Besides those who speak Polish as a first language should not suffer any form of racy ism for their white ways, just as much as any other race, eh? If there were more native English speakers with STEM degrees willing to take a GS07 pay scale, no doubt the examiner corps would have more native English speakers. Tell us what all you have in mind. By contrast, the job advert that Prof. I thought you were talking about STEM in general.
Comp Sci has been on a ridiculous upswing of late iirc from numbers I saw just last week. Blowing out just about everything else. I would personally guess that the H1B crackdown and a few other things have been having an effect.
This link shows the salary on avg to be much lower tho. Maybe if enough stakeholders first asked the USPTO to increase the special pay rate this could actually happen. If the high ends of the examiner pay scale catch up to the DC locality pay scale which will likely happen this decade , examiners will simply get paid the higher locality rate.
San Jose examiners at GS and higher already make more than the special examiner pay rate because of this. Supply and demand — of course, many other factors would indeed come into play but the USPTO could simply designate lower GS levels instead of — say — changing the pay per level itself.
But neither of your ideas here are realistic. Or is he Kruger. Anyone with a pulse who has been paying the least bit of attention to the disaster at our Southern border could have picked this up. I am most definitely ON topic — the problem you are having is not recognizing that the topic is not a singular one — there are several pieces to the puzzle in play here. For other assistance, please see our contact us page. USPTO hiring hundreds of new examiners in Agency hosting two job fairs in February to meet qualified candidates.
February 13, They are not repeating the same mistakes over and over. There are many Examiners, however, who might change their ways if the Office placed even minimal value on improving the quality of rejections by doing a post-mortem on why the PTAB reversed the Examiner, and the lessons the Examiner needs to take away from the reversal.
And beyond lazy. But sends them up anyway. But the Board reversed. Never had any discussions during my time at the PTO on resolving the factual inquiry into the level of ordinary skill in the art. The case law says no explicit findings necessary if the applied prior art reflects an appropriate level. It is something I argue in every non-enablement rejection I get.
Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. Cumberland Corp. See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, F. Chore-Time involved a patent litigation, and not patent prosecution, and reversible error would require all the time, trouble, judicial resources, and effort of a trial being wasted because the case would need to be re-tried. The Examiner is required to demonstrate that the prior art reflects an appropriate level of skill in the art.
However, an explicit analysis as required by KSR; see MPEP III of how the prior art cited by the Examiner in the rejections allegedly reflects an appropriate level of skill in the art is, in my experience, never made by Examiners in their Office Actions. The Examiner has the initial burden of proof in demonstrating that the prior art cited by the Examiner reflects an appropriate level of skill in the art.
To my knowledge, Examiners are not trained by the USPTO to explain why each of the prior art cited in the rejections allegedly reflects an appropriate level of skill. Given the Fed. More importantly, the level of ordinary skill is the same regardless of which section is being applied.
I agree it is a long shot. The Examiner got reversed, and then allowed the case so that was the end of it. I also agree there are applications where skill level determination is not really necessary in the obviousness context because the level of skill in that area is generally very high e. It just goes to show what a farce skill level determination as practiced by the USPTO can be since the Examiner is supposed to already know the level of skill in the art when it comes to issues.
If there are only rejections, and no prior art cited in rejections, how is the Examiner supposed to have determined the level of ordinary skill implicitly? As I recall, there was a case that said the Examiner had to be consistent with the level of ordinary skill throughout the Office Action.
To the examiners and former examiners above, particularly those that remote work: To what extent do you consult with other examiners in your art unit? For example, if your SPE gives you feedback on a new priority in examination e. Maybe that training entails that you do your job correctly in order to avoid provoking adversarial and nefarious practitioners…. The protection that examiners need is from patent troll attorneys like you.
You use buzz words — and most likely use them incorrectly, which makes what you are trying to say to be incomprehensible. Is this training if the nature of training examiners to properly use legal terminology and terms of art so that the examiners can actually express themselves?
Any examiner not considering those types of arguments are bad examiners, period. Personally, I feel that not being a legal expert actually makes it harder to reject something e. I swear that on more than a few I felt bad for applicant, for having to waste money on the appeal.
Argue every limitation, every reference, and we would be busy responding to every single argument, but after that, we would move on because we had to move on.
Argue something small and examiners can respond to it and additionally, have the time to look at the spec and see if something can be done about it. For me it was always the case that the references I cited in the initial action were the best I could come up with, so throwing one out always weakened rejections and that is how you could eventually get to allowance.
