Comments on: Revise Patent Examination to Stimulate US Economy http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/04/14/revise-patent-examination-to-stimulate-us-economy/id=2631/ Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications & Patent Law Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:58:49 +0000 hourly 1 By: 6 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/04/14/revise-patent-examination-to-stimulate-us-economy/id=2631/#comment-2150 6 Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:02:20 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=2631#comment-2150 "I am an examiner at the PTO in the software arts. I must say I like your blog. But I don’t know if what you are saying is entirely true. My thoughts are…we as examiners from grade levels GS-5 to GS-12 have to report to a Supervisory Patent Examiner or Mentor to ask for allowance on each and every case. A lot of times I believe an application is allowable and show the mentor or SPE and they say “no, its not” but they say this but don’t show us where the art is for it. That’s one of our biggest problems. Also, I recently had a software application. I read through the Spec, Drawings, Claims, Abstract and I couldn’t understand what the invention was about at all. I showed it to the SPE he was also confused. I called the attorney up asked him what the invention was, it was like he regurgitated the exact same language back to me without helping me understand what it was really saying. There was also 75 prior art references in the IDS. I couldn’t follow any of the references in the IDS. So I asked the attorney which prior art references in the IDS most closely resembled the applciation, they had no clue. This is a very big problem for us. I don’t understand why these attorney’s not more reasonable, they know what the invention is, but they try to hide it, its better if they tell us what it is, then they can amend around it. But they don’t. They like to play games. I think if the public wants more patents they need to teach attorneys how to convey what they are trying to invent, plus I think the public has no clue on how many documents we have to fill out everyday. Our software at the PTO is very outdated. You have to manually click everything with the mouse instead of tabbing over with a simple tab key. The software freezes all the time. We have to write around 30-50 pages for each office action. Another problem is the attorneys are hardly ever from the same engineering field as the invention, most have chemical engineering or mechanical engineering degrees and they are working on software cases and they have no clue what even a processor does in a computer. They think we have to find carbon copies of patents to give 102(b)’s when we don’t. You want to fix the process, fix the attorney’s ways!" Ok that guy is embarrassing. But he does show what it is like to be a newbie. I remember feeling nearly the exact same way, with the exception that I could at least understand my first cases (there have been a few over the years that are pretty fin hard to understand though) and the references in the IDS (though I will admit I have one case that is as close to a "real" software case, by which I mean a case that has more than beauregard crp, and those ref's in that IDS were like whew over my head, but I'm pretty sure they didn't read on the instant invention, which I did understand). As to the attorney not being helpful, well, I'd sit and talk to him until he became helpful, and if the spe couldn't read the spec then we're sending out requests for information if they really want to be an arse and I really can't figure it out at all. I agree with his conclusion somewhat about changing attorney's ways, but he'll come to realize that the process is the way it is for a reason. Haj man, I don't think you have what it takes tbh. You might should be looking out for a new job. Or else get really buddy buddy with some very helpful primaries. Fast. "A lot of times I believe an application is allowable and show the mentor or SPE and they say “no, its not” but they say this but don’t show us where the art is for it. That’s one of our biggest problems." That's because you're bad, and they know you're bad, and you probably know you're bad. The good news is that you'll probably get better if you hang in there. The bad news is that you'll be hanging in there while the office will be tempted to shed people that can't hack it 100%. Especially the new people that are ez to fire. My advice is to meet and make friends with people, very quickly, and converse with them about your issues. The higher up in the chain that you can get the better. Don't be a nuisance though. K, go forth n do well. “I am an examiner at the PTO in the software arts. I must say I like your blog. But I don’t know if what you are saying is entirely true. My thoughts are…we as examiners from grade levels GS-5 to GS-12 have to report to a Supervisory Patent Examiner or Mentor to ask for allowance on each and every case. A lot of times I believe an application is allowable and show the mentor or SPE and they say “no, its not” but they say this but don’t show us where the art is for it. That’s one of our biggest problems. Also, I recently had a software application. I read through the Spec, Drawings, Claims, Abstract and I couldn’t understand what the invention was about at all. I showed it to the SPE he was also confused. I called the attorney up asked him what the invention was, it was like he regurgitated the exact same language back to me without helping me understand what it was really saying. There was also 75 prior art references in the IDS. I couldn’t follow any of the references in the IDS. So I asked the attorney which prior art references in the IDS most closely resembled the applciation, they had no clue. This is a very big problem for us. I don’t understand why these attorney’s not more reasonable, they know what the invention is, but they try to hide it, its better if they tell us what it is, then they can amend around it. But they don’t. They like to play games. I think if the public wants more patents they need to teach attorneys how to convey what they are trying to invent, plus I think the public has no clue on how many documents we have to fill out everyday. Our software at the PTO is very outdated. You have to manually click everything with the mouse instead of tabbing over with a simple tab key. The software freezes all the time. We have to write around 30-50 pages for each office action. Another problem is the attorneys are hardly ever from the same engineering field as the invention, most have chemical engineering or mechanical engineering degrees and they are working on software cases and they have no clue what even a processor does in a computer. They think we have to find carbon copies of patents to give 102(b)’s when we don’t. You want to fix the process, fix the attorney’s ways!”

