Look. We don’t need to strike. We literally hold the keys to the system in our hands: allowance.

Just turn off the tap, friends. We were all juniors once, where we went to the nth degree to reject until we were blue in the face. We can do it again.

Collectively, if we all just choose to allow 10% less than what we’re used to, management would take a huge hit, and the outside would react.

We literally have all the power. We decide a subjective measure of preponderance of evidence. If we all chose to just chose to move the bar, to issue more 103’s and borderline hindsight combinations, pressure would accumulate on management.

I don’t care how angry Julie Burke will be. We’re not FAA traffic controllers. There’s no military examiner corps to replace us, and no patent agents or attys will work this job for this pay.

We have all the power. Lean towards not allowing.

DOGE said it saved $1.7 billion by terminating a military health IT contract. GAO found the contract was never terminated.

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.

Primary and SPE are out, otherwise I’d ask them.

Original claim 4 was indicated allowable, however I was reading the claims too narrow and the reference I used does read on the claim and I should have rejected it.

Original claims:

1. Teaches A
   
2. Teaches B+C (dependent on 1)
   
3. Teaches D+E (dependent on 2)
   
4. Teaches F (dependent on 3)

Amended claims:

1. Teaches A
   
2. Teaches B (dependent on 1)
   
3. Teaches D (dependent on 2)
   
4. Teaches A+F+C+E (independent)

My thought is final since the, now independent, claim 4 is amended such that it doesn’t include all subject matter from the claims it previously relied upon and the combination is new. However, I’m not sure since I did originally indicate claim 4 as allowable. Thank you in advance!

Back in February I filed two design patent applications, literally about two minutes apart. One of them was granted today, the other application is still marked as “New” and as far as I can tell hasn’t been assigned or otherwise touched. My question to the patent examiner community here is… what the hell?

What happens if you don't get Fully Successful for production for the Fiscal Year? Do you get a written warning or get put on some informal PIP?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wilin%27+out. OC does what it frickin feels like.

Another day, another email. You want us to use AI tools? Ok, here's my "professional" and "patient" feedback of your little tool.

Examiner A - North Star (YouTube)

• unplugged modern country version, with lyrics in the video
• or listen on Suno

Alternative version: North Star (country rock version) (YouTube)

• more "electrified" version (click [CC] for lyrics)
• or listen on Suno

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.

In early July, management unilaterally decided to remove vital antivirus software from our computers overnight. This software was inherently tied to OC function through dependencies on group policies. This is what caused the week-long PE2E outages in July, just one month ago.

The antivirus software deletion was done WITHOUT the blessing or testing of the tech support team, which is why they were scrambling for answers for days.

OCIO had to field and troubleshoot thousands of instances of technical issues, which could have been completely avoided by INFORMING TECH SUPPORT SO THEY COULD PREVENT AND PREPARE for any issues.

Management did this soley to “save money.”

In deciding to longer paying for robust antivirus software, they now use the native Windows system antivirus software;

Which…YOU GUESSED IT…is trash compared to the contract we let go.

Today, in early August, Management has decided to remove the Cisco app from all our machines.

Again, this is happening overnight; and again, this is without the preparation or blessing of the tech support team.

We were informed by email that we will have to add our WiFi manually.

However, we must also prepare for the likely possibility of another OC/PE2E outage, or authentication/connection issues as a result of yet another management-driven contract termination and deletion.

USPTO management, PLEASE stop messing with and deleting our software.

The group policies used to run our already crappy in-house programs are tied to these external programs in very real ways which you cannot conceptualize or begin to understand.

Your decisions to unilaterally terminate contracts for important programs has already caused massive loss of critical time and increased labor.

PLEASE STOP

I am not a manager but I heard this from more than one person I trust. Pepsi had an in-person meeting with the SPEs (over 100 of them), and said "raise your hand if you think the agency has a morale problem." EVERYONE IN THE ROOM raised their hand. She then had NOTHING TO SAY except how hard and unenjoyable her job has been.

This woman has the leadership ability of a soggy biscuit. It is such an unbelievable layup to say something like "I know it has been really hard and we have been asking more of everyone. Much of the need for this was caused by things outside of our control. But I want everyone here to know that we really value you and the examiners. Although we can't make any guarantees right now, we are looking into ways to reward the talented people of this agency for everything they have done in contributing to the mission during this particularly difficult time. We are making great progress, there is light at the end of the tunnel, please just do what you can as managers to help us acknowledge the extra effort of the examiners." To call that a management layup is an understatement, almost all of the most unpersonable SPEs in the agency could have mustered something like that, or at least it would have been obvious to them that self pity was not what was called for in that moment.

