Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[intelproplaw]

Anyway, the reason people need to be honest about their overtime is that when they are not, they are typically taking their regular examining time and doing their overtime cases during it. That was my observation when I worked there.

For example, an examiner might work a 40 hour week, but finish their regular examining in, say 30 hours. So what do they do during the last 10 hours? Of course, they pad it with overtime. It is like getting a 25 percent (or so) raise for nothing. And the worst thing about it is, to do their regular work during 30 hours, they have to cut corners. So the quality of the office action suffers. The search, the most important part of the examination process suffers. And in the end, the overall quality of all the patents they issue suffers. And that hurts everyone.

Sure, you can cut into the backlog and maybe save the PTO some money with overtime. But in my observation, the overall quality of the patents which issue will suffer.

Then again, if you are Congress or a PTO administrator, the only two numbers on the spreadsheet that matter are revenue and backlog. That is, until the quality of the patents being issued becomes so atrocious that you have to go through a cycle of quality improvement like the PTO did in recent years, which brought both it and the IP community down to its knees, and nearly at least in theory bankrupt the PTO.

I wish they would eliminate overtime. Applicants deserve better.

have you considered the fact that no overtime gives me less incentive to do more work?

i am paid to do at least 95% of my production requirements.  for some reason, i would think you would see this as being "lazy". god bless you if you produced 200% and claimed 0 overtime, but as far as i am concerned, i am required to do 95% and i'll do 95%.  if i got overtime, then maybe i'll do an extra case (beyond the 40 hours i've worked) and get paid more, but if there is no overtime, i'm not going to give the federal government "free money" although you'd probably argue it's my civic duty to do so.

i laud your duty to your country and your passion for being such an honest, hard working member of the public, but frankly, the government gets enough money from me -- i'm not out to provide "free labor", i've got better things to do with my life.

[LivingItUp]

1. As of jan 2011 nearly 2500 examiners participated in the work-at-home hoteling program, and that number rises by about 500 new examiners added to the program every year.

That is like 35% of the present examining workforce, soon to be 50%. No timesheet fraud when an employee is living at work.

2. Another large % of employees are participating in a partial work-at-home program. Again, examiner sacrifice equals gains by the public. There is unlikely to be time sheet fraud when examiners are logging
so many hours at home.

3. The premise that examiners can get their job done on average in thirty hours is not realistic. Sure, some weeks are lighter workloads than prior weeks. However, on average the work is not a breeze, and cannot be done lickity-split. It requires mind numbing research. The work fatigues your brain.

I can see an argument where an examiner is only productive for thirty of the forty hours i.e., the examiner is floating around their home or the office, browsing the internet, chatting with buddies. However, this is not time sheet fraud. Isn't this how the entire government operates? You put in your hours, and productivity is a second-thought.

I do think nearly all examiners put in hours of excess of forty per week on average.

It may even be better to lighten the workload for examiners, so there is less burnout, and less exceptional examiners changing to non-examining positions. There might be a few bad apples who commit time sheet fraud , but the nature of the work, and how examiners have to keep processing applications keeps that minimal. What examiners need are voices rallying for more time given to examiners to do their jobs.

[horsechute]

Intelproplaw, you are right. I think anyone who turns in more than 100 percent (you think 95, but whatever) is a sucker and a fool. I would not be patriotic enough to turn in 100.0000001 percent, but I would not do less, and as hard as it may seem to belive, I only did overtime once, because I discovered it created ethical issues. I am not overly honest, I just saw people, including someone in my art unit, being caught cheating on overtime, and were subsequently denied registration numbers, and I wanted to some day get out of that floating crap game.

So people should do what they want, but realise that for any activity carried out for a long enough period of time, it is unlikely that the winds of fortune will always smile on you. I think a good solution for overtime would be to eliminate it for people who work at home, and have a sign in sign out sheet like they did in the old days, which really was not very burdensome. I don't have any problem with denying people registration numbers when they are caught cheating on overtime. To me, it is theft, plain and simple. But I think it is wrong to go after them to the point where they have to go find a "friendly" prosecutor in the Virginia prosecutor's office after the U.S. Attorney decided not to prosecute. That happened to someone a few years ago, and it was a real morale buster.

[patyczek]

That is very interesting. I have been trying to become a lawyer in Poland. So far I found useful website there for anyone that is interested. Any other resources in Polish or English?

