USPTO Preliminary Examination Report for FY2010

By Dennis Crouch

Earlier this week, I wrote about the dramatic increase in the number of patents being granted in calendar year 2010 as compared with prior years. [Link] Several outlets expanded upon my report and condemned the USPTO based on a conclusion that the higher issuance numbers must have resulted from reduced examination standards. I disagree with that conclusion. The reality is that we have no evidence of reduced standards. Along with more allowances, FY2010 also saw more abandoned applications, more office action rejections, and more final rejections.

Most patent applications are associated with at least one other family member and multiple claims that can each be amended during the examination process. In that context, it is wrong to think about the patent examination as simply seeking a yes or no answer. In the recent past, however, many patent examiners took their role like that of a professional baseball umpire – calling balls and strikes, i.e., rejecting and allowing. That approach is probably not the most efficient way to reach the more nuanced answers necessary in the patent context. The USPTO's new model is to approach examination in a way that allows for more applicant-examiner dialogue and that that hopefully leads to better patents with fewer rounds of negotiation.

Of course, a major factor in the general increase in cases being concluded may be the reluctance of many corporations to spend money fighting protracted examination battles.

The USPTO has provided some preliminary data looking-back on patent examination during Fiscal Year 2010. The first chart shows the number of patent applications allowed each fiscal year for the past decade. FY2010 saw a 27% rise over FY2009. At the same time, the total number of abandoned applications has increased about 7%.


The second chart (below) counts the number of allowances per examiner (APE). As the chart shows, the APE figure has increased over the past two years. However, the APE rate is much lower than 2001-2004.

62 thoughts on “USPTO Preliminary Examination Report for FY2010

  1. 61

    1. A text-based communication device comprising: input circuitry that provides a user interface to enable a user to perform at least one of inputting and editing a text message; transmission circuitry for sending the text message; and processing circuitry for controlling the sending of the text message based on at least a portion of the text message and at least one message control condition, wherein the at least one message control condition comprises a rated message control condition corresponding to the user’s designated language skill rating.

    Break it down:

    A text-based communications device comprising:
    input circuitry
    transmission circuitry and
    processing circuitry.

    It’s a means-plus-fxn claim but all of the novelty is in the function and if you look at the spec … where’s the structure that distinguishes this circuitry from that in the prior art?

    FAIL. Time to toss in re-exam and watch it fry.

  2. 60

    “Tell me again why would I bet you? These changes are very much in line with what I would have wanted.”

    I’ll tell you why. Because you’r convinced that they’ll have an impact. And they will not.

    “Since reading aint your strong suit, I’ll give ya a couple weeks to let the impact of these changes sink in for ya.”

    There’s not going to be any impact tard. That’s my point.

  3. 58

    Check out this awesome patent just granted on October 12:

    link to cnn.com

    Apple has patented technology that could be used by parents to prevent their kids from sending sexually explicit text messages — or “sexting.”

    The technology, which has not been commercialized, would let a phone’s administrator block an iPhone from sending or receiving texts with certain words.

    WOW!!!! Filed way back in the dark ages of 2008!!! How in the heck did humans evolve brains so huge that they could figure this out at the very dawn of the computer age??!!?!?

    Here’s the incredible claim:

    1. A text-based communication device comprising: input circuitry that provides a user interface to enable a user to perform at least one of inputting and editing a text message; transmission circuitry for sending the text message; and processing circuitry for controlling the sending of the text message based on at least a portion of the text message and at least one message control condition, wherein the at least one message control condition comprises a rated message control condition corresponding to the user’s designated language skill rating.

    CERTAIN ART UNITS OF THE USPTO ARE STAFFED WITH INCOMPETENTS AND/OR OVERWORKED EMPLOYEES WHO ARE UNABLE TO DO THEIR JOB

  4. 57

    Malcolm you are interested in Europe. Thanks for the news item above, reproduced below:

    “they knew they were lying when they signed the foreclosure affidavits”

    I see a parallel with the current UK debate about “Identity Cards”. Some say they are dangerous, and worse than useless, because people have so much respect for authority and so give them so much deference, which of itself facilitates crime.

    Mainland Europe has no cross-examination, and in consequence believes that an Affiant will routinely swear whatever he is paid to swear.

  5. 56

    link to finance.yahoo.com

    In an effort to rush through thousands of home foreclosures since 2007, financial institutions and their mortgage servicing departments hired hair stylists, Walmart floor workers and people who had worked on assembly lines and installed them in “foreclosure expert” jobs with no formal training, a Florida lawyer says.

