Prosecution Delays and Patent Time period Adjustment on the Rise Once more

The compensation hits at each ends. The pay will increase are not so good as the personal sector, which makes beginning much less engaging. Then, for the primaries that may really do further work the statutory cap on earnings prevents them from doing time beyond regulation.

Subsequent yr I will probably be paid much less when it comes to buying energy and I can’t even work as a lot time beyond regulation to make up the distinction. Which is okay if you wish to do much less work, however much less positive in case you’d choose the cash. I perceive that there has to a degree of uniformity within the authorities, however you’d suppose they’d simply let me do as a lot work as I need to – it needs to be cheaper to pay me further than to coach and provides advantages to a junior to make up the marginal manufacturing distinction.

The primary advantage of the job was working from house and setting your personal hours, and now everybody has the previous.

Not too way back, somebody I knew in USPTO administration (greater than a SPE, decrease than a Commissioner) said that they had been seeing older people becoming a member of the Examiner ranks to safe the retirement advantages.

I imply that could be a real story however the individual you understand merely isn’t sensible then. I believe it’s 3% of your pay they take for retirement now? And for that you simply get (common of your 3 highest base pay salaries) * 1% * variety of years.

In case you joined and received all of your rapid promotions, you’ll be eligible for a retirement of about 5-6k a yr after 5 years. In case you reached major ASAP after which held it for 3 years to get essentially the most out of your common wage calculation (which might take 8 years of labor) you’d have a retirement advantage of 10.5k a yr.

I can’t think about anybody 8years from retirement who would spend 3-4 years making <100k in order that they might get a retirement advantage of 10.5k a yr. That is solely the equal of 262k in a 401k, which you might in all probability make up with greater personal sector pay.

To actually have the retirement profit kick in you must be there for 30-40 years, so that you’re on the high of gs-14 scale (166k) and also you get the 1.1% modifier. 166k x 1.1% x 30 = 55k a yr, which is equal to a 1.37m retirement egg simply by itself. That is a extra vital worth, however it comes with foregoing 30 years of personal sector earnings.

  1. 8.2.1

    OldCurmudgeon says:

    >The primary advantage of the job was working from house and setting your personal hours, and now everybody has the previous.

    Not a authorities pension?

    1. 8.2.1.1

      Ben says:

      No, as a result of you may get that very same pension from different authorities jobs.

      Additionally, the federal pension isn’t what it was once. If I may choose out and as a substitute ship the contributions to a 401k, I’d.

      1. 8.2.1.1.1

        OldCurmudgeon says:

        I suppose 401(Ok)’s are OK for the trendy, private-sector office — during which you count on to get involuntarily laid-off a number of instances throughout your profession…. however I’d *strongly* choose the defined-benefit pension + job safety I used to be promised once I began my profession.

        1. 8.2.1.1.1.1

          Ben says:

          When did you begin?

          I’d vastly choose the pension system that was phased out in 1987, and I’d be completely satisfied to have the pension system phased out in 2013.

          Outlined profit plans sound nice, but when the time period of the “profit” are sufficiently miserly, you’re higher off with a 401k.



        2. 8.2.1.1.2

          IamI says:

          The pension isn’t the identical at different authorities jobs because you’re liking not making almost the identical cash at one other company as examiners are able to making.







        3. 8.3

          Professional Say says:

          Primaries ought to obtain a $250 – 500 bonus for each app they permit.

          They work onerous and deserve it.

          1. 8.3.1

            anon says:

            Respectfully Professional Say – I name out this as B$.

            You do understand that the Anti’s would bounce throughout this, proper? Additional, merely correctly making use of the regulation would lead to PROPER allowances, and it is just PROPER allowances that anybody ought to be after.

          2. 8.3.2

            IamI says:

            Lol no.





          3. 7

            Paul F. Morgan says:

            So what share of U.S. patents now concern with phrases in extra of 20 years? [More precisely under the term statute more than 2o years from their earliest claimed U.S. priority date not counting provisionals?]

            1. 7.1

              Dozens says:

              “Challenge with”? Certainly ~0%, no? PTA simply offers you again time period that was chewed up in prosecution, however it doesn’t add greater than the unique 20-from-filing. With a view to get extra that the 20, it’s important to invoke PTE. Theoretically it’s doable to get a patent issued with PTE, however I don’t consider that I’ve ever seen it occur.