Here is the site: http://tanikredythipoteczny.net/

[horsechute]

This is part of a March 10, 2010 ABA law report, which I think kind of interestingly summarizes the points that occurred in the past few years at the PTO:

In 2001 President George W. Bush appointed James Rogan, who had no experience in patents, trademarks or intellectual property in general. As a congressman, he had been one of 13 U.S. House managers in President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, and in the 2000 elections, his Los Angeles County constituency showed their disapproval at the polls. Bush picked him up....

He was succeeded by Dudas, who also came from Capitol Hill in 2002 to be the agency's No. 2 appointee. Dudas had worked on intellectual property matters as a congressional staffer, but otherwise had no background in patent or trademark law...

In 2007, a San Francisco lawyer and patent activist, Gregory Aharonian, along with several others, sued for the removal of a political appointee in a high-level position at the PTO, saying she was not qualified under the provisions of the 1999 statute. The suit claimed Margaret Peterlin's only qualification was that she'd served as a senior aide to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who resigned in late 2007 not long after her appointment. Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case in December 2007, finding no congressional intent for a private cause of action. But in his opinion, Robertson wrote that even if he couldn't order it, it would be good if Peterlin acknowledged her deficiencies and asked various PTO constituencies for help. "Besides holding out the prospect of actually addressing the real problems besetting the office," he wrote, "any such behavior from Ms. Peterlin would be a refreshing change from the hostility and adversarial stance taken in recent times by patent office management." The point was made. Peterlin resigned eight months later, in August 2008.

<previous paragraph>

Dudas defends his quality-control measures, though he does admit they had some unintended consequences. "We focused on quality with a number of new initiatives and the error rate came down," Dudas explains. "We anticipated the allowance rate to come down, but didn't think it would come down as much as it did. You never target an allowance rate." While morale plummeted among examiners, it probably wasn't that good at the top, either. All the while in the background, from cocktail palaver to prominent blogs, there were questions about the bona fides of political appointees in the PTO leadership, some of whose backgrounds ran deep in politics and shallow on patents....

Kappos came into the job with a mandate to "reboot" the patent office, in the words of Locke. It is more like a complete rebuild, from the agency's unusual foursquare backing of a legislative reform package to root-and-branch changes in how examiners are graded for performance....

[patentatt]

This is part of a March 10, 2010 ABA law report, which I think kind of interestingly summarizes the points that occurred in the past few years at the PTO:

In 2001 President George W. Bush appointed James Rogan, who had no experience in patents, trademarks or intellectual property in general. As a congressman, he had been one of 13 U.S. House managers in President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, and in the 2000 elections, his Los Angeles County constituency showed their disapproval at the polls. Bush picked him up....

He was succeeded by Dudas, who also came from Capitol Hill in 2002 to be the agency's No. 2 appointee. Dudas had worked on intellectual property matters as a congressional staffer, but otherwise had no background in patent or trademark law...

In 2007, a San Francisco lawyer and patent activist, Gregory Aharonian, along with several others, sued for the removal of a political appointee in a high-level position at the PTO, saying she was not qualified under the provisions of the 1999 statute. The suit claimed Margaret Peterlin's only qualification was that she'd served as a senior aide to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who resigned in late 2007 not long after her appointment. Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the case in December 2007, finding no congressional intent for a private cause of action. But in his opinion, Robertson wrote that even if he couldn't order it, it would be good if Peterlin acknowledged her deficiencies and asked various PTO constituencies for help. "Besides holding out the prospect of actually addressing the real problems besetting the office," he wrote, "any such behavior from Ms. Peterlin would be a refreshing change from the hostility and adversarial stance taken in recent times by patent office management." The point was made. Peterlin resigned eight months later, in August 2008.

<previous paragraph>

Dudas defends his quality-control measures, though he does admit they had some unintended consequences. "We focused on quality with a number of new initiatives and the error rate came down," Dudas explains. "We anticipated the allowance rate to come down, but didn't think it would come down as much as it did. You never target an allowance rate." While morale plummeted among examiners, it probably wasn't that good at the top, either. All the while in the background, from cocktail palaver to prominent blogs, there were questions about the bona fides of political appointees in the PTO leadership, some of whose backgrounds ran deep in politics and shallow on patents....

Kappos came into the job with a mandate to "reboot" the patent office, in the words of Locke. It is more like a complete rebuild, from the agency's unusual foursquare backing of a legislative reform package to root-and-branch changes in how examiners are graded for performance....

Where can I find/read this in entirety?  It's fascinating.

[Dazed-n-confused]

This is part of a March 10, 2010 ABA law report, which I think kind of interestingly summarizes the points that occurred in the past few years at the PTO:

In 2001 President George W. Bush appointed James Rogan, who had no experience in patents, trademarks or intellectual property in general. As a congressman, he had been one of 13 U.S. House managers in President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial, and in the 2000 elections, his Los Angeles County constituency showed their disapproval at the polls. Bush picked him up....

