JSonnabend

[horsechute]

Almost nobody who has ever done that job for more than 3 years finds any satisfaction in it. But it is a secure job in tough times, like now. But if you stay very long, like more than 5 years, there is a good chance you'll eventually get pushed out one way or another, unless you become an SPE. But it is a least possible SPE's will someday have a more uncertain future if, for example, they are required to examine applications, which is certainly a possibility.

[Examinerguy]

"I don't think the examiner job can intellectually stack up to jobs that requires constant reasoning, constant learning, constant changing demands."
 

uhhh...all I do all day is reason and learn. I don't know how others perform the job, but I take a little pride and make sure I understand the application and technology before writing up an action. I agree about the meaningless statement...but that is merely because we know a little about a lot, not very attractive to non-IP employers who want you to know a lot about a little.

Nonetheless, even though as I said, the job sucks...I am making well over 100K 4 years out of college in an extremely stable job with decent benefits. That is one of the reasons why it is so hard to leave to become an attorney. 

[LivingItUp]

"I don't think the examiner job can intellectually stack up to jobs that requires constant reasoning, constant learning, constant changing demands."
uhhh...all I do all day is reason and learn.

You don't need to defend yourself. You can be honest about your own job without having to point out possible deficiencies with the lawyering job.

I don't have much interest in the law, so I don't count the tidbits about the law, and engineering I encounter as "learning". And I don't count the tidbits of obscure information I search as "learning". It sounds like you are interested in the law, so you do feel like these tidbits are "learning".


Here is my basic assembly line process reasoning ...

Process:

   Step 1: create a WORD project by identifying all forms required
   Step 2: perform miscellaneous file additions (add bib data sheet, IDS references, etc)
   Step 3: Is this a new case?
              Decision "Yes": GOTO Step 4
              Decision "No": THEN COPY old office action into newly created project from step 1, and update any changed information
                                  Were amendments made?
                                        Decision: "Yes": Format office action with new amendments
                                        Decision "No": GOTO Step 4
   Step 4: Add supplemental required files such as bib data sheet, IDS sheets, etc.
   Step 5: Is this a new case?
              Decision "Yes"" Goto step 6
              Decision "No": Answer new arguments in office action
   Step 6: Create EAST Search File
   Step 7: Inventor Search Done in East or Palm?
              Decision: "Yes": Goto Step 8
              Decision: "No": Perform search
   Step 8: Perform all variety of searches (sub-class, title, keyword, etc), and develop list of meaningful references found
   Step 9: Filter found references to best
   Step 10: Apply found references per the 102, 103 requirements
   Step 11: Can reject?
              Decision: "Yes": Write rejection per requirements
              Decision "No": Check with others and repeat step 11
              Decision: "No" twice: Write Allowance
   Step 12: Complete all project forms by filling in information
   Step 13: Attach all supplemental files (e.g., non-patent literature)
  DONE

Repeat over and over and over .... as fast as possible

[Examinerguy]

The only thing that you fail to mention is that the paperwork takes an hour tops. The research, reading and writing take the rest of the time. And as I have previously said, I am always reading, writing and defending a new topic. So the process is redundant, but the material is certainly not.

And how do you copy and paste old actions EVERY time? I can do that maybe 50% of the time. The attorney often makes changes to amend around the examiners art; forcing a new search and writeup.

But I take it you are in something like medical stints or something...in that case I am sorry and agree with your process above. 

[DogDayPM]

And how do you copy and paste old actions EVERY time? I can do that maybe 50% of the time. The attorney often makes changes to amend around the examiners art; forcing a new search and writeup.

I'm glad you do not, but it seems to me there are Examiners who do just this even when wildly inappropriate.

Even in cases where I've shown conclusively that a 102 ref (or 103 combo) fails to have one or more required structural elements, I still get a verbatim cut/paste of the prior action's rejection with an appended paragraph stating my arguments were unpersuasive for some reason unrelated to the fact that I'd shown the rejection failed to show all elements.

So I appeal.

Then I wait.

And to add a comment to some of your recent posts (going from memory and hoping it was you! ) where you'd prefer the practitioner talk things over with you prior to appealing, I used to try politely discussing these cases with the involved Examiners.  After a while one gets tired of hearing "I don't care; my SPE says I have to reject it".

[mk1023]

The only thing that you fail to mention is that the paperwork takes an hour tops. The research, reading and writing take the rest of the time. And as I have previously said, I am always reading, writing and defending a new topic. So the process is redundant, but the material is certainly not.

