In theory, having regional PTO branches around the country would lead to examiner retention and/or increased morale. As far as increasing political pressure for increased PTO funding, the case really is already there (i.e. a healthy patent system would definitely aid a substantial economic recovery).
The logical and less expensive solution to having regional PTO examiners is to amend the current law (which is supposedly in the works) to no longer require teleworking or “hoteling” examiners to report two days per bi-week to the PTO campus in Alexandria, VA. I actually am a “hoteler” and now live far from the D.C. area but still must report to the PTO campus two trips per month on my own dollar. If this requirement is relaxed, then many additional examiners (especially younger examiners) would move to all four corners of the US. The expanded telework program would be much less expensive than having to build or rent out additional office space around the country. Many examiners are not from the DC area (like myself) and prefer not to live there. Increased funding for examining and merely amending the telework law would do wonders for the PTO. Examiner retention is very crucial at the PTO, especially during the current hiring freeze. For example, any examiner who leaves the office as of now is NOT being replaced due to “budgetary constraints” so it just worsens the situation.

I would like to get your feedback on the idea of splitting the PTO in multiple braches around the country. It is suggested that this would increase examiner retention and increase the political pressure for fully funding the PTO. Thoughts?

Do enlighten us please. Did your law firm rely on a computer system that was outdated by a decade or more? Did your firm have any computer systems in place to manage docketing, scheduling, electronic files? Did they update those computer systems periodically to make the work of attorneys more efficient and streamlined?

Obviously, you know nothing about computers or running a business enterprise. Only someone without any meaningful business or legal experience would be arrogant enough to say the Patent Office should be able to operate in 2010 with computer systems that were state of the art in 1995.

-Gene

It is not surprising the PTO did worse in the last 7-8 years since John Dudas thought nothing should be patentable and the examiner’s were afraid of their own shadows.

The best way to increase productivity of the PTO is to break it into branches around the country. Nevertheless, a patent system is a Consititutional function that Congress has not adequately funded. This is a clear violation of every inventor’s due process right under the 5th amendment.

I’ve had extensive BIGLAW, boutique, and corporate IP/Patent experience (AMLAW 100 firms, IP department at perhaps the single largest corporation in the world, etc.).

I think those who hold the contrary opinion are naive – as long as the Patent Office thinks that “all they need” to do their job is “a little bit more,” the PTO will never accomplish anything. The PTO’s attitude has worsened particularly over the last 7 or 8 years. When they embrace a paradigm shift of trying to do more with what they have, or (perish the thought) with less, then they will accomplish something.

I agree with you about the trend in patent law. All you need to do is look at the number of patents issued in 1970s and 1930s. Note that these were two wonderful periods in American economic history – one that we are likely to repeat.

Dale B. Halling, Author of the “Decline and Fall of the American Entrepreneur: How Little Known Laws and Regulations are Killing Innovation.” For preview of the book see http://hallingblog.com/my-forthcoming-book-1209/ Now available on Amazon.

All I can say is WOW! It seems you have an extremely naive view of the world, and particularly patent prosecution.

Virtually everyone seems to agree that paying more fees is fine if it actually goes to the USPTO to do a better job, speed up the process and actually issue patents.

Your view of IT wreaks of someone who knows nothing about computers, and doesn’t understand that the Patent Office has an electronic filing system and state of the art computer systems can streamline processes. It is not just about searching. The PTO computer system is state of the art 10 or 15 years ago. How much can anyone accomplish using machines and systems like that? It is ridiculous for anyone to suggest the PTO doesn’t need an upgrade.

-Gene

Read it and weep, Tafas. This will be a complete disaster, a Trojan Horse for getting from Congress what they lost in court. Before you buy into this, read Arti Rai’s articles on turning the PTO into an “innovation regulator” agency. Anyone with any significant experience at dealing with the PTO can not support this. This is bad policy.

>> More applicants than ever are abandoning applications, according to the 2009 Performance and Accountability Report, issued mid-November. What it doesn’t show is why. Many likely are bailing because of frustrating, costly delays.

No, they are abandoning their applications because the underlying change in substantive patent law, particularly KSR, Bilsky, and eBay, have rendered vast swaths of patents and pending applications worthless. My clients, large tech companies, are dumping cases in droves. This will likely accelerate in 2010 and continue indefinitely. They now view the patent system as largely useless, and sadly they are probably correct.

All the backlog and duration issues will work themselves out in due course. New patent filings dropped in 2009 as did the backlog. Both of these trends will continue in 2010, and probably in subsequent years too as less sophisticated applicants figure out what my clients already have–that not much is patentable after KSR and Bilsky, and whatever they manage to get through the PTO will be shot down in the courts. Read the Fuzzysharp case Gene covered yesterday for a taste of what is coming at us.

The patent boom which started in the ’80s is busting under the weight of anti-patent case law from an inhospitable court system. Kappos’ management issue will be determining how to deal with decline, not growth, in the PTO.