The USPTO has indicated that it is planning to hire “hundreds” of new patent examiners this calendar year, including individuals with backgrounds in biomedical, computer, electrical, and mechanical engineering.
More here: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-hiring-hundreds-new-examiners-2020
Find USPTO Jobs Here: https://www.usajobs.gov/Search?l=&l=&a=CM56&hp=public&k=patent%20examiner&p=1
Down below, but worth exploring at top, I had posted a link showing increased US filing at the EPO in a sub-thread by Night Writer about his projected drop in US filings here in this Sovereign, and a resulting RIF of examiners.
While MaxDrie’s comment went in an interesting direction (and may well be worth exploring by some academics), I wanted to provide a different direction for my comment:
MaxDrie’s comment diverges to a focus on China (and the possible evolution of their content becoming more assertable), but the main thrust was different in at least two different ways:
1) would their be the possible impact (i.e., layoffs at the EPO) if the US sees a recession…
and to a lesser extent,
2) The TYPES of innovation being offered as the reason for the increased US filings align with the type being pilloried here as ‘abstract’ but yet possible to be ‘scrivened’ in a manner to get around the ‘as such’ and ‘per se’ restrictions concerning software innovation in the EPO.
These two facets provide an entirely different narrative than a “what is China doing” narrative.
US application are even or dropping. They have been made up by China applications. China applications in China have been dropping.
We should expect a significant drop in patent applications. Not sure how Mark Lemley will try to explain that, but I am sure he will spin it.
Night Writer,
THIS point is NOT about the US Sovereign, nor any activity here.
Of course it IS.
Think anon. Think it through.
Sorry Night Writer, but no. I am the one that presented the point, not you.
Sure, there may be ancillary effects and observations as to the US Sovereign (like, for example, why the EPO and not the US Sovereign), but those are not the main point I present.
anon, you have a narrow point about whether inventions rated as “abstract” here are being filed at the EPO to try and get around Alice/Mayo.
There are definitely some applications like that. There are areas where I work where I have never had technical objection at the EPO and yet they are held abstract in the USA.
Lol – no one was saying that the point is ‘narrow’ (but at least you seem to be walking back a bit your attempt to insert some other point).
It reminds me of your other ‘walk backs’ after you try to admonish me to ‘understand what others are writing’ — when I show that not only do I already understand what others are writing, i point out that you are not doing what you are recommending that I do. I fully ‘get’ that you have a point (a different point), but that just does not mean that every point must be subservient to the point that you want to make.
Here, the point is that there is a parallel going on. Much like the Chinese have bolstered filings in the US Sovereign (making a pullout a concern for the US Sovereign), the US has bolstered filings in the EP ‘Sovereign,’ and making a US pullout a concern for the EP ‘Sovereign.’
My second point DOES have to do with the nature of the US filings that have bolstered the EP ‘Sovereign.’
I was asking the first to poke fun at MaxDrei with how easy ‘scriviners’ get around the “as such” and “per se” limitations against business methods and software in order to obtain patent protection for types of innovation that have been under attack in the US. Have you seen how muted his ‘enthusiasm’ has been for these facts? This is NOT just “some” as you seem to want to label this (leastwise, per the article I provided). This is a driver not only for AN increase, but for the LARGEST increase in the EPO.
You need to be able to set aside your own points once in a while in order to grasp the different topics being put on the table for discussion. As I stated, this point simply is not about the point that you want to make about the US Sovereign’s condition and your predictions about that US Sovereign.
anon, you need to think about what others have written.
Heed your own advice, son.
“Heed your own advice, son.”
You do know NWPA is older than you right?
No. I do not know the real identity of Night Writer, and it is doubtful that you do.
Likewise, you do not know my real identity (including my age).
Lastly, you rather miss the meaning of the use of the term in the context here.
As you think about these things in the coming months, Lemley is a good case to think about.
He wasn’t so great at the start of his career, but he started to deliver a message that SV wanted to hear. Each time he says something there are 1,000’s of paid people to push it and support it in every way possible.
I certainly get your point about Lemley, and he does seem to have ‘cult of personality’ about him that is way out of proportion to any merits of his writings (writings of which are really logically horrible).
