I am well aware that second pair of eyes was started by Doll, and that is in my opinion the single largest reason why we have the crisis that we have now. Without being a fly on the wall it is hard to know whether it was Doll alone, or whether it was Doll reacting to the dictates of a politician who was trying to solve a non-problem and just made it worse.

The attrition is a huge problem, and lack of experience even a bigger problem. That coupled together with the telecommuting program where senior examiners are not on campus to help and trainer younger examiners has created a large number of young, inexperienced examiners that lack resources and necessary mentoring.

Kappos is going to have his hands full. I am hopeful that a patent guy like Kappos can help, and explain to Congress and the White House what really needs to be done and why.

-Gene

Yes attrition in the patent office is down but to think that senior management had anything to do with that would be naive after all we are in the worst economy in decades and the only significant changes made by management thus so far have been cuts to benefits. I have talked with many examiners who are already in the midst of applying for other jobs ( I even predict that after the economy is back on its feet that patent office will suffer the worse attrition yet).

I do not mean to suggest patent quality as some arbitrary percentage of total patents that are allowed on yearly basis. I believe a lot of very well written and useful patents are held back the current system as well as some applications allowed that never should have. In my mind patent quality is irrevocably linked to the experience and effort put forth of the related examiner. When roughly 30% of my art unit has less than one year of experience and when applications continually get more complicated and lengthened allotting less time for examination, its no wonder why some perceive quality as lacking. This needs to be addressed.

In any case it is good to hear Obama has picked a commissioner and I wish him the best facing all the current issues.

You are not being fair. I respect examiners very much, and throughout my writing I have over and over announced my support and respect for examiners. There are some, I believe a minority, that abuse certain rules, but in my opinion the overwhelming majority of examiners are good, professional and hard working. It is unfair to say “Quinn cannot possibly walk in the examiner’s shoes.” That is extremely arrogant. Do you really think that examiners are the only ones who know what they are talking about? If you do, then I would respectfully suggest that you might be part of the problem.

The fact that you have not seen a trickle down does not mean the trickle down has not started to happen. You have to realize that there are 6000 examiners, and just because the trickle has not come down to you doesn’t mean it hasn’t started. You can’t possibly be saying you know all 6000 examiners, including those who work from home and are not on campus.

I have talked to examiners and some have said they have not heard they should change, or issue patents. I have talked to others who have said they have heard that they should work with examiners attorneys and applicants. I have also talked to attorneys that have heard from both types of examiners, those with and those without “trickle down knowledge.” The Commissioner told me that training would roll-out, and I have heard from some that they have had such new training. The fact that you have not had it yet doesn’t make what I have written untrue. It simple means you have not had the training and word has not reached you.

I agree with you. Whispers are not enough, but it will take time for everyone to get on the same page, particular after the Dudas era left many examiners with the opinion that the patent bar was the problem, and that examiners are far more capable than patent attorneys. Examiners play a vital role, but thinking that examiners with a year or two of law school are more capable of writing applications and drafting claims is naive. The role of the examiner is very different than the role of the attorney and just because you have skills to debug and debunk claims doesn’t mean examiners are capable of writing good claims, at least from the client’s perspective and the perspective of the Federal Circuit.

In many areas I know first hand that it is not business as usual at the PTO. I also have heard the same second hand. This is evidenced by quick office actions and quick allowances in some areas even without acceleration.

Finally, I do not treat examiners with skepticism. I have banned one alleged examiner from posting because he was providing clearly erroneous advice to inventors. If you followed what he wrote rights would be lost, or at least severely compromised, and I do not find that acceptable. I do hear from many examiners like you that I am clueless, but then in due time what I said was true comes out into the open as being 100% accurate. For example, multiple examiners wrote that my quality review article showed I didn’t understand anything. Then the Commissioner’s Office contacted me and thanked me for getting the word out and offered to provide more details. You will see from my interview with her what I wrote about quality review was dead on accurate.

Whether examiners choose to acknowledge it or not, I research what I write and investigate. When I hear something enough and cannot confirm it I present it as a rumor. When I hear something and it checks out then I say it as a matter of fact. If you look back you will see my “matter of fact” statements have been correct 100% of the time, even though some alleged examiners call me crazy and say I don’t know what I am talking about. I can assure you, I do know what I am talking about and I do not rely on questionable sources. I also pass on stories without substance or which cannot be verified. I am not in the gossip business.

Thanks for contributing to IPWatchdog.com. I hope more examiners join in the debate, but please do realize that just because you have not heard something yet doesn’t mean that what I write is inaccurate.

-Gene

I am sorry to hear that you do not think that the initiatives over the last few months are positive. Quite clearly, the initiatives are aimed at issuing patents and addressing the backlog. It is odd to see the PTO heading downward and then as soon as Dudas left a shred of hope. If you think senior management is to blame, fine, but I don’t know how you blame people for trying to do better.

In terms of quality patents, what I think you need to realize is that quality that leads to no patents issued and duplicative reviews led to the enormous backlog.

I certainly agree that attrition needs to be addressed (I understand it is better, but not where it needs to be) and the production system is horribly out of date and needs fixing. The budget can right itself in time if patents start getting issued.

-Gene

“wouldn’t (and couldn’t) get in the way of the progress being made by the quite able members of the PTO senior management team who are doing what is necessary to move the PTO forward. Amazing what can be accomplished without having the watchful eye (and meddling) of a political appointment”

They only thing PTO senior management is “able” at is complete lack of initiative.

Initiative to fix employee attrition
Initiative to fix the backlog
Initiative to fix the production system
Initiative to fix “quality: of patents
Initiative to even budget the office

While it may be popular to blame Dudas for these shortcomings, holding the PTO senior management not responsible at all would be a grave error, especially in light of the last few months.

My only hope (as well as many of the current examiners) is that the new appointee will realize the lack of leadership of many of these bureaucrats in management and appropriately fix it.