I recently worked for a firm that examines PCT applications under contract to the USPTO. My job required me to write very detailed office actions, mapping every element of every claim to a corresponding element in the prior art references. It does not seem to me that examiners for US applications put as much care into their examinations. I often get rejections that are very vague, with several claims lumped together, and no indication that the examiner has considered every limitation. I would like to see more time spent on writing more detailed office actions, particularly the first office action.
Voting on Ideas
Vote for your favorite ideas by clicking on the up arrow.To undo an upvote, simply click the arrow again. This second click removes your vote.