              1. 7.1.1

                xtian says:

                PTE is usually given in pharmaceutical patents. However the cap there’s that the PTE can’t lengthen the patent patent longer than 14 years from the approval date of the product.

                1. 7.1.1.1

                  Paul F. Morgan says:

                  Thanks for the reminder of the separate patent time period extension statute for pharmaceutical patents who’s time interval of financial worth was diminished by FDA approval delays.

                2. 7.1.1.2

                  Dozens says:

                  PTE is usually given in pharmaceutical patents.

                  Proper, however my level was about on the time of concern for the patent. PTE for any given patent usually comes later than the time of issuance for the patent. Are you able to consider a selected occasion during which the PTE was included within the patent’s time period on the time of the patent’s issuance?







                3. 6

                  Examiner says:

                  The minimal reached at round mid-2018 that plateaued for a number of years was clearly ended by the implementation of USPTOs TRP initiative in late 2020.

                  Since implementing this program the USPTO has confronted considerably greater than common attrition.

                  Anticipate it to get a lot worse earlier than it will get higher.

                  Whereas attrition is decrease amongst major examiners, the USPTO is attempting to rent its method out of the issue. It requires (in my estimate) the total time of 1 major examiner to coach 4-6 junior examiners. With extra major examiners coaching junior examiners that in the end give up (attrition is as excessive as 60% amongst first yr examiners), and first examiners quitting merely attributable to circumstances of the job, there will probably be a continued lower of labor out there to look at patent functions. It will result in a continued enhance in pendency and common time to first motion till an equilibrium is met.

                  Finally congress could have a listening to on how the USPTO is failing to satisfy congress’ calls for of pendency. In the event that they need to get to the center of the issue, they need to examine the insurance policies which are making individuals give up analyzing.

                  1. 6.1

                    RandomGuy says:

                    It requires (in my estimate) the total time of 1 major examiner to coach 4-6 junior examiners.

                    I believe the precise quantity is a partial SPE element, plus one major on 100% element as a coach, plus three primaries on 80/20 particulars to coach a category of 20ish. That’s not counting massive lecture audio system. That’s just for the primary three months, after that its topic to the person SPE of their artwork unit.



                  2. 5

                    Dozens says:

                    Who’s “ignoring” Congress? Congress didn’t write that the PTO shall mail a primary workplace motion inside 14 months. Quite, Congress supplied that if a primary motion shouldn’t be mailed inside 14 months, then the patent time period shall be prolonged accordingly. The PTO is extending accordingly, which is all that Congress has required that the PTO do. No Congressional directive is being ignored.

                    1. 5.1

                      Dozens says:

                      Whoops, sorry. This was meant as a response to three beneath.

                    2. 5.2

                      anon says:

                      Approach to look woodenly at WHY the assure was put in place.

                    3. 5.3

                      Paul F. Morgan says:

                      Sure, and the then-clearly-expressed expressed “why” of the advanced plus and minus patent time period changes [& 20 years from the oldest claimed U.S. priority date rather than issue date] of the present patent time period statute was to:
                      1. Proceed to provide candidates roughly 17 years of issued patent enforcement time, but
                      2. discourage applicant delays and Lemelson-like submarine patents issuing for 17 yr patent phrases after 25 or extra years of serial continuations and divisonals.

                      [I think this could have been accomplished more clearly and avoided some of the subsequent litigation over this complex statute, but the final draft of this legislation was done and enacted in a big rush.]

                      1. 5.3.1

                        anon says:

                        Whether or not or not completed in a giant rush, nobody (and particularly Greg) ought to be taking such a wood view right here.





                      2. 4

                        anon says:

                        solely about 30% of circumstances are receiving a primary workplace motion throughout the 14 months allotted by Congress. I’ll notice right here that the PTA doesn’t ‘value’ the USPTO something when it comes to up-front cash and, might make it extra doubtless that the patentee pays the problem and back-end upkeep charges.

                        A number of issues right here.

                        First, let’s not be glib as to that 14 months being part of an anticipated deal (to Congress) in preserving the (US Sovereign) notion that the Quid Professional Quo is for a granted patent in change for shared (after which publicized) inventor disclosure. Decidedly, the US does not share any ROW view that the QPQ change is publication for a mere probability at patent rights. There’s NO sense of “we get to take the quo and share what you will have together with your quid being you might be permitted to use for a patent.”

