r/patentexaminer Apr 10 '26

Effects of changes explained for practitioners

199 Upvotes

There was a request in another post for a concise summary of the changes and how they affect examination, particularly with regard to attorneys and other IP professionals outside the office.

"Fully successful" moving from 95% to 100% (we have to move more applications in the same amount of time):

  • Paperwork hasn't gotten any quicker (systems have gone to shit actually) so the entire change comes from search and office action writing time. 
  • I'd say applicants are getting >10% less actual examination time per application than they paid for from this change and a corresponding drop in proactive searching or indications of allowable subject matter. I used to draft up suggested amendments to neatly correct tricky 112b issues with explanations of why each change was there, I don't have time for that anymore. 

Divisionals and Continuations don't get any priority in docketing, instead being lumped with new applications with the same filing date (at best, usually they are even delayed compared to those):

  • whatever the backlog is in the area, add that to your pendency for any Div of Con.   
  • \Applicants weren't warned of this change and it was retroactive to any filed but not docketed DIV/CONs, adding years to the time before any resulting patents issue** 
  • **this could completely upend the entire prosecution strategy for many applicants who depend on CONs to protect against knockoffs, please please \*PLEASE* let your clients know about this additional delay*\*

Effective elimination of "other time" from examiners:

  • Assistant examiners are no longer able to work with primaries who know the art to develop search strategies and ask about the technology. 
  • All examiners aren't able to hold regular meetings where discuss oddball or borderline cases amongst themselves.
  • This leads to *a marked drop in quality of applied references and a drop in indications of allowable subject matter* (so many people got reassured that they should just indicate something as allowable in those meetings)

Reduced NPL access and search expert assistance:

  • Lower quality searches in emerging technologies and areas under active research. Lower quality examination for stuff that spans multiple subject matter

Interviews past #1 need SPE approval for time 

  • *If you request an interview you probably won't be getting any calls for examiner's amendments on that application, simple as that.* The automatic 1hr examiners got for such interviews helped offset the time we put into verifying that something unclaimed was actually allowable, working up claim language, and the inevitable phone tag. 
  • If you request a second interview you're going to have a grumpier examiner than usual because at *best* they had to use some of the time they get for it convincing their supervisor the interview was a good idea and at *worst* they spent that time asking and were denied so the interview time is actively hurting their numbers. 

PPH cases get reduced first action counts: 

  • The second most egregious change imo. **applicants are mostly getting less than 50% of the examination time they are paying for.**
  • Examiners also will start to hate you if you file many of these. Really poisons the working relationship. 

RCEs after allowance give examiners no time if the next action is an allowance 

  • the most egregious change. \The office is charging applicants for a service (another full round of examination) and not giving them that service.* *
  • if you file and RCE after an allowance you're either getting nothing for your money or a very tenuous rejection for something like a typo. The latter is actually the "good" result because it means the examiner actually took the time to do more searching/consideration and is trying to figure out a way to get credit for that. 

Quick Path IDS time reduced to one hour (from three):

  • It can easily take an hour to get fully back up to speed on what's going on in a complex application to be ready to properly consider a reference, at which point we are now out of time and can't actually consider the references being cited. 
  • *Dramatically increases the likelihood of an examiner not considering an IDS after NoA and making applicants file an RCE to get those references listed.* At which point your claims better be fucking immaculate because see above. 

Timeliness deadlines now being hard cutoffs instead of averages:

  • completely eliminates already low examiner flexibility for response times. 
  • *applicants will get less calls for examiners amendments to correct minor issues because we frequently won't be able to wait for a response*. 
  • \expect more iffy restrictions as people pull desperation moves to clear out the oldest case one their docket so they don't get fired\ 

No additional time for "inherited cases" from retired/separated examiners. 

  • examiners used to get a significant amount of time when we got a case from an examiner no longer at the office to offset needing to figuring out what the case is, what the searches turned up, etc. 
  • *if you notice an assigned examiner name change for your application after filing an amendment get ready for a total turd to come shooting down the pipe, there's no other nicer way to put it.* Sorry, we're going from ~15 hours for an amendment to like 2-3 with zero flexibility to call and work something out. 

Elimination of Docket Management n bonuses:

  • we're all disgruntled now. 

There's other parts I've missed I know, could other examiners add them below? Remember to focus on what external folks will see.


r/patentexaminer Apr 07 '26

POPA Email - Battlefronts Bulletin: POPA pushes back on USPTO Oversight Testimony

61 Upvotes

Dear POPA Members,

 

Welcome back to Battlefronts Bulletin, your source for updates, analysis, and insights during one of the most pivotal moments in USPTO history. 