    In depositions released Tuesday, many of those workers testified that they barely knew what a mortgage was. Some couldn’t define the word “affidavit.” Others didn’t know what a complaint was, or even what was meant by personal property. Most troubling, several said they knew they were lying when they signed the foreclosure affidavits and that they agreed with the defense lawyers’ accusations about document fraud.

    Maybe this is why the PTO requires its examiners to have technical backgrounds. ;)

  6. 55

    I agree that it is mistaken to equate increased patent issuance with decreased patent quality. USPTO Director David Kappos has implemented some creative programs and pragmatic approaches that appear already to have gone far in improving efficiency and morale at the patent office. I think he deserves credit for his improvements.

  7. 54

    The gathering of idiots is complete.

    I can envision the gathering as the four horsemen – in a Monty Pythonesque way:

    Led by IANAE, the only one capable of actually riding a horse.

    Maxie – riding his horse backwards, always looking in the wrong direction.

    6 – typically falling off his horse, catching his foot in the stirrups and being trampled by his own horse.

    And far off in the distance, there is Malcolm on another frolic, his horse actually being a donk ey.

  8. 52

    an impossibly sensitive detection instrument

    Ya might think that from the way certain people react, now wouldntcha?

  9. 51

    from LAWYERS not for LAWYERS.
    But as usual I proof read and it looks like I am dumber than I am. But isn’t that the message they are trying to get across here. Instead of one that they need to address.

  10. 50

    I forgot the one that I listed, and more than likely the reason they have eaten it.
    I have received phone calls for LAWYERS? telling me i need to deal with copyright. that is the Issue they said. Don’t take it to Court on conduct they said.

  11. 49

    Maxies point is an excellent point!
    I tired to post on IP Watchdog and here but the posts were taken.
    My fees were paid in full and denied. Now they are back up on the 8 year.
    Why hasn’t the Legislature questioned the way the design patent is hidden?
    Why was the Chippendale cuff case up after I posted and it was eaten?
    You need to even if it’s for your own self… question?
    And if they eat this one I will call.

  12. 48

    That would be 7 or 8 amongst the contributers to this blog, would it Cy? I did not realise it was so many.

    Or just 7 or 8 amongst all those registered to practice? In that case, this blog is an impossibly sensitive detection instrument then, isn’t it?

  13. 47

    Gee Maxie, if I second Cy’s request, should we all take umbrage at your continued postings?

    Iza think that you better start thinkin about what you ask of others when ya not be willin to do the same.

  14. 46

    But, reading these threads, I am struck by the realisation that some American patent attorneys share this view that, once my client has paid me a whole heap of money, the PTO has no legitimate business any more to stand in my client’s way. The more expensive the drafting job, the greater the entitlement to a patent.

    You’ve nailed us, Max. You’re right. There are 7, maybe 8, American patent attorneys that share this view. Now that you’ve exposed this horror, can you please be quiet?

  15. 45

    6,

    Tell me again why would I bet you? These changes are very much in line with what I would have wanted. Especially the repeated parts about balance and accountability of the examiner costing either the Office or the applicant more money.

    Since reading aint your strong suit, I’ll give ya a couple weeks to let the impact of these changes sink in for ya.

    A better bet would be over/under how many times you be otch about these in the next two years. Where’dya think Vegas would set that line?

    sarah,

    we also know that Lawyers that have called me back… some were not who they said they were.

    Twasn’t me. Like I done told ya before, I aint got no hand on your wallet. I only do have admiration for your fortitude and a soft spot for your cuffs. Godspeed my friend.

  16. 44

    Now we know who ordered the cherry’s to shoot at me.
    Now we know they wanted that application before Loffler got it.
    We also know that they screwed Hal to place the blame on him.
    We also know why Fla and TN are just watching to see what happens.
    And we also know that Lawyers that have called me back… some were not who they said they were.
    We also know that each time I use Martindale Hubbell, it is referred to as a cookbook.

  17. 43

    “Tell me how 6 – you have all the old guidelines plus new additional ones”

    Because workflow is a thing of the past, and we only have an “average pendency” shall we say, for amendments etc. They might do something for AF’s, I haven’t heard what happens to them, but I’m quite happy to not have to deal with workflow for the most part. I have been advocating against it for quite some time.