What also strikes me about software environment is the amount of diatribe from the likes of Slashdot and TechDirt that is anti-patent and how very much a Lemming culture has been instituted in so many followers. The Lemmings are some really smart technical people who are really du mb otherwise.
For many years now, one can read the vehemence against most all forms of IP protection in those forums. We have gone from a majority of “copyright is enough, patents are bad” to a “even though patents are bad, in this case copyrights are bad too” dichotomy. This is one reason why I have pushed for those who hold anti-patent positions to explain their contradictory views when they push for “software cannot be protected by copyright because it is functional” viewpoints.
Many Lemmings simply cannot employ critical thinking when it comes to innovation and why we WANT to protect innovation by way of the “Exclusive Rights” mechanism of the Constitutional Patent Clause.
What these Lemmings seem oblivious to is just who benefits from their blindly following the scripts that they have been given: the ultra mega rich and established entities of the Big Tech (one of the most aggressive entities forming the Efficient Infringer movement).
Down below, my pal with the shifting historical pseudonym habit postulated about Night Writer with:
“Maybe NW has become infected with the pounding the table/making stuff up mental illness. I only read a fraction of what those two post.”
Given that well over 95% of the posts coming from Shifty is directed to me, and given Shifty’s penchant for game playing (including the Malcolm-like Accuse Others Of That Which The Accuser Does), the irony is quite delicious.
and now down below (on the very same thread), my Shifty friend has quipped:
“you believe there are people that do not read what you type? … How long have you felt this way?”
Too clever by half, as the saying goes.
See link to dictionary.cambridge.org
Shifty appears to be under some delusion that his game playing detracts from the larger impact my posts make.
He could not be farther from the truth.
It’s clear that he views his attempts with distracting games aimed specifically at me (what is it now, Shifty, some 98+% of ALL of your posts are directed to me…?) to be a “success” because there are evident ‘rabbit holes’ of back and forth between his multiple shifting historical pseudonyms and myself. But he does not grasp that those rabbit holes merely hurt his viewpoint and have no effect on my viewpoints. He is simply not clever enough in his gaming attempts, and cannot keep up with my intellect.
It’s a lot like how I described Malcolm.
If** — as Night Writer has suggested — Malcolm is subsidized to flood this blog with a certain propaganda, then I have suggested that those doing that subsidizing should be aware that Malcolm does that propagandizing so horribly, that they should realize that the opposite position gains strength from Malcolm’s posts.
** I personally do not subscribe to the view that Malcolm is subsidized. To me, his posts instead show themselves to be driven by emotion and cognitive dissonance, rather than any type of cold calculating ‘greed’ animus. Malcolm appears to come from a place of abject disdain for the notion of personal property rights and the relation of those rights to make money.
Shifty now down below has been busted in several of his game modes (even reverting to talking in the plural as well as having conversation with himself and his shifting historical pseudonyms).
But he still is fun to toy with. Maybe I can have him stick around for another several hundred post thread that highlights his gamery….
Shifty has finally shown a spark of intelligence — and run away.
Well, it turns out that that spark was only a sputter…
a
l o n g
dull sputter at that.
Well, at least I get to make fun of him some more.
They told me that you talked to yourself 7 times, which nobody ever read. I could not believe it. But it is true. Who, exactly, is “obsessed?”
You do realize that these posts are to the public, and not to myself, right?
If you want someone actually talking to themselves, that would be the plural you (in your shifting historical pseudonyms).
“You do realize that these posts are to the public, and not to myself, right?”
If that makes you feel more or less sane, Snowflake, O.K.
It’s a fact — how are facts ‘supposed’ to make anyone feel?
I remember the days of “we can’t hire our way out of the backlog!!!!” from the lifer management. Apparently that is not the thinking anymore. Not sure what the backlog actually is.
The PTAB backlog is down to about 7,000-8,000 ex parte appeals. Missed the last PPAC meeting so not sure if they reported on it or provided any update. With the decline in IPR’s it will be interesting to see if most of the outside APJ’s they hired leave when faced with the possibility of having to go to deciding ex parte appeals full time. Of course getting paid to insert form paragraphs and write “you can put together references like a jigsaw puzzle!” ain’t exactly tough work so maybe many will stick around.
Would like to see the ex parte decision time down to 6 months or so.
One can dream.
“Of course getting paid to insert form paragraphs and write “you can put together references like a jigsaw puzzle!” ain’t exactly tough work so maybe many will stick around.”
