Working for the USPTO

[JB]

If you want to apply Pat Grant's logic as a quick and imprecise exercise one could easily compare the hiring at the USPTO to any firm's hiring practices.

For example say that a 100 lawyer firm hires 10 new associates each year or roughly 10%. Compared to the USPTO that means hiring 10% of 3,900 exminers each year (390 positions). Of course they would constantly be hiring to get the most qualified candidates. Even if they were hiring 100 or 200 examiners they would be consistently listing openings.

Pat Grant seems to have no clue and poor off-the-cuff logic. THINK before you speak.

[Anon]

looking at the USPTO as a public agency i actually don't see this as negative. the infusion of former USPTO examiners into the pool of agents and attorneys keeps professional standards high in the private sector. of course it presents a difficulty for the USPTO as an employer, but i see their role of trainer/educator as equally important.  

I agree (and I think that even the PTO would agree) that their role is, in part, that of a trainer/educator.  Even so, the turnover at the PTO has reached a point that is unhealthy.  My stats are a little out of date, but last I heard, 50% of examiners had been with the office for fewer than 3 years, which coincidentally is just about how long it takes most examiners to attain a reasonable level of competence.

[Pat Grant]

If you want to apply Pat Grant's logic as a quick and imprecise exercise one could easily compare the hiring at the USPTO to any firm's hiring practices.

For example say that a 100 lawyer firm hires 10 new associates each year or roughly 10%. Compared to the USPTO that means hiring 10% of 3,900 exminers each year (390 positions). Of course they would constantly be hiring to get the most qualified candidates. Even if they were hiring 100 or 200 examiners they would be consistently listing openings.

Pat Grant seems to have no clue and poor off-the-cuff logic. THINK before you speak.

Ummmmmmmmmm...Nice to meet you, too?

Wow!  Post an opinion, get insulted.

Well,  I respect yours and others opinions.  I believe smart people can disagree, no insults required.

My comments are simply an personal based on my personal experience.  Obviously you and others have had different experiences.  Hearing about them has been enlightening.  

I'm sure there are some niche areas, like biotech, where it's more competitive.  However, I wouldn't want to post an opinion based solely on those cases and needlessly scare someone away from seeking employment.  

[Pat Grant]

My comments are simply an personal based on my personal experience.  

oops - should read "My comments are simply a personal opinion based on my personal experience."

[eric stasik]

Even so, the turnover at the PTO has reached a point that is unhealthy.  My stats are a little out of date, but last I heard, 50% of examiners had been with the office for fewer than 3 years, which coincidentally is just about how long it takes most examiners to attain a reasonable level of competence.

anon, i've never worked at the USPTO so i can only speak as an outside observer, but this statistic doesn't talk to me.

maybe 50% turnover 0-3 years is right where it should be. again i am thinking of the need of private industry to absorb these skills. is it necessarily unhealthy? why do you say that it is? how does this compare to other parts of the government sector?

what is the turnover rate of people who have been there 5 or more years? is it substantially in or out of line with the rest of the government sector? these are the people that make it possible for a 0-3 year examiner to do a good job, so if there is a reasonable turnover of these people, then a high turn-over of 0-3 might not be so bad.

i'm not trying to challenge you, not at all. i'm just trying to understand this better.

regards,

eric stasik

[Anon]

I'm sure there are some niche areas, like biotech, where it's more competitive.  However, I wouldn't want to post an opinion based solely on those cases and needlessly scare someone away from seeking employment.  

I'm not sure on what "personal experience" you are basing your comments, but you are correct that biotech may be slightly more competitive than some other areas.  Even so, applicants greatly outnumber available positions in ALL areas.  And I don't say that to "needlessly scare someone away from seeking employment."  Just stating facts.

[Guest]

My stats are a little out of date, but last I heard, 50% of examiners had been with the office for fewer than 3 years, which coincidentally is just about how long it takes most examiners to attain a reasonable level of competence.

Noting that many examiners are part-time law-school students, 3-4 years is coincidentally about how long it takes to finish law school.  I wonder how much that plays into it.

[Anon]

maybe 50% turnover 0-3 years is right where it should be. again i am thinking of the need of private industry to absorb these skills. is it necessarily unhealthy? why do you say that it is? how does this compare to other parts of the government sector?

what is the turnover rate of people who have been there 5 or more years? is it substantially in or out of line with the rest of the government sector? these are the people that make it possible for a 0-3 year examiner to do a good job, so if there is a reasonable turnover of these people, then a high turn-over of 0-3 might not be so bad.

Good questions and no challenge taken.  

I only have a few minutes, so here are a few brief (and poorly organized) thoughts...

Sure, the private sector benefits from having a pool of trained patent professionals from which to hire.  And yes, as I said, I think that the Office would agree that their role is, in part, that of a trainer/educator.

Why do I say that the current rate of turnover, where 50% of examiners leave the office before 3, is unhealthy?  As I mentioned, it usually takes at least three years for an examiner to acquire a reasonable level of competence.   Where only 50% of examiners have been with the office for 3 or more years, then it follows that, at best, only 50% of examiners have a reasonable level of competence.  So one problem is that too many applications are being examined by examiners who are not yet competent... the ramifications of which should be self-evident.