Ok that guy is embarrassing. But he does show what it is like to be a newbie. I remember feeling nearly the exact same way, with the exception that I could at least understand my first cases (there have been a few over the years that are pretty fin hard to understand though) and the references in the IDS (though I will admit I have one case that is as close to a “real” software case, by which I mean a case that has more than beauregard crp, and those ref’s in that IDS were like whew over my head, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t read on the instant invention, which I did understand). As to the attorney not being helpful, well, I’d sit and talk to him until he became helpful, and if the spe couldn’t read the spec then we’re sending out requests for information if they really want to be an arse and I really can’t figure it out at all. I agree with his conclusion somewhat about changing attorney’s ways, but he’ll come to realize that the process is the way it is for a reason.

Haj man, I don’t think you have what it takes tbh. You might should be looking out for a new job. Or else get really buddy buddy with some very helpful primaries. Fast.

“A lot of times I believe an application is allowable and show the mentor or SPE and they say “no, its not” but they say this but don’t show us where the art is for it. That’s one of our biggest problems.”

That’s because you’re bad, and they know you’re bad, and you probably know you’re bad. The good news is that you’ll probably get better if you hang in there. The bad news is that you’ll be hanging in there while the office will be tempted to shed people that can’t hack it 100%. Especially the new people that are ez to fire. My advice is to meet and make friends with people, very quickly, and converse with them about your issues. The higher up in the chain that you can get the better. Don’t be a nuisance though. K, go forth n do well.

]]> By: Haj Amin http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/04/14/revise-patent-examination-to-stimulate-us-economy/id=2631/#comment-1935 Haj Amin Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:50:05 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=2631#comment-1935 You also wrote about Intel, They are very hard to get along with. They are hardly ever willing to change any claims to make them allowable. Sometimes you need to amend a little to get the patent in condition for allowance but they hardly ever do. I had to review a intel patent recently they gave me over 400 arguments for 50 claims. Do you know how long 400 arguments takes to respond to? About a week, that a week for 1 case. Plus I have about 6 other amendments to work on plus my regular cases on top of that. When I tried to call them to discuss the arguments, they didn't even know what the case was about. They tried to argue about every single word in the claims. You also wrote about Intel, They are very hard to get along with. They are hardly ever willing to change any claims to make them allowable. Sometimes you need to amend a little to get the patent in condition for allowance but they hardly ever do. I had to review a intel patent recently they gave me over 400 arguments for 50 claims. Do you know how long 400 arguments takes to respond to? About a week, that a week for 1 case. Plus I have about 6 other amendments to work on plus my regular cases on top of that. When I tried to call them to discuss the arguments, they didn’t even know what the case was about. They tried to argue about every single word in the claims.

]]> By: Haj Amin http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/04/14/revise-patent-examination-to-stimulate-us-economy/id=2631/#comment-1934 Haj Amin Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:42:00 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=2631#comment-1934 I am an examiner at the PTO in the software arts. I must say I like your blog. But I don't know if what you are saying is entirely true. My thoughts are...we as examiners from grade levels GS-5 to GS-12 have to report to a Supervisory Patent Examiner or Mentor to ask for allowance on each and every case. A lot of times I believe an application is allowable and show the mentor or SPE and they say "no, its not" but they say this but don't show us where the art is for it. That's one of our biggest problems. Also, I recently had a software application. I read through the Spec, Drawings, Claims, Abstract and I couldn't understand what the invention was about at all. I showed it to the SPE he was also confused. I called the attorney up asked him what the invention was, it was like he regurgitated the exact same language back to me without helping me understand what it was really saying. There was also 75 prior art references in the IDS. I couldn't follow any of the references in the IDS. So I asked the attorney which prior art references in the IDS most closely resembled the applciation, they had no clue. This is a very big problem for us. I don't understand why these attorney's not more reasonable, they know what the invention is, but they try to hide it, its better if they tell us what it is, then they can amend around it. But they don't. They like to play games. I think if the public wants more patents they need to teach attorneys how to convey what they are trying to invent, plus I think the public has no clue on how many documents we have to fill out everyday. Our software at the PTO is very outdated. You have to manually click everything with the mouse instead of tabbing over with a simple tab key. The software freezes all the time. We have to write around 30-50 pages for each office action. Another problem is the attorneys are hardly ever from the same engineering field as the invention, most have chemical engineering or mechanical engineering degrees and they are working on software cases and they have no clue what even a processor does in a computer. They think we have to find carbon copies of patents to give 102(b)'s when we don't. You want to fix the process, fix the attorney's ways! I am an examiner at the PTO in the software arts. I must say I like your blog. But I don’t know if what you are saying is entirely true. My thoughts are…we as examiners from grade levels GS-5 to GS-12 have to report to a Supervisory Patent Examiner or Mentor to ask for allowance on each and every case. A lot of times I believe an application is allowable and show the mentor or SPE and they say “no, its not” but they say this but don’t show us where the art is for it. That’s one of our biggest problems. Also, I recently had a software application. I read through the Spec, Drawings, Claims, Abstract and I couldn’t understand what the invention was about at all. I showed it to the SPE he was also confused. I called the attorney up asked him what the invention was, it was like he regurgitated the exact same language back to me without helping me understand what it was really saying. There was also 75 prior art references in the IDS. I couldn’t follow any of the references in the IDS. So I asked the attorney which prior art references in the IDS most closely resembled the applciation, they had no clue. This is a very big problem for us. I don’t understand why these attorney’s not more reasonable, they know what the invention is, but they try to hide it, its better if they tell us what it is, then they can amend around it. But they don’t. They like to play games. I think if the public wants more patents they need to teach attorneys how to convey what they are trying to invent, plus I think the public has no clue on how many documents we have to fill out everyday. Our software at the PTO is very outdated. You have to manually click everything with the mouse instead of tabbing over with a simple tab key. The software freezes all the time. We have to write around 30-50 pages for each office action. Another problem is the attorneys are hardly ever from the same engineering field as the invention, most have chemical engineering or mechanical engineering degrees and they are working on software cases and they have no clue what even a processor does in a computer. They think we have to find carbon copies of patents to give 102(b)’s when we don’t. You want to fix the process, fix the attorney’s ways!

