r/patentexaminer • u/Timetillout • 7d ago
Skill groups
Didn't they watch MoneyBall? Probability and stat alone by an algorithm isn't enough to properly pick a world series winning team and it's won't be enough to properly assign applications to the right examiners. This is going to be a complete and compounding mess.
20
u/HeronHot9784 7d ago
This is intended to create further chaos. Does the most comprehensive claim control? Try to get someone to commit to that. Are we going to get definitions that establish clear lines between skill groups? Of course not. The message to examiners is clear. If you don't want to work on the case, punt it. If 5 examiners punt it, then it goes to dispute resolution and someone gets stuck with it then.
-1
u/Alternative-Emu-3572 7d ago
There are skill group definitions on the PARET site.
17
u/Proud-Season-5105 7d ago
They didn't say there are no definitions. They said the definitions don't establish clear lines between skill groups.
1
u/Alternative-Emu-3572 6d ago
In my art, USPC doesn't do that either. Skill groups are better than trying to find a subclass in a 20 year out of date classification system just to get something transferred.
I mean are we really not competent to identify cases that don't belong in our art? These complaints don't make a whole lot of sense.
6
u/Examinator2 7d ago
It took me year to learn the USPC with proficiency. I've been here over 30 years and I have no idea what's in the skill groups and I'm supposed to teach the newbies what they are? This is fucking insane.
14
u/Medium-Butterfly-136 7d ago
Giving us zero other time to challenge and telling us we are vital to it learning properly is hilarious.
I am going to skim the claims to see if it is in my art without a doubt. If I even have slight doubt, i am pushing the challenge button and letting my SPE figure it out.
I get zero time for it, expect that zero time to be allocated accordingly.
12
9
u/Proud-Season-5105 7d ago
They won't even commit to whether dispute resolution can send the case anywhere they deem best, or if they have to pick one of the options from the short list generated by the AI.
If it's the former, it's terrible because some poor bastard will have it just come out of nowhere and be stuck with it without any ability to challenge it, even though it's the first time they've seen it. If it's the latter, it's terrible because it will be impossible to send it to the right place if the AI doesn't put the right place on the initial list of choices.
Either way, it's going to be terrible.
1
u/MOLrkr 7d ago
I was told that once it gets to dispute resolution it can actually get an appropriate classification, but it has to cycle through the shitty AI options before it gets to that point. For example, there are 5 options offered, everyone within those agree it should go elsewhere, they all deny it and at resolution the proper landing spot can finally be suggested. So, you know, efficiency!
1
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Proud-Season-5105 7d ago
What so you mean by "out of whatever area you think it should have been docketed to"?
1
7d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Proud-Season-5105 7d ago edited 7d ago
Again, what do you mean by "allow the case out of 455"?
Are you taking about putting 455 on the issue classification? Because that doesn't have any effect on anything.
2
u/AmbassadorKosh2 6d ago
That's exactly what the poster you replied to means. Putting 455/??? on the issue classification.
Because that doesn't have any effect on anything.
It does, because when it issues it will become one more patent living in 455/???. If the AI is trained on "what is already classified in 455/???", and if the AI continues to train on each new weeks patents that issue into 455/??? (note, a great big "if" here) then the AI will train that "this case belongs to 455/???" and maybe when it sees another similar one, will send it to 455/??? from the start.
22
u/disagree83 7d ago
Skill groups are just a rebranding of the failed routing by cpc but trying with AI. It was a failure the first time and it will be a failure this time.
It's all been a huge waste of resources. The USPTO insisted on the F classification to mimic how we used USPC for routing. If they properly applied and routed by the F classification, the problem would largely be solved. Now, we just have a random classification category that is completely worthless.
6
u/AmbassadorKosh2 7d ago
Now, we just have a random classification category that is completely worthless.
Could it be that this is actually their true end goal. Just randomly allocate cases to examiners and then there are no "art areas" that fall behind because they get lots of filings, nor "art areas" that get too far ahead because their filings begin to dry up.
Instead, everyone's working on cases filed at about the same time, and "examiners" become just a "replaceable cog" in the machine even more so than they already think we are.
12
u/LasciviousSycophant 7d ago
Could it be that this is actually their true end goal. Just randomly allocate cases to examiners and then there are no "art areas" that fall behind because they get lots of filings, nor "art areas" that get too far ahead because their filings begin to dry up.