Where can I find/read this in entirety?  It's fascinating.

I have heard it said that Google (and another less recent historical figure) are a very present help in time of need. 

http://www.google.ch/search?hl=rm&source=hp&q=%22his+Los+Angeles+County+constituency+showed+their+disapproval+at+the+polls%22&meta=

[horsechute]

I think it is a very informative article. I am not sure I agree with all of it, on both sides. For example, I actually think that recertification of examiners every three years is a good idea, since you have to remember that they are handing out limited monopolies, and after a while, they don't even care about the job or its consequences; they just want their overtime and relatively high salaries. Also, I did not like the bit about Peterlin resigning after 8 months because "the point was made". We don't know why she resigned, and I thought I had read that she did so for other reasons, though again who really knows. But I liked the point being made that some people like Ahronian et al were bold enough to stand up to the PTO for what they believed in by filing the lawsuit.

[Yet another examiner]

And down the road, they are almost sure to get an SPE who will push them out. It almost always happens. Seriously.

This is exactly the kind of silly over-exaggeration that causes people to not take you seriously. Yes, there are plenty of terrible SPEs, and they can make your life miserable  --I'll be the first to agree. But this idea that every examiner is inevitably going to get transferred to one and subsequently kicked out of the PTO is pure hogwash.  I don't know if your game is to scare away new hires or if you're projecting your own experiences or what.

I would have told you that I routinely outsource a portion of my work to India.  I do it selectively, and it delivers value to the client.

LOL that's what we call "damning with faint praise." Pretty clear from your answer what "value" these firms give your clients.

I've seen firsthand what some of these foreign firm searches produce. It's far worse than what the USPTO delivers.

(3)  My suggestion was outsourcing 'examining.'  Your response was about outsourcing 'searching.'  They're different.  Searching is but a portion of examining

And if they can't do a proper search, what is the examination going to be like? Am I going too fast for you?

(4) Outsourcing isn't something that myself, as an agent or attorney, and you, as an examiner, choose to 'not do' because it is not in either of our individual interests.  You do what 's in the client's or customer's interest, not cut a deal with the examiner because you have a common interest.

That doesn't come close to addressing my point. I think it went over your head, but since you're just here to bash examiners and troll, I'm not going to feed you anymore

[horsechute]

Actually, I think he just went over your head, examiner.

To answer your question, I was just reflecting on the fact that I almost never saw an examiner retire. Anyone aside from the management who decided to try to make a "career" of examining eventually got pushed out, or in some cases, completely burned out. Just my experience.

And if you don't mind me asking, what is it like getting a PhD in Chemistry, and then, "after industry", ending up searching for patents on mechanical devices on a daily basis? Kind of like the joke about the guy who got the Phd in zoology, and could only get a job in a meat packing plant, isn't it?

[currentexaminer]

I'm starting to agree with the other examiners here. I just think horsechute is here to bash examiners at any cost (beyond reason or logic). If you lost your reg number, do you even work in the patent field anymore? Why are you still here?

[horsechute]

1.  For some reason, it is only the examiners who don't like what I have to say. It is always "current examiner" or "yet another examiner" or "yet another another examiner". Sorry if you guys don't like my views about cheating on overtime. I should have expected you would all complain.

2.  I get a huge laugh every time I hear one of you <guys> say I lost/was denied a registration number. Ha Ha. The joke is on you. You need to read your references.

I suppose I can expect to hear from "yet yet another current examiner" or "currentcurrentexaminer" next.

[Yet another examiner]

And if you don't mind me asking, what is it like getting a PhD in Chemistry, and then, "after industry", ending up searching for patents on mechanical devices on a daily basis?

I'm doing quite well, thanks. The combination of pay, benefits, and flexible schedule is better than my last job, and I discovered that I really don't like lab work.  I know you're trying to sell the narrative that everyone who works here is a miserable burnout case, but it ain't true.

At the very least, I'm not spending years trolling some chemistry forum telling newbies how miserable their new job is going to be.

1.  For some reason, it is only the examiners who don't like what I have to say.

You're in a forum for examiners constantly insulting examiners, bro. What did you expect?  And the thing is, if you weren't so constantly hyperbolic, I'd probably agree with much of what you say, but everything from you is absurdly exaggerated and defeatist. "You WILL get a SPE who kicks you out! It happens to everyone! No one else will ever hire you again! BOO!"