    Your additional quality checks are cake for me tardface, I already pass them with flying colors. My prosecutors love my work for the most part so if that “survey” has any meaningful impact on my personal quality then that’s in the bag. People that review my work think it is worth bringing in my old spe to train our AU so they can be like me. Of course they don’t realize that it was my very first spe that taught me how to classify, and the caselaw that taught me how to make a decent action. My old spe didn’t train me that much.

    Seriously, I know you’re incompetent ping, but you can at least recognize who is the best there is. The guy that told you so in a previous thread knows who I am, and he wasn’t exaggerating. The fact is, I’m the examiner you, AI and NAL wish you could have. Quality is not an issue for me. Making no.’s while keeping quality is my only issue. These quality procedures fit me like a glove.

    Ha te to toot my own horn, but jez ur just being an arsehole about things you’re completely ignorant of.

    “The Search- and FOAM-to-established-guideline quality metrics mean that aimless key word searches are goin to be dinged,”

    Hardly tard. They’re quite sanctioned by the higher ups. Highly encouraged. If you think examiners were just doing that because they thought it was fun, think again. And Kappos is not going to change it either. “blind” word searches are still a great tool.

    “I knows that you aint still holdin to that thought that ya don’t havta read the specification at all (showin ya do listen once in while), but now the quality metrics will be taggin those that “examine” like that.”

    And probably not doing anything about them. You just watch. Lets make a bet now. Even IF these things were going to be as much of a “problem” for me as they could be for one of the worst examiners here, I’ll bet hard cash that nothing happens. The whole point of this new system is to make it lax, they even build in a few freebies every few years. It’s David K treating problems, as, and I quote, “fixable”. Which imo is how “quality” aka previously workflow, problems should have been being treated for awhile now.

    But like I said, lets make a bet. The new quality procedures go into affect. Quality as defined by you and your ilk will not go up. You’ll later read on the PTO website that less than 50 employees were let go in the next year (for any and all reasons including quality, production, punching a spe etc). Surely, to you, that number should have skyrocketed to, oh, 3000?if this new quality issue was going to be a problem for anyone.

    But it won’t be.

    So how much we betting?

    And let me take a few seconds to tell you why it won’t be a problem for anyone. Because at most they’ll have to fake their searches, and withdraw/not make a few finals they wouldn’t have otherwise. Big fraking deal. They’re going to “game” any arbitrarily setup system, even the one proposed. The whole issue boils down to nobody managing/properly teaching examiners, and the lack of time to examine. Most spes “manage” in a manner that is quite foreign to any company, and this is not a job that lends itself to being managed very well as each case has specifics that it is prohibitively time expensive to tell someone else about. And, even if examiners were trained to do the job, and wanted to do the job right, you’re still going to hit a wall on time available. Not everyone is willing to put in VOT.

    Also, I note, the job is regarded as a big joke by most. It is readily apparent that quality doesn’t matter. Just look at what gets you a bonus and what doesn’t. When we start seeing quality bonuses things MIGHT change a tiny little bit. Till then, good luck.

  18. 41

    “Posted by: MaxDrei | Oct 10, 2010 at 05:39 AM”

    The gathering of idiots is complete.

    “Posted by: sarah mcpherson | Oct 10, 2010 at 06:00 AM”
    Is it me or does this person’s posts remind me of someone who is REALLY a couple beers short of a six-pack or somebody working with a bad english-translation program. Those posts remind me of the Zippy cartoon strip.

  19. 40

    Hey INANE,
    I missed the October 7, 2010 at 12:01.
    I can’t believe I didn’t see that till I was copying. You first of all must be Pings Cousin. And second of all good luck in me going to Jail….LOL.

  20. 39

    Really they think stealing, threatening, trashing and destroying a persons life is all going to go away after they give her back what was hers. Fifteen years. Fifteen Years! Fifteen Years. They enjoyed my fruits. and crushed me like a grape. And They think I am now a happy camper?

  21. 38

    Every patent attorney in private practice is aware of the tendency of some sad case private inventors to think that their entitlement to a patent rises proportionately with the amount of their own money that they spend, in futile efforts to protect their non-invention. Some patent attorneys try to disabuse such inventors of such expensive illusions.

    But, reading these threads, I am struck by the realisation that some American patent attorneys share this view that, once my client has paid me a whole heap of money, the PTO has no legitimate business any more to stand in my client’s way. The more expensive the drafting job, the greater the entitlement to a patent.

