Request for Comments on Examination Time Goals

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 (@lhsherikar)

Voting

3 votes
Ideate

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

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 (@charles.leahy)

Voting

1 vote
Ideate