And how do you copy and paste old actions EVERY time? I can do that maybe 50% of the time. The attorney often makes changes to amend around the examiners art; forcing a new search and writeup.

But I take it you are in something like medical stints or something...in that case I am sorry and agree with your process above. 

100% is way too high, but to be honest 50% sounds low to me. Maybe your art is such that the attorneys don't know where they're going with the claims.

Most of my finals seem to be copies of the previous office action with a little surgery performed

[Examinerguy]

And to add a comment to some of your recent posts (going from memory and hoping it was you! ) where you'd prefer the practitioner talk things over with you prior to appealing, I used to try politely discussing these cases with the involved Examiners.  After a while one gets tired of hearing "I don't care; my SPE says I have to reject it".

I definitely agree with appealing over a phone call if you know the examiner = english as anything but a first language. The language bearer is bad enough in standard conversation let alone advanced conversation containing complex topics.

[DogDayPM]

...if you know the examiner = english as anything but a first language.  The language bearer is bad enough in standard conversation let alone advanced conversation containing complex topics.

Sometimes the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife!   

[yapex]

...if you know the examiner = english as anything but a first language.  The language bearer is bad enough in standard conversation let alone advanced conversation containing complex topics.

Sometimes the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife!   

"Bearer"?  Someone's English must not be his first language.   

[DogDayPM]

...if you know the examiner = english as anything but a first language.  The language bearer is bad enough in standard conversation let alone advanced conversation containing complex topics.

Sometimes the irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife!   

"Bearer"?  Someone's English must not be his first language.   

Hence the thickened irony...

[Examinerguy]

hahaha...nooooooo!!!

[lukertin]

I definitely agree with appealing over a phone call if you know the examiner = english as anything but a first language. The language bearer is bad enough in standard conversation let alone advanced conversation containing complex topics.

Please tell to me at your early convenient whether you think or not the subject matters and arguements contained in the preliminary amendment I am send to you now at this moment is acceptable for entry to the record.

Thank you sincerely for your asistance with this matter

[yapex]

I definitely agree with appealing over a phone call if you know the examiner = english as anything but a first language. The language bearer is bad enough in standard conversation let alone advanced conversation containing complex topics.

Please tell to me at your early convenient whether you think or not the subject matters and arguements contained in the preliminary amendment I am send to you now at this moment is acceptable for entry to the record.

Thank you sincerely for your asistance with this matter

Maybe I'm reading between the lines...  Let's not bother conducting phone interviews with examiners not having English as their first language?  All examiners should have a flag in the USPTO employee directory indicating whether English is their first language?  Maybe go a step further and make sure the Office will not hire anyone fitting this category?

Wait... based on the above posting, the rule should be extended to written correspondences and practioners also?

Someone starting a petition to change the MPEP?

LOL

PS hopefully the moderator will find a reason to delete this posting

[Examinerguy]

Do you work at the office? If so, you should understand. I'm not saying don't have phone interviews...but 90% of the interviews I sit in on with a person that has English as a 2nd, 3rd, etc. language end up getting nowhere. Most of the time the attorney goes, "could you please repeat that?" Then the examiner will repeat and the attorney will think it's rude to ask the examiner to repeat again so he just goes onto the next topic. Heck, I don't understand them half of the time and I speak with them on a weekly basis.

I've also noticed something very odd...in general, people who speak poor English also have a method of getting around answering hard questions...they make less sense. As soon as a hard question arises it is like their English becomes 2x worse. They just start spitting out random keywords relating to the Art and hope the attorney gets frazzled.   

[lukertin]

I definitely agree with appealing over a phone call if you know the examiner = english as anything but a first language. The language bearer is bad enough in standard conversation let alone advanced conversation containing complex topics.

Please tell to me at your early convenient whether you think or not the subject matters and arguements contained in the preliminary amendment I am send to you now at this moment is acceptable for entry to the record.

Thank you sincerely for your asistance with this matter

Maybe I'm reading between the lines...  Let's not bother conducting phone interviews with examiners not having English as their first language?  All examiners should have a flag in the USPTO employee directory indicating whether English is their first language?  Maybe go a step further and make sure the Office will not hire anyone fitting this category?

Wait... based on the above posting, the rule should be extended to written correspondences and practioners also?

Someone starting a petition to change the MPEP?

LOL

PS hopefully the moderator will find a reason to delete this posting

Calm down, it was meant to be ironical 'n shit, like a hipster.  It was a hipster post, ok?