ways to improve, how come this isn’t becoming an issue to be addressed, not merely a gripe of many examiners?

  79. 42

    “…a completely “open examination” process by which members of the patent bar would be invited to draft preliminary, first cut Office Actions.”

    A very interesting idea, TwoB. I don’t suppose you’ll let me file (non-binding) first action allowances in my own cases, though, will you?

  80. 41

    “given the current makeup of the SPEs, the suggestion about letting SPEs manage or examine is just making things worse, if they don’t already know how to properly manage or examine.”

    I believe no SPE should keep their job. Their job is not needed, and in fact, its existence is the main reason things are so screwed up over there.

    If they are all sent back to examining, they would have to produce at a GS-15 level. This would weed out the good ones VERY FAST. The losers should be shown the door or given the option of working under one of their good primaries or a returning old pro at a GS-13 pay level until they get up to speed.

    All the stuff the SPEs now do could be done by people the age of my grand kids. The real legal and technical training comes from studying and conversing with their brother and sister examiners.

    If at least half of the current GS-15s were to examine adequately, the backlog would disappear very very quickly.

  81. 40

    Here in the midst of my PM sugar low, I propose a pilot program: a completely “open examination” process by which members of the patent bar would be invited to draft preliminary, first cut Office Actions. Except these wouldn’t actually be Office Actions or have any binding effect. Application gets filed electronically, is posted to the PTO’s web site within a week or two and is made available for any interested member of the Patent Bar to “examine” using much the same forms and formalities that the Office requires of its Examiners. Again, none of this would be binding on the Examiners, who would be free to ignore whatever preliminary insights the bar might provide. On the other hand, letting the patent bar take a shot at examination might prove to be of great help to the Examiner when the time comes to do the real First Office Action, and perhaps make the job more enjoyable and productive.

    Now to eat my cupcake.

  82. 39

    Great comments examiners. We on the outside would like to see your lives improve too.

  83. 38

    1. stop promoting strictly from within. in the old days, some companies promoted only those already there (and hired only college graduates). to survive in the competitive environment, they had to bring in qualified people from outside, in the industry to bring in fresh ideas. the uspto should be open minded about hiring, for example, patent attorneys with strong technical background into management positions, even if they don’t necessarily have hands-on examining experience.

    2. take corrective actions at all levels, not just for the low-life examiners, who immediately get shown the door if they don’t meet the numbers. identify SPEs who aren’t performing, give them proper training, and obtain and consider upward feedback from the examiners. there’re some SPEs who are very helpful in developing their subordinates with the proper way of patent examining, articulating why a rejection is improper, providing suggestions for search, and applying in the law in determining patentability. yet there’re other SPEs who’d keep telling examiners to reject without explanations or assistance, who are boldly exhibiting favoritism, blindly signing allowances submitted by certain examiners and kicking back rejections by certain other examiners.

    3. inject teamwork in the examining process. in software development, code inspection and walkthrough are the norm; for mission-critical applications such as those for spaceships, every line of code goes through formal reviews. patent examining does not need to be an isolated, behind-the-door process, and can potentially benefit from the experience and insight of other team members.

    given the current makeup of the SPEs, the suggestion about letting SPEs manage or examine is just making things worse, if they don’t already know how to properly manage or examine.

  84. 37

    that’s right soon to be, they simply don’t get it. The PTO could be an excellent place to work, but the donkeys cant see through the fog they themselves create! They are extremely lazy people who collect a lot of money for doing very little.

  85. 36

    I don’t think the recruiters accurately portray the work environment at the PTO. If someone would have honestly told me that being an examiner means that you need to work like a slave to get counts and nobody cares about what’s inside your head, I’m not sure how many engineers would jump aboard. Engineering school teaches you how to solve problems and think. The management here doesn’t care about either one of those things. It takes a specific type of personality to really enjoy being an examiner.

    I completely agree with anon; everyone should be examining!

  86. 35

    Somebody suggested military type ranks. That is a horrible idea! What the PTO needs is more collegial atmosphere. Everyone should be examining.

    This is what must be done:

    1) completely eliminate the “donkey” positions (e.g., SPE, Directors etc.). Hire high school grads to take care of this system management stuff.