                        Such could be the deal different Sovereigns have put on the market, however that’s decidedly NOT the US deal.

                        That 14 month mark was meant to provide the applicant ample time to evaluation a primary (and full) examination consequence, with which to guage going forward with the patent course of or abandoning (with abandonment eradicating the ‘existence’ of the applicant’s disclosure from written historical past).

                        Second, wanting on the state of affairs as “not costing the USPTO any cash” is greater than crass in evaluating what Congress anticipated. It’s a not-so-subtle method of reneging on the deal that underpins the US patent system. “Price” might not be in {dollars}, however make no mistake that “value” is certainly concerned.

                        Third, There’s no indications in any sense of information on the document to help the assertion that NOT residing as much as the deal “might make it extra doubtless that the patentee pays the problem and back-end upkeep charges.

                        That assertion is past ludicrous.

                        1. 4.1

                          Breeze says:

                          “… (with abandonment eradicating the ‘existence’ of the applicant’s disclosure from written historical past).”

                          What?

                          1. 4.1.1

                            anon says:

                            Come now Malcolm, you might be nicely sufficiently old to keep in mind that functions submitted to the Workplace which are deserted previous to publication are handled as having by no means existed (for prior artwork functions).

                            Have you ever forgotten the phrase “provisional rejection?”

                            1. 4.1.1.1

                              Breeze says:

                              I’m conscious that beneath Rule 138 you possibly can expressly abandon to keep away from publication. However I can’t consider a single software that I’ve acquired a primary OA on the deserves inside 14 months of submitting the place the OA precipitated me to advise a consumer to expressly abandon the appliance to keep away from publication. I imply it’s an possibility, however probably not an possibility. (Responding regardless that you misidentified me. No level in attempting to disabuse you of your personal certainties.)

                              1. 4.1.1.1.1

                                anon says:

                                Properly thanks for clarifying (even with snark) that you’re not Malcolm.

                                It’s solely just like the fifteenth prevalence because you posted beneath this moniker.

                                As as to if or not a (any) consumer would expressly abandon with receipt of motion at 14 months is sort of completely different than understanding the authorized mechanism (and underlying rationale) for doing so, eh?

                                1. 4.1.1.1.1.1

                                  Breeze says:

                                  I’m nicely conscious of the authorized mechanism for doing so. I’ve by no means had to make use of it. I doubt many others have both.

                                  1. 4.1.1.1.1.1.1

                                    anon says:

                                    Your publish at 4.1 will lead others to the alternative conclusion with reference to that “nicely conscious of authorized.”













                                  2. 3

                                    BlutoBlutarsky says:

                                    It’s superb how they’ll ignore Congress when it advantages them.

                                    1. 3.1

                                      anon says:

                                      Sure (sadly), the Govt Department disregarding its major responsibility of imposing the regulation (and skim that as additionally together with selective — and political based mostly — imposing) is considered one of our best shortcomings of this contemporary period.

                                      And it definitely doesn’t assist that Mainstream Media is complicit on this.



                                    2. 2

                                      Breeze says:

                                      One approach to get the PTO to take PTA critically can be to provide it to patentees upfront. So, for instance, in case you get 3 years of PTA, your first upkeep charge wouldn’t be due for six years.

                                      1. 2.1

                                        anon says:

                                        Bravo.

                                        Malcolm (as Breeze) really has a worthwhile suggestion. All of us ought to applaud small steps resembling this.

                                      2. 2.2

                                        OldCurmudgeon says:

                                        tbh, I believe my purchasers can be higher off with deferred examination (i.e., the flexibility to defer examination charges).

                                        As a lawyer, OTOH, I’m outraged by these delays in my capacity to gather charges.



                                      3. 1

                                        Ben says:

                                        “I’ll notice right here that the PTA doesn’t ‘value’ the USPTO something when it comes to up-front cash and, might make it extra doubtless that the patentee pays the problem and back-end upkeep charges.”

                                        What’s the level of this assertion? If it’s to recommend the PTO is detached to PTA, I’d disagree. Whereas the PTO as an entity shouldn’t be penalized by PTA, people in PTO administration have bonus alternatives tied to PTA.

                                        1. 1.1

                                          Dvan says:

                                          Ben, would you please clarify extra about how the PTO administration bonus alternatives are tied to the PTA. That’s undoubtedly a difficulty I had not heard about prior to now. Thanks.