    I’m also struck by the thought that, at least in the arts that MM is highlighting, they could be forgiven for thinking that.

  22. 37

    Tell me how 6 – you have all the old guidelines plus new additional ones. The Search- and FOAM-to-established-guideline quality metrics mean that aimless key word searches are goin to be dinged, especially when that FAOM results in writeups that have nothin to do with the claimed invention in view of the specification.

    I knows that you aint still holdin to that thought that ya don’t havta read the specification at all (showin ya do listen once in while), but now the quality metrics will be taggin those that “examine” like that.

  23. 36

    lulz ping, I don’t think you’ve actually read the new guidelines, they’re going to be easier than ever to comply with.

  24. 32

    6,

    As far as I know, the Claims and Continuation Rules are still illegal, and the motion for non-vacatur is still denied (Thanks Tafas).

    With that in mind, ya might think about what your job actually is (and no, the government aint gonna be able to force applicants to do your job). If you as an examiner have to “dig up basics and present such concepts as ‘evidence’”, then ya shouldn’t be confusing that with what applicants havta do.

    Ya gonna have to get on the ball quick 6 – them new examiner quality metrics are goin to be taxing enough, what with the curtailment of key word search without regard to the spec and all. That crrpy move will now be dingin ya big time (Yeah, we can drag good Ol Ned through the mud yet again on this issue – he never did complete that homework assignment on this topic).

    Malcolm,

    Ya remember the Peanuts tv show with Snoopy and Lucy and Charlie Brown? Ya know when the adults spoke, all you heard was blah blah blah? That’s about all your rant above was – blah blah blah.

    Nice donk ey though.

  25. 31

    The only unfortunate thing about the exiting of Dudas and his cabal of innovation henchmen was that he didn’t drag Malcolmtent, 6, and their ilk out the door with them.

  26. 30

    The only unfortunate thing about the exiting of Dudas and his cable of innovation henchmen was that he didn’t drag Malcolmtent, 6, and their ilk out the door with them.

  27. 29

    “The worst patents require no technical knowledge whatsoever to discern their pxss poor quality”

    Malcolm, are you saying that you have no technical knowledge?

  28. 28

    “And now you are supposed to spend time and the client’s money digging up basics and presenting such concepts as “evidence”. Really?”

    Well, they want examiners to do that, so I don’t find the thought completely foreign that they might also desire you do that as well.

  29. 27

    >>>Of course, a major factor in the general increase in cases being concluded may be the reluctance of many corporations to spend money fighting protracted examination battles.< << I agree. Many small companies have simply "dropped out" of the patent process. Also, larger companies who in the past might have paid for continued arguments through RCEs, have stopped funding such useless paperwork, and at most, will put up with only one RCE (with screaming and yelling) to put any additional evidence in the case that you strongly recommend might help tip the odds on appeal, and which an examiner won't enter in an AF amendment. Rather than truly present "evidence" in many cases, you are reduced to "teaching the basics" in the technology by resorting to copied pages from "101 level" textbooks or multiple web references (wiki is disfavored, since of course it can be changed --- like textbooks can't be published with differing info ) to provide definitions and explain basic concepts. All of which were formerly fair game for discussion in attorney argument between an experienced examiner that understood the technology and an competent practitioner in the art. And now you are supposed to spend time and the client’s money digging up basics and presenting such concepts as “evidence”. Really? How about hiring examiners that know the basics in their assigned field of examination, or at least keep them there long enough to become proficient and to be useful for some period of years after they gain such proficiency….

  30. 26

    ping O Lookie – another windmill.

    You mean another patent claim of incredibly dubious validity, don’t you ping? Let me know if you disagree with any of the facts or arguments I presented. I’ll be shocked if you manage anything more than your usual sputtering trollish nonsense but go ahead and surprise us all with a sudden display of articlate and compelling argument rebutting the one I presented above. Or you could just stop making an xss out of yourself.

    Question: how sxcky is the PTO when a claim like that gets issued? If that claim was valid, it would be rather valuable, no? I mean, I would like to own a patent like that. Is there a way to guarantee a poor examination so I can buy the right to shakedown every content provider in the country? I mean, other than just continually filing crxp until somethiing sticks.

    the pendulum is swinging back to a more reasonable condition

    Why is it reasonable for reams of totally crxp claims to be issued every week? Please explain.

    funny that those providing these “insights” have no technical degree or ability to discern the “quality” of a patent . . .