    2) grade cases on a fixed number of allowed actions per disposal for their unit

    3) have juniors report to a few different primaries, who must sign off on their work

    4) make everyone talk to one another on a professional level

    5) fix the classification system and update it regularly to ensure examiners can find what they need to find, and can develop an expertise (see item 6 below)

    6) make sure examiners develop one or two expertise areas within the art covered by their unit and make this known to all, including people on the outside

    7) continue to review a fixed number of allowances per examiner per year

    I am sick of suggesting these great ideas over and over again. Please implement them and make everyone (except the donkeys) happy!

    Everyone in the examining division should be, you guessed it, EXAMINING!

  87. 34

    “examining patent application is still incredibly depressing and fruitless”

    this is a pretty powerful statement, i think, because it highlights the MIS-MATCH of individuals to their art. i’m sure many will disagree, but i think that if more effort was put into hiring the right people and providing a better system and work environment, more examiners may actually like their work, which would ultimately increase patent quality (and probably also reduce pendency/backlog).

  88. 33

    Since this is a patent law blog, everyone here seems to talk about the inside and outside as it pertains to patents: patent examiner and patent attorney/agent. But I still have an engineering degree, and I’m about to quit being an examiner to be a real engineer again. Even in this horrible job market, I know several people who have quit without having a job lined up.

    As for my reasons for quitting, “Another examiner” stole the words out of my mouth. The quotas burn you out quick. “Quality” at the office is a joke. Nobody cares what you do as long as you churn out enough counts, and those are a very poor assessment of how much work you’re actually doing.

    People who are supposed to be my mentors, while they have been examiners for a long time, barely have any knowledge about in my art. I can’t understand how my SPE is supposed to judge the patentability of the cases I’m working on. Also, since SPEs have been removed from examining for a while, they give terrible suggestions on how to attack cases, concentrating on how to get counts instead of how to find good art. I’ve read some studies that suggest junior examiners who cite more art in their allowances tend to leave the PTO, and I don’t think that is a coincidence. For all the attorneys that have to deal with junior examiners, like myself, don’t take it out on us if our SPE won’t let us allow. They sign our cases, and we are at their mercy.

    I was optimistic that Kappos would change the PTO for the better, but at the end of the day, examining patent application is still incredibly depressing and fruitless.

  89. 30

    anon, I seriously doubt that Kappos views this rehire bid as anything other than a play to take advantage of the down economy to reduce the backlog a bit. I don’t think he’s thinking this will be a long term solution (unless the anti-business environment persists).

  90. 29

    imho, patent examiners should be on par with patent practitioners – ie. have similar education and aptitude levels. As such, an extreme overhaul of the examiner corps is required, not merely rehiring those that chose to leave in the first place. in reality, these rehires will likely only come back because the economy is tough right now and probably not going to stay once the economy picks up again.

    I’m dumbfounded at the quality level of patent examiners. As anyplace else, there are many smart people in the agency, but I personally know of many that simply took a job with the agency because they had a ‘technical degree’ and no other lucrative job prospect.

    I’m a big fan of David Kappos and know he has the business experience to substantially improve the patent system, but I think this move will be at best a temporary solution. As expressed in various comments here, most chose to leave the PTO because they are unhappy with their job and look at it as a short term option to do better things, they make get excited about a “rehire” program because right now the economy is crap and there are no ‘better options’, but it will probably again be something they will go back to just to ride out the economy slow-down.

  91. 28

    I think this move is a mistake because hiring people who are apt to be miserable from day one is a mistake. It’s one thing to return to the Patent Office to work in Legal Affairs or some other non-examining capacity, but anyone returning to resume his old job as examiner likely would be doing so only because they are unable to obtain employment as an attorney. Why else would a former examiner with a law degree even consider doing something so personally demoralizing? It would be like one of those nightmares where you dream you are back in college, and realize only on the day of the final exam that somehow you enrolled in a course on French. And you don’t know a word of French.

  92. 27

    Wonder what ideas the new PTO management has for making new examiners feel more like they are part of a team?

