r/patentexaminer

Pretty sure there are MANY things going on that deserve more time and attention than how to F over civil servants. Give it a rest you morons.

I’m mostly wondering if anyone knows when a decision is expected.

I took it for personal reasons and because I was worried about the reorg/rif. My area ended up not being impacted, so I feel like I got played and gave up my job for nothing. Now every day is worse than the day before it and I am miserable. Just wondering if I am alone or if anyone else feels the same way...

Do they take out for pension an tsp?

I’m loving the Q&A section for now! People aren’t scared to voice opinions anymore and I’m here for it

Hello, I left my PIV card in my apartment (it’s safe) and cannot access it without a long trip.

Is there any way I’d be able to login without it?

Are my only choices to contact OCIO and hope?

I’m already approved to situational telework just screwed up and didn’t take my PIV card with me.

For invalidity work, how do litigators decide when non-patent literature is worth developing into a primary prior-art position?
From the research side, we routinely see standards documents, technical specifications, conference papers, product manuals, archived documentation, and academic publications disclose limitations more precisely than patent references—particularly in telecom, networking, semiconductor, and software matters.
The technical relevance is often straightforward. The harder question is legal utility: when the technical disclosure is strong but the evidentiary/public-accessibility record requires additional work, how do attorneys decide whether the reference is worth developing?
Interested mainly in the litigation perspective on where that threshold lies.

If you are submitting a national stage application, and the claims have all been unrecognizably amended to bring the foreign claims into alignment with us practice, please, I'm begging you, submit a clean copy. That's all

The obverse side (L) and never-before-seen reverse side of the Lutnick card (R)

"Perhaps nothing symbolizes the intellectual and philosophical decline of the USPTO so much as its decision to create an inventor trading card featuring Howard Lutnick."

For context I’m a relatively new examiner in their first year still.

I was wondering for those examiners who’ve passed the patent bar, did you still need to buy PLI or any other resource? Is it realistic for me to study a few hours a week for a few months to pass the exam without PLI?

I assumed because I’ve gone through PTA that I have a solid fundamental understanding of the law that it would be feasible to pass without expensive resources.

also from what I understand, examiners can still take the exam but they have to give up their registration number correct?

As we approach the end of Q4, how many of us would be less than FS had the experimental timeliness system been officially implemented?

Please give your most honest answer so people monitoring this sub can see what's really going on.

Don't mean to suggest timeliness would definitely doom us. Please also give account of why the modified timeliness are working better for you compared to DM.

Thanks yall.

I'm on a PIP. It feels like the goalposts keep changing. My SPE keeps sending things back because my search is too broad, but also too narrow, but also totally wrong because I didnt check with a primary (I'm a 12, been at the office 6 years, in my current art area for 1.5 years)

It feels like I'm being set up to fail the PIP on purpose.

Is there anyone to formally put in a complaint with now that we don't have POPA or am I just SOL?

Whenever they send an email saying “We are pleased to announce,” you can bet no examiner is pleased. So we get a briefing and then you’re on your own unless you want to eat the time for an optional briefing. And no more attribute time for challenges. But we value our employees… riiiiight.

Edit: And if the challenge process is simplified without requiring examiners to research or identify a more appropriate skill group, how is the appropriate skill group determined?

Hi everyone, my primary and SPE are currently out on break so I thought I’d get some input here.

Currently I have an application that has these sets of claims:

Claim 1 - A

Claim 2 - B

Claim 3 - C

and in another set of independent claims:

Claim 4 - parts of A + parts of B

Claim 5 - Rest of B

Claim 6 - Rest of A + C

and in another set:

Claim 7 - A + parts of B

Claim 8 - Rest of B + C

So I was wondering if I should examine this as is or restrict it. I guess it’s worth noting that one is a method, and the other two are different hardware. I appreciate any tidbits or advice, thank you!

Throwaway for obvious reasons. Mostly referencing some SPEs/upper management

"In the collective mind the intellectual aptitudes of individuals...are weakened. ...The decisions made by an assembly of men of distinction...are not sensibly superior to the decisions that would be adopted by a gathering of imbeciles." - https://www.thrivenet.com/articles/iqidiocy.shtml

Primary source: https://www.mediastudies.press/pub/emet-le-bon-crowd/release/2

First time I've seen this ever.

Original claims were restricted between Invention 1 and Invention 2. In responding to a restriction, Applicant elected Invention I and submitted amendments adding new claims directed to a random, relatively new invention - Invention 3. (new with respect to the restriction requirement, but is 112(a) written description compliant).

Now "restriction by original presentation" would not be in order since I have not issued the first non-final (i.e., action on the merits). So I don't think I can write the first non-final and just withdraw the invention 3 invoking "restriction by original presentation." Do I just issue another, consecutive restriction restricting Invention 1 and 3? I've never done restrictions back to back. Is that done in the office?

EDIT:

After reading some relies and looking into the MPEP, I believe I was incorrect to think that "restriction by original presentation" can only occur after FOAM.

MPEP 818.02(a) states "Where claims to another invention are properly added and entered in the application before the earlier of the mailing of a first restriction requirement or the mailing of a first Office action on the merits, those claims, along with the ones presented upon filing the application, will be considered originally presented claims for purposes of restriction only."

The MPEP is poorly written and confusing in this regard. For the most part it always uses "after receiving an action on the merits of an invention" as if that was the only requirement to (i.e., it seems in some MPEP sections it simply forgets that a first restriction requirement can also be used to define what is original presentation material).

So because the third invention was added after I issued the first restriction requirement, the third invention is NOT considered "originally presentation" claims and can be restricted by original presentation.

Did we get our timelines bonus this paycheck?

Barry, I notice one item missing from your list:

3. If we find that EXACT simply can't perform as we expect, we will pull the plug on the program entirely.

All your points you included imply that the grand plan is to beat and bang on EXACT to try to force fit a square peg through a round hole, no matter the cost to anyone for doing so.

And if prior management initiatives are any suggestion, this is all that is going to happen. EXACT will be beaten on to try to form it into something, but if in the end the result is a total piece of garbage, it will still be made mandatory to use (example: SimSearch) because some manager has "deploy EXACT" in their PAP, without any language relating to "deploy a tool that is actually helpful, but do not deploy if it is not actually helpful".

Management initiatives at PTO always end up being "deployed at all cost", because management never holds themselves accountable for the quality of the tools they deploy from their initiatives.