    The worst patents require no technical knowledge whatsoever to discern their pxss poor quality. That is because there are no new technological advancements in the claims, unless you believe that reciting a “computer” turns an obvious idea into something magically patent-worthy.

    That’s another question for the USPTO: why require “technical” degrees for agents or examiners when the some of the “hottest” art units have nothing to do with technology and everything to do with accounting, advertising, socializing and games? Still waiting for an explanation. Surely the answer is not that engineers and programmers are on average more intelligent than liberal arts majors.

  31. 25

    Funny how those that have never had matters before the USPTO write “scholarly” insights into what is really going on at the USPTO . . .

    Also funny that those providing these “insights” have no technical degree or ability to discern the “quality” of a patent . . .

    So tired of “experts” who write, write, write and thereby self-promote, self-promote, self-promote all the while never actually being in the ring . . .

  32. 23

    My guess is partially in agreement with those who think the increased number of former freshman examiners who now have signatory authority may have something to with these numbers, as previously those examiners would have been far less likely to allow anything.
    Clearly interviews can expedite prosecutions, with much faster negotiations of allowable claim amendments, technical explanations, etc. Considering the costs of RCE’s, and, even more, appeals, and the reduction in adverse written prosecution file histories, I’m surprised more clients do not insist more on interviews, at least by telephone, especially now that Kappos is encouraging them.

  33. 22

    “Oh, really? Why not? ”

    They’re always skimpy on these kind of details MM. Well, usually anyway. And when I invite them to explain, I never hear back about that.

    Sometimes I draw them an o rly owl.

    ___
    {o,o}
    |)__)
    -“-“-
    O RLY?

  34. 20

    Malcolm, perhaps we need a king examiner and a reeducation field where bad examiners must play at lower wages until they have learned something. The king examiner would be like you, a person with a mean streak who has no mercy for the s t u p i d. It would be his job to monitor the gazatte for i d i o c y and to send the responsible examiners to the field until the king is satisfied they can go back to work and stop being an i d i o t.

  35. 19

    Malcolm, perhaps we need a king examiner and a reeducation field where bad examiners must play at lower wages until they have learned something. The king examiner would be like you, a person with a mean streak who has no mercy for the stu—pid. It would be his job to monitor the gazatte for idiocy and to send the responsible examiners to the field until the king is satisfied they can go back to work and stop being an id–iot.

  36. 18

    All of this data can be attributed to the increase in average experience (and increase in average GS-level with corresponding increase in average production level requirement) of the examination corps

    Okay, so let’s look again at claim 1 of 7,806,329.

    1. A computer-implemented method of providing targeted video promotional material, the method comprising:

    transmitting a promotional item for display on a video terminal;

    determining whether the promotional item was skipped; and

    updating, with a computer, a profile corresponding to the promotional item based on whether the promotional item was skipped.

    I peeked at the prosecution history. Only a handful of published patents and patent applications were cited (because nobody ever writes about collecting TV viewer information anywhere else — LOL). According to the PTO, the prior art taught providing video and updating a user profile to show whether content, including commercial content, was skipped.

    The distinction credited with being patentable is that updating a profile “corresponding to the promotional item” was somehow deemed to be non-obvious, while updating a “user” profile in the identical context was deemed obvious. This, of course, makes no sense at all.

    Note also that the criticality of this distinction between “user profile” and “promo item profile” is completely absent from the specification. Indeed, the term “user profile” appears over 40 times. The term “profile corresponding to the promotional item” appears only in the abstract and once in the Summary section, each time followed by reference to a viewer profile, e.g., “profile corresponding to the promotional item or a viewer…”

    Applicants argued that the references cited by the PTO (teaching the updating of a user profile based on skipped promo items) “do not allow” for functionality such as “learning from viewer’s reaction to the item how that item is perceived by different demographics.”

    Oh, really? Why not? Of course no explanation is provided for this odd assertion because it’s bleeding obvious (even way back in the stone ages of 2006 when this thing was filed) that one could simply compile the information from various user profiles to achieve the stated “functionality.” See, e.g., 6,887,159, filed in 2002 (“data may be used to generate statistics”).

    Somehow the PTO couldn’t figure this out in the ten minutes that it took yours truly to figure it out. And this is not my area of expertise by a long shot. Perhaps it’s because the Examiner in this case was “inexperienced.” Wanna bet?

  37. 17

    Wasn’t the number of application filings going up at the same or simlar rate about 2 1/2 to 3 years ago?