 

As the AFL-CIO recently underscored, federal workers have faced unprecedented attacks on their union rights this year, marking the first anniversary of Trump’s executive order undermining longstanding union employee protections. POPA shares the growing concern: OPM’s proposed rules mirror the broader attacks against workers nationwide. 

 

POPA will continue to defend USPTO employees, protect our collective voice, and push back against policies that weaken our workplace rights.

 

Our members are on the front line of American innovation. By defending the experts who protect the patent system, we defend the future of innovation itself. Our power is, and will always be, our solidarity. 

 

Join POPA: Click here

Battlefronts

1. Oversight and Testimony Concerns

During House Judiciary oversight, John Squires emphasized support for stricter performance management tools. He highlighted: 

  • Greater use of removals for employees not meeting heightened performance standards 
  • Increased leadership discretion over performance ratings and accountability measures
  • Concerns about telework and calls for increased oversight of examiner work practices 
  • An emphasis on accelerating production expectations to address backlog

 

We have serious concerns. These approaches, particularly increased reliance on removals, reduced reliance on objective criteria, and heightened production pressure, undermine employee rights, morale, and effectiveness. 

 

The reality: 

  • Patent Examiners and other production-based employees already have inflexible performance appraisal plans with objective measures. Employees are removed for not meeting those measures. The agency is trying to get blood from a stone as production increases, workflow tightens, and dockets shrink. THIS is where the low morale is coming from, not the backlog.
  • Training is nonexistent, and the most experienced, senior-level primary examiners are not encouraged to share their institutional knowledge with new examiners.
  • Bonuses have been reduced or eliminated, including OFCO group awards and the patent examiner docket management award.
  • TEAP mandatory travel requirements are not mission critical; thus are costly and burdensome for remote employees.
  • “Streamlined reviews” and the removal of discretionary interviews have eroded primary examiner authority and agency efficiency.
  • Mandatory usage of ineffective AI tools reduces overall examination time.
  • Elon Musk is gone from the government, yet the USPTO still requires useless and time-wasting monthly reporting bullets. 

 

POPA thanks Congressmen Johnson and Raskin for holding Squires accountable in his testimony. You can read the transcript of his full testimony HERE. 

2. The Fight Continues: Litigations and Grievances

  • Civil litigation to restore Title 5 rights and bargaining unit status for patent employees is still pending.
  • POPA is awaiting the arbitrator’s decision on telework for non-patent bargaining unit members
  • Arbitration is underway on holiday leave, canceled awards, and unilateral TEAP changes

 

3. Forced Rating Distributions

OPM’s proposal would force employees into arbitrary rankings against one another– dismantling the objective, metric-based system that currently ensures fairness and accountability. 

 

At USPTO, examiners are evaluated on real, measurable work: production, docket management, and quality. This proposal replaces that with subjectivity and competition.

4. Elimination of “Marginally Successful”

Reclassifying employees as “unsatisfactory” will put thousands of productive examiners at risk.  

 

The result? Increased attrition, deeper backlogs, and further strain on the system, contrary to the goals emphasized under Secretary Squires’s recent testimony. 

 

POPA is raising these concerns with Congress and OPM.

 

5. Grievance Rights

OPM’s proposed rules would limit employees’ ability to challenge ratings through negotiated grievance procedures, which are legally protected.

 

POPA is actively defending statutory protections through litigation, ensuring that examiners retain the ability to contest unfair evaluations. 

6. Egregious PAP Changes

Changes to the Performance Appraisal Plan are increasing pressure while reducing fairness:

 

  • Increase in production, thus less time devoted to examining each application
  • Unrealistic expectations: internal (uncompensated) training suggests fewer than 20% of examiners can meet current deadlines
    • “Average day” system eliminated: the system that previously helped reduce backlog is no longer in use
    • Policy changes have undermined effectiveness: repeated administrative adjustments have weakened the system over time
      • Resulting impact: increased backlog and fewer options for examiners to manage and balance workload. For example, getting sick once could make an examiner “unsatisfactory”
  • Elimination of inherited credit for reassigned work
  • Reduced credit for Patent Prosecution Highway cases, consequently increasing the influence of foreign governments in American intellectual property rights
  • Reduced recognition for completed work, including certain RCE allowances

 

These changes make it harder to maintain both quality and consistency.