Sure there are, but this is your time too. The good examiner will help when possible. Go straight to PTAB if that is the case. Discuss claim interpretation issues in an interview: A million times, YES! Use your tools, pick up the phone, call, and be smart about it.
If you tell examiners where you want to go, they can help you get there e. Some examiners do endload, but that is horrible practice. Focus on your deadlines instead. Mark Nowotarski: From the beginning, I always consulted pretty much everything with people that started around the same time I did, perhaps because we knew each other in real life so it was easier to interact. We would only meet in person to talk about other unrelated things. Very interesting that the connections you make early in your career, when everyone is working in the office, persist after you all telework.
Typically pre covid , how long does an examiner work in the office before qualifying for teleworking? This is a fallacy and presupposed that the MPEP has the force of controlling law as opposed to the actuality that it is the other way around. In discussions past, there have been examples in which the MPEP is simply not correct as written and as applied.
This is also exactly why being an attorney shifts the power to the applicants. This also feeds other discussions on how to interact. Some like to think that only MPEP citations are necessary.
Some like to think that only proper legal citations are necessary. The latter case is accurate, not the former. The issue of analogousness never came up in KSR. View More…. Advertise Here. Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information.
Accept and Close. There are currently 60 Comments comments. Neither should you. Do your job according to law. Joe Williams July 21, pm anon 6 Succinct prosecution needs to be defined by the fee revenues of both law firms and USPTO departments weighted on economic impacts both use hours as base unit.
Take existing service professional transaction costs and define the nash equilibriums under coase… How many hours are law firms active in patents, encouraging any department associates to allocate toward pro bono already? I think the path forward is attacking incentives only if cooperative.
You get what you pay for. MaxDrei July 22, am A revealing Comments thread, as usual. Anon July 22, am Mr. Williams, Near as I can tell, your answer is not directed to anything that I stated. Night Writer July 22, am This is one side of it. NYC patent attorney July 22, am I find that it helps to be friendly, but argumentative with examiners and to tell them respectfully when I think they are wrong and would lose on appeal.
Anon July 22, pm Mr. Mirabel, Do not fall for that trap, as the MPEP is not binding law and plenty of places are actually wrong on the law.
Evan Pert July 22, pm Thank you for the article and the comments. Night Writer July 22, pm 14 and! Both have great advice. I agree percent. Evan Pert July 22, pm It is so easy to miss the point. Anon July 22, pm Evan Pert, You speak like a bureaucrat — as if making the examiners job is the de facto primary driver. You simply could not be more wrong.
NYC patent attorney July 22, pm Evan Pert — as patent attorneys our job is to get our clients reasonable claim scope that actually protects their inventions. A July 22, pm My job is to ensure my client gets the protection they are allowed under the law, not to make the examiner feel better about themselves or to make their job easier. Evan Pert July 23, am Thank you all for your patent attorney insights.
In my opinion, there is certainly no productive place for emotion in patent prosecution. You should STFU now. Jam July 23, pm An easy way to tell if your examiner is a junior examiner is whether there are two signatures or one signature on the last page of the action.
Nothing more. NYC patent attorney July 28, pm Arcturius — I have mentioned appealing in interviews and had examiners explicitly tell me they do not want to go to appeal, so it certainly works with some examiners.
AAA JJ July 28, pm If, however, you need or want to make your counts unethically from purposeful obfuscation, adversity and conflict throughout prosecution, creating more expense for the applicant, then try all the shenanigans you want. For zero counts. Anon July 29, pm Guss, You absolutely missed the point there. Not surprising, given the bureaucratic, fiefdom like attitude that you are exuding. And I was an examiner for nine years so I know this goes on.
Quite a bit actually. Anybody who tells you differently is lying. Mark Nowotarski August 8, am To the examiners and former examiners above, particularly those that remote work: To what extent do you consult with other examiners in your art unit? You should be aware that you are coming across as very Holden Caulfield here.
Anon August 11, am Again, my friend, you mouth feelings without any substance. I would welcome such training immensely! Focus on your deadlines instead Except for first or second year examiners i. Mark Nowotarski August 17, am somedude. The MPEP is wrong on the case law way more often than it is correct which is not very often. Varsity Sponsors. Upcoming Events. Tue Wed Thu Fri Intramural Sponsors.
0コメント