    With a substantially constant allowance rate, that would naturally lead to a higher absolute number of allowed cases, eh?

    Unlesss I’m missing something, I’m not seeing any surprizing, unexpected. or unpredictiable information to one of ordinary skill.

  38. 16

    “Yes, there is no doubt that the APE has increased.”

    That is excellent news Mr. Nowotarski.

  39. 15

    All of this data can be attributed to the increase in average experience (and increase in average GS-level with corresponding increase in average production level requirement) of the examination corps.

    There was some serious hiring going on from 2005-2008 (I believe those are the years the Office hired above or close to 1000 new examiners each year). Of those examiners who haven’t left the office, most have progressed to GS-11, GS-12, GS-13 or even GS-14 (primary examiner) levels, which require more production.

    Therefore, looking at just raw numbers is inconsequential because the same number of examiners are just doing more work.

  40. 14

    Is overtime up that much, or are you guys spending way less time per action? Because I’m starting to think this actually is circumstantial evidence of reduced standards, one way or another.

    There is no possible way that examiners could actually be working harder or are being more efficient, could there be IANAE?

    Watch out examiners, when IANAE’s agenda suits treating you like kings, kings you are; but when his agenda is threatened by data that actually suggests you getting your acts together, under the bus you go – one way or another.

    What a F___ hypocrite.

  41. 13

    “I’m sure all will waste their Friday nights hand wringing over this news — priceless.”

    Idk if being at work is a waste, but I was on vacation so now I have workflow to deal with.

  42. 12

    Wheres the preliminary results of the Bilski open question survey promised by the “end of the week”?

  43. 11

    6, IANAE, and Malcolm Mooney all jump out of the woodworks on this one … LMFAO

    All we need now is MaxDrei to exclaim how the EPO is now issuing even more patents per Examiner than the USPTO and the gathering of blathering, blubbering idiots will be complete.

    I’m sure all will waste their Friday nights hand wringing over this news — priceless.

  44. 10

    ” a major factor in the general increase in cases being concluded may be the reluctance of many corporations to spend money fighting protracted examination battles.”

    I agree

  45. 9

    “Add 6 to the jumpers.”

    Ur just mad because ur vertical sux. Whereas I on the other hand can jump all the way up to conclusions.

  46. 8

    So, lets see, 6 comes on the board 2-1.5 years ago and says specifically: prepare for a major boost in allowances because we need money.

    2 years later we find out that there was indeed a major boost in allowances.

    Conclusions?

    6 is a geneus!!!!111!

    We need $$$.

    “Is overtime up that much, or are you guys spending way less time per action?”

    The OR?

    Obviously there is evidence of this guys. Why don’t u just come down to the office and collect testimony?

    At the same time though, you shouldn’t be concerned about it, from what I hear from the old timers it is a cycle that repeats itself over and over. More strict examination, less allowances, less strict examination, more allowances, more strict examination … on and on forever. It is basically political.

  47. 7

    I’d love to see a chart showing an allowance rate for all examiners in a given year having the same or relatively similar amounts of experience at the patent office. It is imperative to account for the effects of the hiring freeze, and the rising proportion of experienced examiners if we are to measure the implications of the changing PTO policies.

  48. 6

    DC However, the APE rate is much lower than 2001-2004.

    As it should be. 50% allowance rate? C’mon. The question is: why is it rising when it should be falling?

    The most likely answer: less diligent examination as a result of management pressure on examiners.

    The USPTO’s new model is to approach examination in a way that allows for more applicant-examiner dialogue and that that hopefully leads to better patents with fewer rounds of negotiation.

    Why would patents be expected to be “better” under this approach?

  49. 5

    What part of “we need $$$” do you not understand?

    Yeah, about that…

    More allowances, more rejections, more final rejections. That’s not just reduced fear of making bad allowances – that wouldn’t account for more rejections. It means a lot more applications are getting eyeballed by about the same number of examiners.

    Is overtime up that much, or are you guys spending way less time per action? Because I’m starting to think this actually is circumstantial evidence of reduced standards, one way or another.

  50. 3

    “The reality is that we have no evidence of reduced standards”

    What part of “we need $$$” do you not understand?

  51. 2

    Several outlets expanded upon my report and condemned the USPTO based on a conclusion that the higher issuance numbers must have resulted from reduced examination standards

    Look no further than these very boards and the likes of Malcolm Mooney and IANAE to jump to the same conclusions.

Comments are closed.