Campaign: Quality in complex technologies

Senior Patent Analyst

Our company deals with Computer Software technology (G06). Yes there is a difference. In established technologies (e.g. SOA) the quality is good, however in more complex technologies (e.g. CEP) the quality varies considerably depending on the individual examiner - generally only average requiring multiple office actions before the examiner understands the technology being presented. Frequently examiners fall back on combining ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

1 vote
Ideate

Campaign: Allocating Time for Examination Activities

Add Information Technology Experts in the Process

My idea is to give expert consultants to examiners at the first office action that can fully explain the fundamentals of the technology they are examining. Then if needed, allow the expert to have conf call with the examiner and the applicant. This will save months of examining high technology applications and save much resources for examiners in the long run. In this modern age, we cannot expect examiners to keep ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

1 vote
Ideate

Campaign: Cost, pendency, and time

"Keyword Hits" Are No Substitute for Actual Thought

Far too many examiners equate a high level of "keyword hits" with "anticipation" or "obviousness," with no evidence they understand what they are talking about. Just string some keywords together, and hey presto! It's obvious! My apologies for being so blunt, but this is a real problem. The Office should be embarrassed by the quality of many office actions. The "keyword hit" attitude of many examiners is often impervious ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

3 votes
Ideate

Campaign: Request for Comments on Examination Time Goals

Spend more time on 1st Office Actions

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, ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

3 votes
Ideate

Campaign: Request for Comments on Examination Time Goals

Eliminate delays for “Non-Compliant Responses”, e.g. a lack of “

When examiners make an obvious and innocent clerical error, applicants take it in stride. For example an applicant will respond “The office action mistakenly identifies Claim 7 as an independent claim and relies on Baker reference as 102 prior art. This is an obvious clerical error by the examiner as Claim 7 is a dependent claim. Thus, for this response, applicant will respond as if the examiner had grouped Claim ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

1 vote
Ideate

Campaign: Request for Comments on Examination Time Goals

After final review

I work in relatively simple technologies for small inventors. The after final process has become somewhat useless. The Examiner's do not receive sufficient time to adequately review an after final response and the Examiner's typically provide a pro forma response that does not help advance prosecution. This leaves the small inventor with basically one chance to provide a substantive response before they must either ...more »

Submitted by

Voting

3 votes
Ideate