You can reverse even easier than that.
Probably true. But as usual you underestimate, if not outright ignore, the bias at the PTO that rewards saying “no” to applicants. There are no consequences for it, and only rewards. If a PTAB panel “allows” what the ign0rant media will term a “bad patent” there is negative publicity and criticism of the PTO. How many articles have you read in the last 10+ years lamenting “bad patents”? Probably quite a few. (Assuming you’re paying attention, which is a big assumption on my part.) How many articles have you read about “bad rejections” or “bad affirmances”? (Here’s a hint about the correct answer: I’m thinking of a big round number.)
So the choice is clear: Do a teensy weensy bit more work (“What’s the In re Keller form paragraph number again?”) and face ZERO consequences for affirming the rejection, or reverse and be faced with whatshisname from Tech Dirt writing yet another completely uninformed article about a “bad patent.”
AAA JJ,
I hear you. 6’s ‘forgetting’ seems to be an indicator of epic proportions of those in the patent office who ‘conveniently’ seem to have forgotten not only the fact of the Just Say No ‘Reject Reject Reject’ era, but also have ‘forgotten’ of all the apparatuses put in place to propagate that mindset (including the fact that the revealed-and-Oh-No-Bad-Press-cancel-that-one SAWS program was admitted to be just one of the shadow programs).
Anybody who thinks that the examining corps and the APJ corps are approaching cases with an objective mindset is either 1) somebody who’s never prosecuted a patent application, 2) not paying attention, and/or 3) lying.
The directive at the PTO is, by their own admission, “build a record.” In other words, “just say no the first time and see what applicant responds with.” I watch the PPAC meetings and it’s an endless parade of associate deputy assistant vice commissioners for patent quality and office furniture allocation breaking their arms patting themselves on the back about how the “master review form” reveals that “patent examination quality is at 98.36%!!!!!!”
It’s ridiculous.
And it’s not just the examining corps and the APJ corps. It’s the office of finance (“They requested a refund?! Just deny it and see if they ask again!”), the office of petitions, the TC Directors, etc. It permeates and pervades the entire PTO. “Just say ‘no’ the first time and see if they call your bluff.” Those are the marching orders for every single employee there. And following orders is what gets them rewarded.
The elephant in the room is how ALL of those that I would tag with an ‘anti-patent’ label NEVER seem to want to even acknowledge the point that you have presented, AAA JJ.
Quite in fact, several (and specifically examiner types) have actively attempted to dismiss and downplay such instances as SAWS.
Even though time goes by, and the historical point of the Office being proud of the fact that the Allowance Rate dropped into the 30% range for no apparent reason or change in applicant behavior starts to fade into the distance, there IS (as you point out) a deep rooted ‘culture’ within the patent office that exhibits the cognitive dissonance that “patents are bad.”
And until Type II errors are treated as just as egregious as Type I errors, that deep rooted blight will fester.
“Anybody who thinks that the examining corps and the APJ corps are approaching cases with an objective mindset is either 1) somebody who’s never prosecuted a patent application, 2) not paying attention, and/or 3) lying.”
That’s more of a function of difficulty of teaching people to have an objective mindset period tho bro. That’s tough work. And I would say that the vast majority of people just aren’t up to the task. 80/20 rule.
“And it’s not just the examining corps and the APJ corps. It’s the office of finance (“They requested a refund?! Just deny it and see if they ask again!”), the office of petitions, the TC Directors, etc. It permeates and pervades the entire PTO. ”
That’s odd, I haven’t seen a lot of these denials of refunds.
Though to be sure, it seems like something that is symptomatic of bureaucracies in general and you’re thinking the PTO should aspire to be “not a bureaucracy”.
“Those are the marching orders for every single employee there. And following orders is what gets them rewarded.”
Blatant hyperbole makes people pay less attention to any actual points you have bruh.
“And following orders is what gets them rewarded.”
That is not hyperbole.
“Those are the marching orders for every single employee there.”
That part is. Which makes the follow on part just as my hyperbole as the main subject.
6,
I will grant you partial credit on that first part, but disagree that such makes the second part to be hyperbole.
Please. I know several examiners who first action allow most everything they examine. They get rewarded more than I do (bronze medals, overtime, bonuses). There are no marching orders to all examiners to say no the first time, every time.