  93. 26

    anonymous writes: ” many Examiners do not even speak with their supervisors for weeks, even months. We don’t feel like we’re a part of a team”

    Better training of supervisors is needed so that they are better mentors.

    (That is a problem with “hoteling.”)

  94. 24

    pmdishwash, I think that’s a big problem too. There’s no longer any real reason for the PTO to have to be in DC. And there’s NO reason for not having satellites in lower cost of living environments. That would definitely go a long way if it were me.

  95. 23

    Dennis – I don’t think production quotas/hours would be the main reason cited by most who leave the PTO. In my personal experience, most examiners were able to reach their production goals while working a 40-hour week. Not much to complain about there. Granted, not every art unit is the same, and not every SPE is the same, so I think you’ll hear many different reasons as to why examiners leave. For me (and others I knew), the PTO didn’t pay enough, especially in the DC market. If a GS-12 examiner cannot afford a home/townhome/condo within a 30 mile radius of the PTO, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that many will leave for higher-paying firm gigs or jobs in other cities.

  96. 22

    herenow, because they do not really value experience from the outside. They are embarrassed by it! I am not kidding!

  97. 20

    Why not provide incentives (salary, virtual, vacation, etc.) to lure unhappy private practitioners to the PTO?

  98. 19

    Dennis — I am likely to quit soon (trying to hold out until the new count system gets implemented so I can see if there’s an improvement) and would blame the production quota as my reason for leaving. I’m sure that the production quota for some art units is reasonable, but I don’t feel that it is for mine. In order to get the required number of counts, I don’t feel that I have the time to do quality work and I don’t want to sign my name to something low-quality. Maybe I just have the wrong type of personality for this place, but racing to churn out mediocre work every day isn’t my thing. I also agree with the lack-of-human-interaction and lack-of-validation comments posted above.

  99. 18

    9, because it would be 100 nuclei of experience the PTO very rarely sees. It would, in theory, be very good for the PTO. However, the jackasses/donkeys would remain in power!

  100. 17

    I hardly see why this is newsworthy. Even with PTO’s over the top optimisstic spin on things, they are only predicting less than 100 employees. Still going to have to hire at least 300 more just to keep with attrition.

  101. 16

    Civilians who work for the Government in the USA are always perceived as worthless, aren’t they? Government is always too big, isn’t it? No wonder ex-Examiners don’t ever say that they were once Government employees.

    I have a suggestion: give USPTO employees new job titles, that sound like military ranks. Then Examiners might get treated with more respect.

  102. 15

    “To the Examiners out there, know that life as an associate is EXACTLY the same. You’re in a windowless room writing responses that you know are not going to be read or considered by anyone, all the while being yelled at about costing too much to write those responses that no one is going to read. Oh yeah, and if you mess anything up, it’s malpractice and your life is ruined.”

    Gee, Bad Joke, perhaps you ought to consider a new career, or at least a new firm. That doesn’t sound anything like my life as an associate.

  103. 14

    DC, the PTO production was a little hard, but it is much easier than out here! I believe the reason so many of us would never consider going back is that there is such a large number of jackasses/donkeys in the PTO management, as well as the examining corps. I could not stand it any more about ten years ago (was a primary) and left for good. They always promote the wrong people!

  104. 13

    Dennis, my friends who are former examiners, 1) try not to talk about it, and 2) usually say it was a combination of hours/quotas, lack of guidance and development, and being worthless.

  105. 12

    Treating professionals like fungible units or cogs is a sure-fire way to achive non-professional results. This is true for ANY environment, and should be kept in mind by Kappos on the larger scale review of the production system (in other words, scrap the system and actually make the SPE’s manage).

  106. 11

    Examiners, are you serious that the quotas (production requirements) are the "main reason for attrition." Is the problem that the requirements force examiners to work too many hours? DC

  107. 10

    To the Examiners out there, know that life as an associate is EXACTLY the same. You’re in a windowless room writing responses that you know are not going to be read or considered by anyone, all the while being yelled at about costing too much to write those responses that no one is going to read. Oh yeah, and if you mess anything up, it’s malpractice and your life is ruined. That’s a little extra slice that I think Examiners don’t realize about the other side of the fence. The grass is always greener.