]]> By: Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/04/14/revise-patent-examination-to-stimulate-us-economy/id=2631/#comment-1898 Gene Quinn Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:21:23 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=2631#comment-1898 Ralph- Thanks for the information. I think there are a lot of little things that are going to need to be revised in order to make a workable reformatted system. Pointing to things like this is exactly what is needed so that we can work toward not only being able to create a workable system but also recommend what changes need to be made. I think we are going to have to make this extremely easy to follow for those who really don't know much about patents and the patent system. -Gene Ralph-

Thanks for the information. I think there are a lot of little things that are going to need to be revised in order to make a workable reformatted system. Pointing to things like this is exactly what is needed so that we can work toward not only being able to create a workable system but also recommend what changes need to be made. I think we are going to have to make this extremely easy to follow for those who really don’t know much about patents and the patent system.

-Gene

]]> By: Ralph Eckardt http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/04/14/revise-patent-examination-to-stimulate-us-economy/id=2631/#comment-1886 Ralph Eckardt Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:41:59 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=2631#comment-1886 Gene, A national workforce for the USPTO is currently impossible due to an antiquated "duty station" requirement that requires all USPTO employees to physically appear at the Office in Alexandria VA for at least one hour EVERY WEEK. The travel cost for this weekly visit must be borne by the examiner. Until this requirement is eliminated, the idea of a national workforce for the patent office is just a pipe dream. To learn about this crazy requirement and why its so difficult to resolve this issue, read the 2008 PATENT PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT starting on Page16, #3 which you can find here: <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/advisory/reports/ppac_2008annualrpt.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/advisory/reports/ppac_2008annualrpt.pdf</a> Ralph Eckardt Author: The Invisible Edge <a href="http://www.the-invisible-edge.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.the-invisible-edge.com</a> Gene,

A national workforce for the USPTO is currently impossible due to an antiquated “duty station” requirement that requires all USPTO employees to physically appear at the Office in Alexandria VA for at least one hour EVERY WEEK. The travel cost for this weekly visit must be borne by the examiner.

Until this requirement is eliminated, the idea of a national workforce for the patent office is just a pipe dream.

To learn about this crazy requirement and why its so difficult to resolve this issue, read the 2008 PATENT
PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT starting on Page16, #3 which you can find here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/advisory/reports/ppac_2008annualrpt.pdf

Ralph Eckardt
Author: The Invisible Edge http://www.the-invisible-edge.com

]]> By: Alan McDonald http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/04/14/revise-patent-examination-to-stimulate-us-economy/id=2631/#comment-1826 Alan McDonald Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:27:35 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=2631#comment-1826 Gene, My theory as to why allowance rates should go down in a recession. Corporate R&D cut back means fewer corporate filings. However, no cut back in individuals filing "Method for Exercising A Cat" applications. Since there is thus a higher percentage of junk applications, allowance rates should decrease. I do agree that more resources should be allocated to the USPTO to clear the backlog, I'm just not sure that means allowance rates should go up. Total disposals, and total allowances, yes. Gene,

My theory as to why allowance rates should go down in a recession.

Corporate R&D cut back means fewer corporate filings.

However, no cut back in individuals filing “Method for Exercising A Cat” applications.

Since there is thus a higher percentage of junk applications, allowance rates should decrease.

I do agree that more resources should be allocated to the USPTO to clear the backlog, I’m just not sure that means allowance rates should go up. Total disposals, and total allowances, yes.

]]>