“I know several examiners who first action allow most everything they examine.”
No you don’t.
Of course I do. Is that really impossible for you to believe that some examiners routinely do their entire biweekly production on Count Monday by allowing a handful of applications first action with nothing but a cursory search?
“Is that really impossible for you to believe that some examiners routinely do their entire biweekly production on Count Monday by allowing a handful of applications first action with nothing but a cursory search?”
Yes, it is. That’s not going on anywhere in the PTO with any regularity.
There are no examiners “who first action allowance most everything they examine.” By “most” do you mean 50+%?
I guarantee you there is not a single examiner at the PTO that allows 50+% of the applications they examine on the first Office Action. Guarantee it.
Feel free to provide the name(s) of any of these examiners you know who are doing that. It won’t take more than about 5 minutes to determine if what you are saying is true.
You guarantee it? That’s bold. And busted.
link to ipwatchdog.com
Have fun.
+1
(by the way, while the client may be happy with such results, I would be deeply troubled — is there any data following up as to how the work of these examiners stand up during enforcement?
“with any regularity.”
KEKSTERS. I guess that one old asian dude we all know of around my area that’s like totally searching EVERYWHERE and making a lot of 110%+ bonuses (I would guess probably with OT as well) is like totally looking at 10k+ refs per application, in depth, amirite senpai? Meanwhile everyone else has a hard time doing their 1k per app, I’m doing like 2-4k, SUPER ODD EH? He must be a regular MACHINE.
“There are no examiners “who first action allowance most everything they examine.” By “most” do you mean 50+%?”
Literally all you’d have to do in my art to get over 50%+ first action allowance is skimp on the search and apply rigorous evidenciary standards, with the occasional interview to tighten up some wording.
>>I guarantee you there is not a single examiner at the PTO that allows 50+% of the applications they examine on the first Office Action. Guarantee it.
IamI, are you enjoying your refund? Well Played.
“Have fun.”
I may be wrong on this.
But in reading the comments to the article you linked, I note that comment 13 from a former junior examiner provides a possible explanation to the numbers, for at least one of the examiners in the report. Primaries are being credited with allowances (presumably including first action allowances) they sign for juniors, but not abandonments.
Commenter 13 also has a startling different explanation for the first action allowance rate by the particular examiner he discusses than your explanation (i.e. “…some examiners routinely do their entire biweekly production on Count Monday by allowing a handful of applications first action with nothing but a cursory search”). I don’t think the explanations are mutually exclusive.
I was on a bowling team with one of the examiners listed in the report. I remember him telling me that an examiner in his AU would allow every application that claimed foreign priority and didn’t include a preliminary amendment because the examiner knew the applicant and/or the representative would not pay the issue fee as the allowed claims were practically worthless. Not sure I believed it at the time but it wouldn’t surprise me if that was going on.
That’s an awful lot of words to try to cover for your busted guarantee.
If the statistics for those examiners do include every allowance, including first action, the primary signs for themself and for the juniors that report to them then I don’t think my guarantee is busted.
“It won’t take more than about 5 minutes to determine what you are saying is true.”. Did you even do any research of your own, or are you simply basing everything off of what a commentor on that blog post said because you need anecdotal evidence to “prove” you’re right (which you’re not)?
“then I don’t think my guarantee is busted.”
Then?
No matter how you look at this, AAA JJ, your guarantee IS busted. You want to add some caveats and make a different guarantee? By all means do so. But at least admit that your broad initial statement must be retracted.
Of course I didn’t do any research. This is a blog.
The explanation in that comment in my mind casts serious doubt on the accuracy of those statistics as they may relate to the personal dockets of those examiners. I don’t have the time or inclination to check.
So you’re right. Doesn’t change one bit that the policy of the PTO, as stated over and over in their PPAC presentations, is “build a record” and the predominant mindset is “just say no the first time.” The anecdotal evidence I have from 21 years of practice confirms that for me. You’re free to believe what you want.
“But at least admit that your broad initial statement must be retracted.”
I will gladly do that. As soon as you acknowledge that Ben is not the same Ben poster you accuse him of being from the Disqus days.
Until then, STFU.