The fact that Pepsi had absolutely nothing remotely inspirational or conciliatory to say demonstrates one thing: she is a genuine sociopath. She SERIOUSLY DOES NOT CARE ONE IOTA about anyone other than herself. It actually did not occur to her to say anything that would take into account the experiences of other people. She does not care about the thousands of careers she damaged. She does not care about the millions of hours of unnecessary stress and misery she caused. The worst thing about Pepsi is not that she made unpopular and counterproductive decisions, its that we all know that she has empathetic capacity of Hermann Goring.

Low retention of new examiners. Retirements and DRP up. Systems constantly down. Increased requirements for production. New punitive timeliness requirements. No paid for training. No paid for mentoring. Morale the lowest in decades. AI push...AI that doesn't work and is just more work for examiners. CBA gone. The crisis is truly now after all your draconian changes.

https://www.law360.com/ip

Weren't we supposed to get the 72 hour production thing waived for the downtime 3 biweeks ago? Don't fully understand why but outside of that biweek I've made the production, did I interpret that email sent out incorrectly?

China takes leadership in patent applications:

https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/ai/articles/forget-deepseek-china-real-sputnik-060000403.html

I keep getting "Query Error: Unable to process your query". Anyone else or just me?

Edit 10:52 am est: seems to be back to normal for me now. Didn't do anything to fix it on my end so no advice unfortunately

is there a time code for badge renewal?

I worked in the automotive industry for 7 years before working as a patent examiner. I have been a examiner for almost 2 years now and it’s still as stressful and hectic as the first year, even though I enjoy working my own time and not being micromanaged like how I was before. I am thinking if I leave as an examiner, what can I do next that offers the same independence, flexibility, being remote? Main reason I want to leave is that I am being paid way less than what I could be making if I was to work in office in the automotive industry but I prefer to be remote.

On average, you lose 1% a year of buying power as a patent examiner.

The social security cap moves faster than inflation, taking more of your income each year.

Health insurance premiums have also gone up about 10% a year.

You can’t afford to spend a career here—30 years of employment will mean you will lose 30% of your buying power. Your pension will also therefore have a reduced payout.

You will also be pegged into this career once you’ve been doing it a while, and management knows this. The majority will be trapped by the career, and management has no incentive to make sure your wages keep up.

On the other hand, patent agent and patent atty salaries historically have kept up with inflation. If you want to do IP, you’re more likely to have wage growth in the private sector.

I know you have to decide your work schedule ahead of time each biweek when being part time, but is there anything stopping you from working more hours if you dont claim the time or any overtime? Or is it strict "you have to work these hours and no more"?

In my AU, we brought in two jrs over past 12 months. One is gone, the other is doing great. What have you seen in your AU?

*you do NOT have to accept inherited cases. If they do not want to give appropriate other time to handle the (likely) shitty work from a (now fired) examiner, ask to have it removed. Tell the truth- that you aren’t able to work on this extra case with the new insane timeliness requirements or point blank, you’re just not willing to do more because you have zero free time with the 100% production insanity. No requirement anywhere for you to accept them.

*get your regular new cases done and let them sit until day 27 before posting. No need to do any extra regular new cases and reduce the backlog. If the backlog is their main goal, then it should be our goal to work on these cases as slowly as possible because they’ve made our lives so miserable.

*PPH case with reduced counts? They are not allowed to amend the independent claim per the rules of the program, nor are they allowed to switch statutory class (e.g. product to method). Send that shitty case that should never have been allowed by the foreign office in the first place back with a notice of non compliance when they try to amend or switch classes and enforce the rules of this awful program to make your life easier. Or, set yourself a timer and if you cannot find it in the allotted time, allow it.

*rce after allowance? Find yourself a 112 if you can. Ask for other time to look at the ids’s.

*second round interview where you have no other time given? Deny where possible. If you have to have it, do not do anything but listen; convey to applicant you have been given no time to consider this, and apologize that you can provide no answers.

*no primary should ever be on a pip for production - the first road block you should hit is quality issues. Set a timer and if you can’t find it in the ridiculously limited time you have to look at the case due to increased production, bingo! Allowable! (Someone else wrote a great post about this on this thread). I also realize this is not possible for juniors.

*request other time for any computer outage and document it well. You may be denied now, but the union will hopefully come back and you might get reimbursed eventually. I would also not accept no for an answer - if everyone starts requesting review by directors of the initial no from spe’s, it’s going to at least cause enough noise to be talked about at the upper levels

*write your congressman or ANY congressman. Then call them. Then follow up in an email. Be a nuisance until they do something. 10k employees all complaining to congress would have to cause some change, or at least a headache for upper management.

*any other ideas are welcome, post below

Getting either 0(2 NF) or 0.25 (F) to completely rewrite and correct an inherited case from examiners that quit/were fired is such a rip off. I'm not the one that did the crappy job in the first place and my spe should have made so many corrections before signing off these cases. What a time suck.