Now you might be thinking, "Aren't new examiners supervised by experienced examiners?"   In theory yes, but in practice NO.  The experienced examiners have a hard enough time keeping up with their own dockets.  They certainly don't have time review all the actions of the great many examiners who are not yet competent.

By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I stayed with the PTO for 3 years before moving on.   How's that for hypocrisy?

[eric stasik]

it usually takes at least three years for an examiner to acquire a reasonable level of competence.   Where only 50% of examiners have been with the office for 3 or more years, then it follows that, at best, only 50% of examiners have a reasonable level of competence.  So one problem is that too many applications are being examined by examiners who are not yet competent... the ramifications of which should be self-evident.

Now you might be thinking, "Aren't new examiners supervised by experienced examiners?"   In theory yes, but in practice NO.  The experienced examiners have a hard enough time keeping up with their own dockets.  They certainly don't have time review all the actions of the great many examiners who are not yet competent.

thanks for your answer anon.

let me "challenge" you again. you say "it usually takes at least three years for an examiner to acquire a reasonable level of competence." to work independently as an examiner. it may only take 1-2 years to gain the experience necessary to work effectively in the private sector.

your second point is indeed a problem. rumour has it that there are 500,000 applications in backlog. my math makes this approx. 75 applications for every one of the USPTO's 6500 employees - of which fewer than half are examiners.

if the average application is 1 cm thick, and then add another 1 cm of prior art to read, this is a pile 150 cm or almost 5 feet high in the in-box of EVERY employee at the USPTO.

this, of course, is a far larger problem. who wants to come to work on monday and look at a pile 5 feet high of paper sitting in their in-box?

thanks again for the information. sorry to drag this thead off topic...

/eric stasik

[Huh]

The only person doing the insulting Pat Grant is you in your posts on the first page.

Maybe you should think to yourself and wonder why it is so difficult for you to get an allowance sometimes during your prosecutions. It could be because of your condescending attitude which, if noticed,  will immediately cause examiners to dig in their heels. You might try a new attitude and be suprised how much further you will get with the examiner thereby serving your clients better.

[eric stasik]

rogersDA,

thanks for the correction.

if you consider my comments figuratively, instead of literally, are they correct, or would you say that this is hyperbole?

regards,

eric

[Patent_Prospect]

First-time poster, long-time viewer.

I find this forum very useful, especially for those at the start of what seems to be a very satisfying career choice.

My background is very similar to many who post.  I posess a B.S.E.E. and an M.S.E.E. (Microwave/RF and Microelectronics dual-concentration).  I have approximately 3 years of engineering experience, and research experience as a doctoral student in EE (ABD).  

I went to a seminar while a Ph.D. student for "alternative" careers in engineering, where a patent attorney was one of the speakers.  After speaking with him for some time, I decided to study for (and take) the USPTO registration exam.  I have been registered for 2 years.  In addition, I worked at a research university as a technology manager in the Office of Research, assisting university inventors in securing patent protection, and securing licensing partners for university owned IP, for a year.

I have a job offer from the USPTO as an examiner, as well as a DC law firm as a patent agent (obviously, agent position pays better).

To make a long story long, I am seeking candid professional advice.  From a career prospect prospective (long-term), should I:

1)  Accept the examiner position (due to my lack of law firm experience, this might allow me to see the nuts and bolts of patent prosecution, without immediate billable hour requirements, etc.)

2) Accept the agent position (pay is better, and I would like to eventually migrate to patent prosecution, but would this hinder my development in the long run; i.e., walking before I crawl).

3) Bury my head in the sand, while shouting "thank you sir, can I have another" at my lame, go nowhere government contract engineering job, where it seems that the only goal is to find an unused account to bill to long enough to survive the next round of layoffs, only to eventually get laid off after 20 years due, in part, to the fact that they can hire 3-4 green engineers for the price of 1.

(Please forgive the sarcasm. Option 3 is not really an option.)

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.  Thanks!

Patent_Prospect...out.

[patent_type]

You don't mention if you plan to go to law school.  Regardless, my opinion is that you should accept the agent job.  Better pay, plenty of experience, go to law school at night.  

[glb]PT[/glb]

[patent_type]

Plus, then as a patent agent, you can curse the ineptitude of examiners, instead of being laughed and cursed at constantly by practitioners.

[glb]PT[/glb]

[Patent_Prospect]

FYI, the USPTO just reinstated their law school reimbursement program, which they discontinued in 2000-2001.  They told me in the interview.

In anyone's experience, do they offer any sort of training as an agent, or is it primarily an every-man-for-himself environment?  Although I think I would be successful in either opportunity, I want to be able to serve my prospective employer as best as possible, which is to say that I don't want to waste the law firm's time by being a training burden, where I could conceivably gain that training as an examiner for a few years.

Although I am aware that and examiner and a practioner are distinctly different, I try to consider that I might be more valuable to a firm (and potential clients) by having been on the "other side" for a while.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!