                                          1. 1.1.1

                                            anon says:

                                            I discover it unhappy that such a factor needs to be requested for, and isn’t overtly out there to the general public.

                                            1. 1.1.1.1

                                              RandomGuy says:

                                              No matter what bonuses the administration get, the precise Examiners get a docket administration bonus that might reward avoiding PTA. The docket administration award requires not more than 1 “ceiling” motion in 1 / 4 (a ceiling would trigger a PTA) and would require a mean motion time, each per sort (new, particular, modification, after ultimate, and many others) and general that’s nicely beneath the PTA numbers.

                                              The one two conditions that the docket administration rating wouldn’t cowl is 1) the place the examiner takes a considerable period of time off without delay, and a pair of) a state of affairs the place the examiner will get plenty of RCEs without delay. The previous is extraordinarily uncommon and will lead to a redocketing of their circumstances. For the latter, just one RCE timer runs at a time, so one may conceivably obtain a ton of RCEs without delay and by the point the final RCE had its timer going it was already a PTA concern. (Until this isn’t a PTA state of affairs due to the RCE, I’m unsure on the regulation) Regardless it is usually uncommon. So the examiner docket administration bonus would encourage PTA compliance.

                                              I’d assume that if the PTA charges are on the rise it is because of 1) a mismatch between the work and the examiners (i.e. the PTO in all probability doesnt have sufficient AI examiners) and a pair of) the upper turnover and resultant enhance in junior examiners, who’ve much less manufacturing and can be extra fascinated with rising manufacturing (to get grade will increase) slightly than specializing in docket administration awards (that are, at most, 4% of your base pay – inferior to a grade enhance at each grade).

                                            2. 1.1.1.2

                                              Julie Burke says:

                                              Federal worker behaviors are pushed by the contractual phrases discovered of their efficiency and appraisal plans (PAPs) and their bonus/award alternatives.

                                              Solely as soon as in my 20 yr profession, did TC Group Administrators share sure particulars of their PAP and bonus/award alternatives with their very own SPEs and QASs. As entrance line administration, we had been routinely left at nighttime, attempting to decipher what was driving Group Director behaviors.

                                              It’s per my expertise that an examiner resembling Ben wouldn’t know the main points of the higher degree’s PAP and bonus/awards scheme.

                                              From 1995-2015, I recall rumors of manufacturing, high quality, variety, pendency, timeliness, hiring and/or retention bonuses/awards which appeared to morph yearly and be carried out in a different way throughout the TCs, altering priorities and creating unecessary uncertainty.

                                              These bonuses and awards are sizable. OIG reviews have documented USPTO bonus/awards that are out of line with Division of Commerce tips and inconsistent with Workplace of Personnel Administration’s requirements.

                                              As a result of the USPTO’s bonus/award moneys come instantly from their “customers,” (inventors, patent homeowners and patent candidates) it appears cheap for the IP group, together with examiners and the general public to know what’s within the present administration and senior govt service (SES)- degree efficiency plans and bonus/award schemes and the way their cash is being spent.

                                              If administration and management contracts are structured something just like the examiners’ PAP, no marvel issues are off observe.

                                              It’s unlikely this unhappy state of affairs will enhance till USPTO PAPs and bonus/awards, from high to backside, are aligned with Workplace of Personnel Administration’s requirements and Congress’s directives.

                                              For extra on this subject, please see

                                              link to ipwatchdog.com

                                              1. 1.1.1.2.1

                                                Breeze says:

                                                As all the profession PTO officers are doing document breaking excellent high quality work (simply ask them! they’ll inform you!), I’m certain the “bonuses and awards are sizable.”

                                                1. 1.1.1.2.1.1

                                                  Dozens says:

                                                  Ha!

                                                  1. 1.1.1.2.1.1.1

                                                    Breeze says:

                                                    Watching the PPAC assembly this morning. They’re all breaking their arms patting themselves on the again.









                                                  2. 1.1.2

                                                    Ben says:

                                                    I truthfully don’t know the main points of their bonus construction, sorry.

                                                    1. 1.1.2.1

                                                      anon says:

                                                      You “truthfully don’t know” however are completely keen to say particulars that you simply “truthfully don’t know”…

                                                      It’s simply so troublesome to consider that you’re an examiner….