There’s a lot of irony about you going on and on about “preponderance of evidence”, and yet, in this case, you rely on anecdotal evidence rather than empirical evidence (like I am) in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting your guarantee was incorrect.
And you don’t have the time or inclination to check? You said it would take 5 minutes!
Yes. There’s a lot of training, even today, on building a record. But that doesn’t preclude examiners from writing first action allowances on most everything they examine. It’s not a belief. It’s a fact.
“I will gladly do that. As soon as you acknowledge that Ben is not the same Ben poster you accuse him of being from the Disqus days.
Until then, STFU.”
LOL – you do realize how different the two situations are, right?
Or maybe your ego is just getting in the way (you got hammered – my suggestions about Ben are backed up with Ben’s own repeated tones and positions on topics. Sure, he may NOW be trying to distance himself from Malcolm, but he still drinks Malcolm’s Kool-Aid. Your situation — quite opposite — is that you were shown to be FLAT OUT WRONG. You then tried a little song and dance of putting in caveats and CHANGING your position, and rightly got called out for that change.
Wake up son.
I said you’re right. That I don’t believe you’re right shouldn’t concern you as much as it apparently does.
It’s part of the mental illness. He thinks the “last word,” no matter how bizarre, impotent, or incomprehensible to those who are sane, is a win. Thus,
And yet again, accusations from the one whose target is 98%+ mwah, please go on about ‘cwazy’ obsess10ns…
Sorry, Snowflake. You missed one. [what a maroon] There’s one thread (still active) where you did not get the last word.
So immediately prior to your time stamp message at March 20, 2020 at 8:31 pm, what did I miss?
And is this your latest game?
Still haven’t found the thread where you didn’t get the last word? Eats you up inside, doesn’t it? [now, he will lie] [what a maroon] Thus,
I have not found it because it does not exist. You do now how to do a search on the blog page for all posts in a day, right?
Does “it” eat me up inside? I just consider the source.
Your move, Shifty.
No, I do not now how to do a search on the blog page for all posts in a day. But if you do a search on the blog page for all posts in a day, that will not help you find it. Perhaps you should take an aspirin?
[what a maroon]
So this IS your latest game.
Thanks for corroborating that.
It seems like an odd game, but no more odd than the (plural) you taking the (plural) your leaving to give me a last word, and then turning around and YOU trying to have the last word.
As I have noted, it is thoroughly enjoyable to watch you scramble in your obsess10n over me. But you are on an asymptotic slope, so it may be awhile to have your percentage of all posts directed to me climb over 99%.
Does your line of work require that?
So, we see you Still have not found the thread where you didn’t get the last word. Eats you up inside, doesn’t it?
As usual, you presume too much. Your game is exposed. Again.
The next move is yours. Try to make it just a little interesting.
Actually, I did just make it more interesting on the missed thread you can’t find where you will not get the last word. Eats you up inside, doesn’t it?
Nope, not at all.
But it is fun to see the level of your game playing and obsess10n with me. I don’t know if anyone else that has like a 98+% ‘directed to’ rate that you have with your posts directed to me.
Your infatuation is noted.
So you want people to believe that you do not have an irresistible compulsion to think you must always get the last word. [eye roll] Thus,
You show several errors in your question.
You make a presumption and assume the truth of the presumption, when no such truth exists, because the presumption is faulty.
You then double down with an implied assertion that somehow ANY choice of mine (wanting or not wanting) merely validates the false presumption in your question.
What is your line of work that you think that such cheap rhetorical t001s carry ANY weight in a discussion with an attorney?
btw, the ‘eyeroll’ —
— is one of the few emoticons in the ‘Leave a Reply’ bar that has code that still works. Most of the emoticons have been disabled, even though the ‘Leave a Reply’ bar still shows them.
We have no idea what it is you think you are trying to say. I pointed out that you want people to believe that you do not have some kind of mental illness compulsion to think you must always get the last word. To prove me wrong you got the last word. [eye roll; what a maroon] Thus,
Your games just don’t make it so (even as YOU attempt to have the last word.
Maybe that last word should address your obsess10n with me and what your current line of work is.
Now you can prove to all the doubters how sane you are by not thinking about hippopotamuses for the next 90 seconds. [what a maroon]
… and into the gibberish game.
You’ve reached the end of the barrel.
Maybe now try something creative (AND cogent).