    I give Kappos kudos for attempting to run the Office like a business though. He’s getting higher marks than most of his predecessors for his attitude and approach if nothing else.

  108. 9

    In general I agree with most of the 8:42 am posting, in particular that production requirements being the main reason for attrition. Closely related is the incompetence of the SPEs, many promoted without any consideration for managerial potential or technical experience, but merely for gaming the system to meet the production numbers, or playing politics.

  109. 8

    As a former examiner, I commiserate with all the comments posted thus far. Yes, I totally agree that the contributory bottle-neck wld be the poor-quality-SPE’s. The ones who are so jaded and complacent & only look at cases at the 11th hour and who are never in their offices or respond to their phones or emails. The confinement of four-walls with no human contact maybe conducive to those who use their offices to sleep (which a lot of primaries do); but it is the thankless efforts that made the job really quite frustrating. I worked twice as hard and got same increases as the ones who barely made the production quota… what does that say about a system?

  110. 7

    How about getting rid of the poor quality SPE’s, such as ones with the hightest turnover. Getting rid of the dead wood, people who made SPE by hanging around long enough, would create an incentive for SPE’s to retain people rather than slam them with a production quota difficlut to make when you are not allowed to allow anything. Also get rid of instant promotions to art unit director after returning from a year of maternity leave.

  111. 6

    I like this idea. As a former examiner, I can certainly sympathize with the earlier postings regarding the work environment at the PTO. Glamorous, it is not. However, there are certainly days when I miss being able to set my own hours, work an 8-9 hour day, and not talk to my superiors for a week, even if that means staring at four white walls. By taking advantage of the weak market, the PTO is reaching out to those former examiners who remember those “pros” of the job, and pendency/examination quality should improve as a result.

  112. 5

    I couldn’t go back because I would pick fights every day. Yes, I would be hauled out in handcuffs the very first day after hunting down a few individuals.

  113. 4

    As I say, EPO Examiners (in 3-member teams, remember) have to write 19 times the full reasoning why a case should issue, for every one Refusal Decision they pen. Then, in the frequent inter partes oppositions they manage and judge, they are as likely to write a decision rejecting the opposition as revoking the patent. This all serves to replenish, every day, their confidence that they are playing a worthwhile and positive role.

    By contrast the lonely USPTO Examiner spends 100 % of his time finding reasons to say “NO!”, and then communicating them to the one who is paying for his work. Does he get any thanks for his work product? You tell me.

    What sort of person wants that, as a “job for life”? Is it the sort of person attorneys hope to meet, when interviewing an Examiner?

  114. 3

    I have to disagree with you Dennis – the most direct cause of the attrition remains the production requirements. I know for a fact that many Examiners who leave are actually forced to resign because they did not make their production quota (i.e. “leave or be fired”).

    If I had to guess at a second cause I would say it is probably that it’s a miserable place to work. Only one or two of my co-workers actually enjoy their jobs, and even those who enjoy it admit they would rather have a job as a SPE or a QAS. The rest of us are waiting for the first ticket out of here. Junior examiners are placed in windowless, closet-sized offices and forced to review and analyse boring technical documents all day. Human interaction is seldom required; many Examiners do not even speak with their supervisors for weeks, even months. We don’t feel like we’re a part of a team or that we are the least bit important, and having to do this kind of work at such a torrid pace burns us out.

    The fact that 30-40 examiners are still leaving in the midst of the worst job market in decades speaks volumes about the problems that still exist within the agency; Examiners who leave often do not have new jobs lined up. The USPTO pays quite well and very few Examiners will go on to higher paying jobs (unless they become practitioners). Those who could find work elsewhere are reluctant to take a pay cut.

    The USPTO really is a sweatshop – they have relied on a steady stream of new hires to keep their workforce at a sustainable level. This process has to be expensive, however, due to the costs of training, and this latest move of re-hiring former examiners is just another way to try to control costs in view of the agency’s budget crisis. I wonder if it might be more cost-effective to simply cut production requirements significantly so that more examiners will be retained.

  115. 2

    With the economy being so poor (even for patent practitioners) I expect that the PTO will have plenty of applicants.

Comments are closed.