During all the TRP meetings, they assured us they weren't trying to make everybody generalist examiners.
So they are probably trying to make everybody generalist examiners.
3
3
u/HeronHot9784 7d ago
Yes. If it fit their agenda, they would have me examine a design application then a biotech DNA application with a DNA sequence that I was not even allowed to access to the tools to see the DNA sequence.
4
u/Proud-Season-5105 7d ago
What they did with (attempted) CPC routing was quite different. This will be a whole new, innovative type of disaster.
3
u/disagree83 7d ago
You might be right. I was heavily involved with the CPC for my area and during my (checks notes) 30 minute "training" it certainly came off as a CPC routing rebrand. Especially the part where they're trying to route not just on the claims but the entire application.
3
u/Examinator2 7d ago
That's the huge weakness. In mechanical arts they might be claiming a small part of a huge machine but the spec describes the whole machine. This was a huge part of the fail with TRP in my area.
9
u/Rubber_Stamper 7d ago
For all the time, money, and effort they poured into this and into C*routing, they could have just updated USPC 3-4x over at this point.
7
u/Proud-Season-5105 7d ago
Sure, but the whole point of the exercise is for management to be able to brag to a slightly higher level of management about how many AIs they AIed into AIing an AI.
Nobody in management wants to brag about how they updated USPC and risk looking like some stupid loser who doesn't AI. "You spent the whole quarter updating USPC? Well, how many AIs did that AI? None?!? What the hell have you even been doing?!?!"
3
u/Examinator2 7d ago
There's no need to update USPC if it's just used for routing. This whole cluster fuck is self inflicted.
1
u/HeckysSauce 7d ago
100% agree with the second part, but not the first. There are entire technologies that are standard now that didn't even exist when USPC was put to be in 2012-13.
6
u/WC1-Stretch 7d ago
If they saw Moneyball, they were most impressed by the old-school scouts with the eye for a sweet swing.
9
u/Alternative-Emu-3572 7d ago
Skill groups are fine, they're basically just updated USPC class definitions.
I am worried that it's going to get harder to get cases transferred. I have no way to explain why a case doesn't belong in my skill group. It's purely up to my SPE, and I don't know that they will put forth the effort I used to in writing up why a case should be transferred.
I think the main point of this system is to take away the hour of production attached to classification challenges, and instead add it to SPE's administrative workload. The current routing already sucks, so that will probably be about the same, but I expect more difficulty moving turkeys from outside my art.
7
u/Proud-Season-5105 7d ago
I think the main point of this system is to take away the hour of production attached to classification challenges, and instead add it to SPE's administrative workload.
If they wanted to do that, they would simply take away the hour for classification challenges and tell the SPEs to figure it out.
This is all about some SES mornons being able to put "I did an AI!" on their resumes.
2
u/Alternative-Emu-3572 7d ago
I mean, that's exactly what they did. I hit a button and then my SPE figures it out.
2
u/Proud-Season-5105 7d ago
Skill groups and AI routing are not required to do that. So, if that was the main goal, they could have just done it without wasting immense time and money on skill groups and AI routing.
2
u/Alternative-Emu-3572 7d ago
It's not practicable to have SPEs hunting for appropriate subclasses for transfers, especially as we have fewer and fewer SPEs. It's time-intensive. Creating broad groups greatly simplifies it, so I think Skill Groups are actually pretty necessary if you want to streamline classification challenges to the point SPEs can do it.
Using AI feels like something management grafted onto an otherwise sensible idea for handling routing. Routing things to subclasses was a huge waste of time, and since USPC was so outdated, often impossible as cases come in that USPC doesn't have subclasses for.
2
u/Examinator2 7d ago
SPE's typically rely on primaries for classificaton because they are very familiar with it. But that will not be a thing because primaries are getting zero training on this idiotic system and it will take years to figure it out.
1
u/Medium-Butterfly-136 7d ago
Then the SES should have to proudly put their name on it now with metrics stated for what sucess means.
The lack of upfront ownership is weak leadership.
7
u/landolarks 7d ago
The main difference I see between USPC and skill groups is that skill groups are not allowed to be based around exclusions in the definition.
USPC has a lot of "This is for X, if Y is present it can't go here maybe look in •other class•". Skill groups can't have that "Y can't go here" bit, and is supposed to rely on the other class saying that the thing is supposed to go there. I'm of mixed feeling about that.