2.  I get a huge laugh every time I hear one of you <guys> say I lost/was denied a registration number. Ha Ha. The joke is on you. You need to read your references.

If I've told the story wrong, I apologize and here is your chance to get the record straight. My understanding is that you lost your reg. number a decade ago.

[horsechute]

Ok, whatever. If I were a betting man, I would say you probably work in adhesive bonding. If so, I hope the job sticks.  And no need to apologize about saying my reg number was denied. Someone made that up, so I just go along with it, but frankly I don't care what you or anyone thinks about that, or anything else for that matter.

Even if you decide to stay at the PTO, you might want to read John White's book on chemical patent prosecution. It is rough going, but the best in my opinon. And if you are planning on leaving someday, like most people will, the PTO provides a nice laboratory to study patents, so make the experience
worthwhile by learning what to look for.

Sorry, but I just say what I think are the problems at the PTO, like cheating on overtime, SPE's who don't earn their keep and should be doing some of the examining, or people like Dudas and company who I thought did a poor job. If people want to disagree, that's fine. But if they want to shove a pie in my face, then I might just shove one back.

[another current examiner]

Hello All,

I have been trolling this website for several years.  The last couple of weeks I have been contemplating actually posting something.  And today I finally decided to actually do it.

Let me first start by giving you some background on my life.  I have an MS EE from a top 10 university, and worked for a top 10 IP law firm as a patent Agent.  I eventually left the law firm for the PTO.  I am sure a lot of you are shocked to hear this.  Why leave a law firm and give up the great pay and benefits?  Yes, the pay and benefits were great.  I had a corporate credit card, took town cars on most PTO travel related business, I traveled to see clients, had a secretary (that I shared), my own office with a view, and I cannot even count all the social events that were provided by the firm with all the free food and alcohol you could consume.

However, what you may also be surprised to hear is that I am not the only person to leave a law firm for the PTO.  Moreover, I have several friends and colleagues that plan on leaving their firm when they get their student loans paid off, or build up a nest egg.  I also have several friends and colleagues that are planning to stay at their current jobs in their law firm and chase the Partner dream.  And still further, I know many people that are only at the PTO for the experience; they plan on leaving the PTO to go to a law firm.  I count them all as my friends and realize that each one made their own decisions based on their own wants and needs.  However, I will focus on why someone would leave a law firm for the PTO. 

Let’s first start with the billable hour requirement, of which my firm required 2000 billable hours a year.  As many of you should know, 2000 billable hours does not mean being at work for 2000 hours in a year.  For me, it took 10-12 hours to bill 8 hours.  I understand this to be somewhat standard for most people.  Any one who tells you different is most likely lying.  If you average that at 11 hours worked for every 8 hours billed, you’re actually looking at approximately 2745 hours worked in a year to make the minimum requirements.  For me, that translated in 10-12 hour days, 6 days a week.  This of course was for prosecution, not litigation.  Litigation is a whole new ball game.

The law firm I worked at didn’t provide actual vacation.  However, if you billed your 2000 hours, you were free to take vacation time.  You must understand that if you want to become Partner at a law firm, working 2000 billable hours a year will not get you there.  The people I saw become Partners were billing upwards of 3000 a year. 

For this work, the pay is great.  When I started at my law firm, the starting salary for a first year associate was 165K.  The medical benefits were very good, but there was no matching 401k. 

So, why did I leave the law firm and go to the PTO?  Well, I was miserable there.  And so were a lot of people I worked with.  Yes, there were a lot of people that were happy too, but I was not one of them.  I spent so much time working that I rarely saw my wife, and never took an actual vacation.  My only friends started to become the people I worked with, mostly because I saw them so much.

I started to contemplate where I wanted to go.  Over the course of several months, I received 5 job offers; three government jobs and 2 other law firm jobs.  I now had a choice to make.  Do I try another law firm, go back into engineering, or go to the PTO.  The engineering jobs were out because one was in Wyoming (lol), and the other required 100% travel.  I also decided against another law firm job because I new that I would want to become a student associate, and that, I think, would be worse than actually just working as a patent agent, mostly because of the time that would be required. 

So I decided on the PTO.  I remember the look on the face of my recruiter when I told him I was going to go to the PTO instead of the law firm jobs that were offered.  It was somewhere between utter disgust and complete surprise.  In fact, several days later I received a phone call from him.  One of the law firms wanted to know why I chose the PTO over them.  I laughed and just told her I wanted to try something new.  In reality, I just don’t think I could have ever been happy at a law firm. 

POST IS CONTINUED BELOW