Working for the USPTO

[fewyearsin]

POPA said in their presentation that some AUs won't get much additional time.

What presentation

Yes, what presentation?  Is this publicly available?  Or available somewhere to examiners?  All I heard is that we'll learn more before they implement it in October.

[snapshot]

POPA said in their presentation that some AUs won't get much additional time.

What presentation

Yes, what presentation?  Is this publicly available?  Or available somewhere to examiners?  All I heard is that we'll learn more before they implement it in October.

The only presentation I know of recently was the annual meeting.

Though the idea of some arts not getting as much time adjustment as others should be painfully obvious.

[steelie]

POPA said in their presentation that some AUs won't get much additional time.

What presentation

Yes, what presentation?  Is this publicly available?  Or available somewhere to examiners?  All I heard is that we'll learn more before they implement it in October.

They sent out an email.

It is here .. the POPA annual meeting video... they get into how these changes may take time to implement .. and give some general details about some changes
http://www.popa.org/blog/

[mk1023]

Kurt Mueller posted the new PAP agreement here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1do9Sn-rGgaGhVFCOHZEN9-JZDejLgnr3/view?fbclid=IwAR3qeJfWnOW06NZ2g4pNXUdokeIRD6jhj_OVEWbYEXmCapD9TpwHODCYEa4

There are a couple of 20+ minute analysis videos on his facebook: https://www.facebook.com/kmpopa

[bluerogue]

Kurt Mueller posted the new PAP agreement here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1do9Sn-rGgaGhVFCOHZEN9-JZDejLgnr3/view?fbclid=IwAR3qeJfWnOW06NZ2g4pNXUdokeIRD6jhj_OVEWbYEXmCapD9TpwHODCYEa4

Thanks for that.

Overall the changes don't seem to be that bad, although I'll get a net gain of 20 minutes, which given the rounding changes to BDs is even more underwhelming than my already low expectations.   Whee.  That made this entire process worthwhile. <sarcasm>  This happened because of the loss of the +2.5 hours that were added due to the Kappos RCE deal. Those 2.5 hours were added after the position factor was accounted for.

The biggest problem I see is the new search quality stuff.  An error can be called if an examiner finds art for the literal language of the claims without finding the embodiment in the spec?  That makes it sound like the office wants us to import limitations from the spec.  I wonder how that will work in real life.

Count Saturday is fine with me.  Glad to see the .75 RCEs going away. 

[steelie]

Thanks!

This is ambiguous: "3.5 hours will be added to each CPC symbol in place of the current RCE adjustment".

Does it mean 3.5 hours is the new RCE adjustment, or 3.5 hours applies to all applications, and they're getting rid of the RCE adjustment?

[steelie]

Glad to see the .75 RCEs going away.

YAHOO if it's true!

However, I didn't see that ?

[bluerogue]

Glad to see the .75 RCEs going away.

YAHOO if it's true!

However, I didn't see that ?

Look at the count chart on page 22.  There is no "second and subsequent RCE."  Only the 1st RCE.

[two banks of four]

Kurt Mueller posted the new PAP agreement here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1do9Sn-rGgaGhVFCOHZEN9-JZDejLgnr3/view?fbclid=IwAR3qeJfWnOW06NZ2g4pNXUdokeIRD6jhj_OVEWbYEXmCapD9TpwHODCYEa4

Thanks for that.

Overall the changes don't seem to be that bad, although I'll get a net gain of 20 minutes, which given the rounding changes to BDs is even more underwhelming than my already low expectations.   Whee.  That made this entire process worthwhile. <sarcasm>  This happened because of the loss of the +2.5 hours that were added due to the Kappos RCE deal. Those 2.5 hours were added after the position factor was accounted for.

The biggest problem I see is the new search quality stuff.  An error can be called if an examiner finds art for the literal language of the claims without finding the embodiment in the spec?  That makes it sound like the office wants us to import limitations from the spec.  I wonder how that will work in real life.

Count Saturday is fine with me.  Glad to see the .75 RCEs going away.

deleted

----------------------------------------------------

also, now that the highest position factor is 1.35, I wonder whether it'd be worthwhile to become a GS-15 examiner.  Though truth be told, i'd really prefer doing some other type of GS-15 work 10 years from now

[mk1023]

Annoying quality indicia activities

"Consulting with an expert in the art when the examiner lacks expertise."
Better make sure to write "Consulted XXX" on the search notes if you're not a 100% match for a case

"Providing a brief description in the office action for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied."
Waste of time, but need to get a 5 for quality, right?

"Providing suggestions for applicants to overcome rejections when possible."
Can't assume applicants know to add "non-transitory".

[steelie]

My analysis ...

+1 hours/bd (3.5-RCE adjustment= 1 hour/bd)
+1.5-2 counts saved per year from .75 RCES becoming worth 1 count
+0 to 0.5 hours/bd (potential rounding up of GS-12 position factor)

Seems phenomenally good.

Best case, I am looking at gaining like a month of extra time.

[ExaminerBob]

Steelie, why are you so hyped on the end of 0.75 RCEs? That's a pathetic boon in exchange for the loss of the asterisk.

"*This count value applies to ... 2) In the first quarter of the fiscal year, the first three non-ceiling RCE FAOMS for which credit is received; and 3) In the second, third, and fourth quarters of the fiscal year, the first four non-ceiling RCE FAOMs for which credit is received."

It looks like ALL RCEs will be worth 1.0, even if it's your 5th of the quarter.

[steelie]

Steelie, why are you so hyped on the end of 0.75 RCEs? That's a pathetic boon in exchange for the loss of the asterisk.

"*This count value applies to ... 2) In the first quarter of the fiscal year, the first three non-ceiling RCE FAOMS for which credit is received; and 3) In the second, third, and fourth quarters of the fiscal year, the first four non-ceiling RCE FAOMs for which credit is received."

It looks like ALL RCEs will be worth 1.0, even if it's your 5th of the quarter.

Oh, I see what're saying. We lose the 1.25 RCE ... interesting information .. still processing this.

[newbie1111]

so, to summarize.

THE BAD:
-RCE are now going to be all 1.0 with no bonus (4th or 5th in qtr). However, we get rid of .75 RCE.
-Count Saturday (11:59EST)

THE GOOD:
-BD gets rounded up to nearest .5 or .0 (19.1 goes to 19.5 and 31.6 goes to 32)
-Add 3.5 BD to everything? (31.6->32->35.5)?

[two banks of four]

Annoying quality indicia activities

"Consulting with an expert in the art when the examiner lacks expertise."
Better make sure to write "Consulted XXX" on the search notes if you're not a 100% match for a case

This one really annoys me.  If applications were routed so to be examined by people who are most qualified, i wouldn't be dealing with a bunch of applications in the first place.  The same examiners who won't accept a transfer of a case b/c some chemical composition is recited also don't provide much support re: the claimed elements with which they are most familiar

"Providing a brief description in the office action for relevant prior art that was cited but not applied."
Waste of time, but need to get a 5 for quality, right?

and most won't even read that section anyway; unless rejection based on cited relevant art in a previous action can be considered not as new ground, there's little incentive to do this...

just seems as if someone hasn't thought of the ramifications and the unintended consequences...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------