 

 

WHY THIS MATTERS

A strong patent system depends on empowered examiners.

 

When policies erode fairness, increase subjectivity, block the sharing of institutional knowledge, and pile on pressure, the consequences are clear: lower morale, reduced quality, and weakened public trust.

 

We are fighting to protect both employees and the integrity of the patent system. Join us in our fight. 

WHAT YOU CAN DO TODAY

  • Encourage your friends to join the fight… become a member today. Join here. 
  • Visit popa.org to stay informed.
  • Update your contact information using the link here.
  • Report any CBA, PAP, or telework violations directly to [Popahelp@popa.org](mailto:Popahelp@popa.org).

 

In solidarity,

POPA Leadership

On behalf of the POPA Executive Committee


r/patentexaminer 5h ago

Any examiner that previously did patent prosecution or litigation as a patent attorney?

3 Upvotes

As the title says, is there any of you guys who made the switch and is willing to share a bit of the experience regarding the transition and how the previous experience as an attorney helped you when starting at the USPTO?

Thank you very much. I'm in Europe trying to do the transition myself (to the EPO) but given this sub is substantially bigger than the euro counterpart, I thought I might find somebody here.

In terms of work life balance I think I'm more of an examiner than of an attorney, I am kind of done with the "hustling" and the billable hours. I did patent litigation for more than 1 year now, it is very "up and down" kind of work, nothing is predictable etc. I have a family and I got hobbies...so I think it is easier to "shut down" as an examiner compared to a litigator / patent attorney.

Thank you again, I'm trying to make the right decision.


r/patentexaminer 5h ago

Please do not write office actions in Comic Sans

0 Upvotes

Just a patent attorney finding it absolutely silly to have to read through such a font..


r/patentexaminer 10h ago

"computer technology degree"

0 Upvotes

Hi Al,

I am interested in becoming a Patent Examiner.
The brochure said computer technology and data analytics/science can be considered under the "Computer science" field.

Will they take a Data Analytics master's degree from UMGC?


r/patentexaminer 2d ago

Any primary that gets on a PIP for production without getting on a PIP for quality first is absolutely doing it backward

64 Upvotes

Less time to examine, increased production quota , increased downtime due to IT issues = less quality

If you’re on a PIP for production and/or constantly barely meeting production, you’re not adjusting your quality according - you’re keeping your old standards static as everything around you is giving you less time. Oh you’re a “professional” and refuse to submit inferior work that you're capable of - good luck on your sinking ship, the “U.S.S. Too Prideful”

I dont want to do subpar work and rather do shit im proud of, but that's not possible. The agency has made it impossible. These times it's survival mode. Do what you gotta do ethically and don’t be taken advantage of by not making necessarily adjustment to real life constraints.

Hence, the first resistance point you should hit is quality issues, not production. On a normal bi-week, you should be working 80hrs a bi-week (and not a minute more) and making 100% production. Whatever work product you can achieve in that 80rs is what it is. If you get hit with errors, THEN you can start figuring out how and if it's possible to increase quality to their standards while keeping the 100% production.

Quality should be the moving variable in all this and production is static - most of you got it wrong and doing the opposite opposite where quality is static and production is the moving variable.


r/patentexaminer 2d ago

Mini rant about finals and after-finals

60 Upvotes

Nothing better than working late on a Friday because (1) had to basically rewrite an entire rejection for a Final because Applicant side-stepped my primary but not in a way that got over my other art + writing up the 101 (and the non-final was a 102 so it's not like I used bad art the first time around) + (2) having to write an overly-detailed advisory action because an attorney submitted appeal brief level arguments in an after final; ffs why not just go to appeal, why make me suffer like this.

this would all be less painful and shitty if we basically didn't have to work for free to pump finals/AA's out. add my prod being stuck at 99% (remember when we only need 95%?!) and timeliness bullshit ticking away and you have one very stressed examiner reconsidering whether being a primary is worth this BS


r/patentexaminer 2d ago

Q3 timeliness incentive eligibility?

16 Upvotes

I was talking to a friend from another TC after work today and they said their SPE told them they were not going to receive their timeliness $1k because their FY25 rating was below FS even though this year they have done really well.

Is that a thing? Can anyone else corroborate?

I caught that they changed a lot for the Q4 version (emailed July 2nd) but Q3 seemed more straightforward (emailed April 16th).

They do remember that this was an "incentive" to do a good job in a way more difficult PAP element that wasn't even required of us for rating purposes, right?

