Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Just a Patent Examiner

Intellectual Property Law

: Just a Patent Examiner

Director's Blog: Now with Feedback!

The Director has been posting weekly to his blog, on a variety of subjects.

Two weeks ago, he posted on the union's adoption of the proposed new count system.

---

I wanted to take this opportunity to express my thanks to POPA's membership for voting to adopt the changes to the count system proposed by the task force. These changes were long overdue and represent a major step forward in re-tooling a system that hasn't been updated in more than 30 years. For the sake of both the examining corps and patent applicants, change was necessary.

I decided to move forward with the changes the task force proposed because I genuinely believe they will improve working conditions for examiners, while also putting incentives in place to help identify patentable subject matter earlier in the examination process. While these changes are not designed to be a quick fix, I do believe they lay a foundation for pendency improvements over the long term.

The additional time given for examination will hopefully help examiners resolve issues more quickly. We expect to see quality gains as a result of giving examiners more time to do a thorough search and examination. And we will monitor the revised count system closely to ensure that it is producing the desired results. The task force may consider and propose additional changes if they appear necessary, and will ensure the count system works for everyone.

It will take several months for the changes to be implemented, and possibly even longer for us to know what the effects of the changes may be. But I'm eager to hear your feedback along the way. Please feel free to send me a note via the Director's Blog. We're working to set up other mechanisms for feedback such as wikis and online fora so our employees and outside stakeholders can tell us how these changes are working and whether further changes are needed. I envision this as a truly iterative process, in which we have made a great first step.

Thanks again to POPA's membership for their support. And thanks also to the task force for working together to create a very smart proposal.

Stay tuned for more updates on this exciting development

---

There were numerous comments posted in response by examiners with questions on a variety of subjects, including some regarding the Director's comments concerning the patent reform bill's requirement that patent examination be performed in the U.S., and Kappos' opposition to that provision.

This week, Kappos' post on his blog directly addressed the comments to his previous post.

---

I'd like to follow up on the comments that came in last week in response to my post on the count system on Oct. 26. I really appreciate all the thoughtful questions, feedback and suggestions. It?s clear you care a lot about how changes to the system will affect the office, and I hope you will continue to use this blog as a forum for sharing your thoughts.

There were several questions about a quote from a recent interview I gave that cited the administration?s opposition to the "sovereign function" language in the current patent reform legislation. I am opposed to the "sovereign function" language because it would block the US from participating in worksharing initiatives with overseas patent offices. I believe these initiatives have real promise, and do not support language in the legislation that could be misinterpreted to limit our ability to pursue work-sharing. Note however that worksharing should not be confused with taking examination responsibility and decision-making away from US examiners. Worksharing does not take examination responsibility or decision-making away from US examiners; it provides US examiners with another tool, like all the other tools we use, to enable our examiners to do the best possible job in examining applications having foreign counterparts.

In response to the questions about whether the hourly addition will be phased out, that rumor is false. Once the package is implemented, even if future changes are made to it, including termination of the entire package, I have committed that examiners will receive a net increase of at least one hour in time over their FY09 expectancies.

In response to questions on when the new system will go into effect, the target is to switch over in the second quarter of 2010. We need this period of time in order to complete reprogramming of the IT systems needed to support the new count system.

I saw a concern expressed that we would stop improving the new system. Not true. My objective at the outset was to develop an initial plan and institute an iterative process for improvement. It was simply unreasonable to expect to revise a complex system that hasn?t been changed in more than 30 years and get it perfect from the outset. The iterative process we have under way includes measuring the effects of the changes once the new system takes effect, gathering internal and public feedback, and meeting on a regular basis to monitor progress and consider additional improvements.

It occurred to me that there are some additional positive changes included in the count system overhaul that might not be getting much notice, such as:

o Providing consistent credit for transferred or ?inherited? amendments, which is good for examiners by providing a consistent and fair amount of time to take over prosecution of a case, good for SPEs in knowing the amount of credit is set, and good for applicants in that the new examiner has the appropriate time to get up-to-speed and take ?ownership? of the case.

o Increasing work credit certainty for examiners, by giving examiners more assurance that work completed and timely submitted with get counted in a timely manner.

o Balancing the load on IT systems by encouraging earlier submission and review of work.

o Reducing examiner reluctance to allow applications. Due to low allowance rates in certain areas, Primary Examiners have less margin for error since their PAP has an error rate standard. Since the error rate is based on the number of applications allowed, if very few applications are allowed only one error may take the employee out of the ?Fully Successful? rating level. The change provides that an examiner won?t be penalized performance-wise based upon a single clear error in Patentability Determination.

o Shifting resources from a focus on Examiner Recertification to front end quality improvements (the Examiner Recertification was designed to review a certain number of Primary Examiner?s office actions in a given year to ?recertify? examiners as Primary Examiners. Since there are a number of other reviews of examiners' work and additional ways to assess examination quality and efficiency, the Examiner Recertification is ending and the resources used for those reviews will be re-directed to front end quality improvement programs.

o Changing the Gainsharing Award Program to provide 5% increments ranging from 110% to 130% (110,115, 120,125,130), and adding a new 135% level. (provides more steps in-between previous award levels to allow examiners to have a shorter reach to the next higher-level, and adds a new higher level).

o Providing a six-biweek waiver period for hoteling examiners who receive a rating of record of less than Fully Successful at the end of the fiscal year in order to demonstrate Fully Successful performance in all critical elements and remain eligible to participate in the hoteling program.

Please feel free to share any other comments -- positive or negative -- regarding the count system changes. Thanks again for all the great discussion.

---

The thing that has struck me about the whole Patent Prosecution Highway from the start is the fact that all this seems to do is to facilitate what you'd think examiners would be doing anyway.

If you're examining an application, your search would likely uncover any related applications, whether they are US or foreign applications (at least the major Patent Offices), and once found, it certainly makes sense that you'd want to check out the art that was cited by the examiner during prosecution in those foreign patent offices.

It sounds like this will merely amount to the equivalent of additional IDSs (albeit likely pretty relevant IDSs) to be considered.

It is nice to have the Director directly address questions posed by examiners on his blog. Beginning the blog was a great idea on his (or somebody's) part.

Full post as published by Just a Patent Examiner on November 02, 2009 (boomark / email).