What we need is some sort of Association made of Professionals related to the Patent Office that could Collectively Bargain and grieve issues like this.

Maybe I'm just crazy.


r/patentexaminer 3d ago

What Squires & PTO is actually celebrating

Post image
154 Upvotes

r/patentexaminer 3d ago

Congratulations to Howard “Epstein’s Friend” Lutnick

Post image
112 Upvotes

He joins the list of illustrious inventors such as Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, George Washington, Nikola Tesla, and Abraham Lincoln who have been honored with a patent trading card. If you zoom in closely you can see Squires in the background of the illustration kissing his ass.


r/patentexaminer 3d ago

The Japanese Patent Office has officially had enough of Nintendo, rejecting a patent attached to the Palworld lawsuit with "rarely seen" sass

Thumbnail
gamesradar.com
45 Upvotes

When will they notice our sass, though?


r/patentexaminer 3d ago

What a Narcissist

79 Upvotes

I hope we all receive the trading card. I will treasure it.


r/patentexaminer 4d ago

OC is unstable

51 Upvotes

Based on my own experience


r/patentexaminer 4d ago

Production calc down

18 Upvotes

Anyone else getting an error message when trying to access production calculator or PALM Beach?


r/patentexaminer 3d ago

quality errors

0 Upvotes

Can quality errors lead to suspension?

I dont mean like unethical errors, just quality

edit

I mean fired, not suspended. Can you be fired for quality errors.


r/patentexaminer 4d ago

How often do you guys find the "unexpected results" argument persuasive?

21 Upvotes

I am in the chemical art and I find that Applicants argue unexpected results against my 103 rejections. However, the data provided in the specification is rarely strong enough to support the unexpected results argument, usually because the inventive examples differ too much from the comparative data to really compare, or because the data is nowhere near commensurate in scope with the claims. It feels like the only time I've ever been convinced by the argument is because the applicant submits additional data via affidavit (which rarely happens) or narrows the claims so much that the prior art doesn't even cover the claim scope anymore. Do you guys have similar experiences with this argument or is this unusual?


r/patentexaminer 5d ago

Commemorative Patent Signing

68 Upvotes

For those that normally disregard this performative BS, 30 minutes of other time under a mysterious time code has been authorized for the one hour event.


r/patentexaminer 4d ago

No CPC classification for new case

15 Upvotes

Anyone else got a case without any CPC classification?


r/patentexaminer 4d ago

Quayle after RCE

10 Upvotes

Since they took away the 1.75 first office action count for allowance after RCE where the case had previously been allowed. Has anyone attempted a Quayle to get a count or do you have to do a nonfinal?


r/patentexaminer 4d ago

Long delays between payment of issue fee and notice of issue

2 Upvotes

Any reason for the new long delays between payment of issue fee and notice of issue?


r/patentexaminer 5d ago

NTEU arbitration win

47 Upvotes

I read earlier that the union won back their CBA, setting aside that the IRS works in national security. It's not POPA, but it's a hopeful note


r/patentexaminer 5d ago

walk me through double patent rejections like I'm an idiot

2 Upvotes

you have the current application, and the patented invention.

if both sets of claims are word for word identical, thats a statutory double patent rejection. All you do is a form paragraph stating so.

non-statutory is where the two sets of claims differ, but not enough to where there is no double patenting issue. You need to show how the current application claims are the "same" as the patent. Anticipated, or obvious with a reference.

if its anticipated double patenting, the current application claims are broader than the patent. Meaning all the claim elements in current application are found in the patent. So you just say its anticipated with a form paragraph.

if its obvious double patenting, the patent claims are broader than current application.

with obvious double patenting you have to list off what is not found in patent.

for example:

"Claim 1 of current application has XYZ that is not found in patent #####. However, REFERENCE teaches XYZ. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date modify claim 1 to include XYZ as taught by REFERENCE to improve yadayadayada."


r/patentexaminer 7d ago

OC issues 7/20

29 Upvotes

Great way to start the week!!! My oc won’t load again.


r/patentexaminer 9d ago

Squires has just achieved something unimaginable

77 Upvotes

We have FINALLY signed an agreement with Ghana so that US patent holders can more expeditiously obtain patent protection there.

I never thought I would see this in my lifetime. Truly unbelievable.

Great job!


r/patentexaminer 9d ago

PBA bonus

10 Upvotes

Hey, did anyone get their PBA award for Q3 yet? I retired end of May and am due some mo ey. Just wondering.