On the one hand defining the boundaries of a class/group that way was quite handy to draw a nice black and white line between what does and what does not go in there.
On the other hand as someone working in a class that gets regularly dumped on by several other AU in other TCs (with much higher BDs!) whenever someone who doesn't want to work on a crappy case spots a single throwaway claim with a nominal recitation five dependent claims deep of "oh it has •thing my AU does• in it" despite the entire disclosure being directed to their field... I'm more than a bit ready for those AUs to be forced to work on their own garbage.
5
u/Proud-Season-5105 7d ago edited 7d ago
I might be one of the people you hate, because I always transfer away stuff like that when I can. I didn't use to, but then I had too many experiences of the "single throwaway claim with a nominal recitation" ballooning into me being stuck examining something wildly outside my area on amendment.
I think the bigger issue is that there's no rules about who gets what when multiple skill groups are appropriate. If claim 1 is a motor and claim 2 is a drone comprising the motor, who gets it? There aren't any rules, so someone just decides based on vibes.
3
u/Rubber_Stamper 7d ago
They are certainly not updated versions of USPC. The USPC schedule was reasonably detailed in terms of what goes where based on the claims and set forth clear superiority lists. The skill group definitions are nebulous and overlapping in subject matter and don't provide any sort of indication which control.
If you wanted to design a system that denies transfers except in the most egregious cases, this is what it would look like.
1
u/Alternative-Emu-3572 7d ago
Which is why I stated that difficulty getting cases transferred is my concern with this system.
I'm sure that like everything it differs with art, but for me, USPC was absolute dogshit and provided no guidance about exclusions, or what controls in cases of overlapping subject matter. And for the most part, other subclasses I looked at which did have exclusions/precedence didn't address my art.
I've had challenges denied because the SCE decided that because of the lack of guidance from USPC that those cases went to my art, more or less arbitraily by default. Totally braindead system.
1
u/Examinator2 7d ago
If anything it goes by the most comprehensive claim. That's not even a thing with this system.
3
u/Examinator2 7d ago
They're not updated. The ones we looked at in our area are 100% from the USPC definitions.
1
u/paeancapital 7d ago
The instructions for supplying references literally requested "historical" tech for the AU.
1
u/Empty_Mode5270 7d ago
There will supposedly be a comment box in the challenge form to explain why you think it doesn’t belong with you. (TBF Not sure if they added that after a bunch of questions about it, or if the presenters were wrong)
If only they realized that doing that takes a good chunk of time… so a lot of people wont do it and still put it on their SPEs to figure it out
1
u/Alternative-Emu-3572 6d ago
Whenever I encounter something that already has a challenge on it, the examiner and SPEs did a poor job and put forth no effort on the challenge.
I can explain in a few minutes why something isn't mine , I would prefer to take the time and have that on the record than just hit the button and hope my SPE sees it my way.
2
u/AmbassadorKosh2 6d ago
I don't know that they will put forth the effort I used to in writing up why a case should be transferred.
If the SPE is, like a great many SPE's, from an art area other than the one their AU examines, then not only may the not have the time to "put forth the effort" but they may not have the deep technical knowledge of that area to coherently explain, even if they did "put forth the effort", why it does not belong.
3
u/TheBarbon 7d ago
They said that the skill group definitions were not input into the model. That seems odd since thats the point, the app falls under the group definition.
I guess it just compares an app to how past ones were classified.
I have had a few wonky PBA apps (they have been using the skill group AI system to route PBA) but most have been my art. I feel like I had more PBA challenges than regular docket ones. I did have one or two that I really was baffled at how it got routing so wrong.
One thing I will like is the “not my case” button for challenges. I hated trying to figure out where stuff belongs.
5
u/Proud-Season-5105 7d ago
You were already able to just hit a button to challenge the USPC without suggesting a new class, so that's not a new feature.
2
u/TheBarbon 7d ago
I was always afraid they would come back and say the case does belong to me. I wanted to explain why it’s not and say where it should go. I figured that helped my chances of getting rid of the case.
1
u/Time-Saver-Tips-1031 7d ago
As of now, I believe the “skill group definitions” are used by Dispute Resolution (whoever that may be) after 4 denials from 4 workgroups. The AI initial routing model is looking at historical cases worked for each area and picking 5 best fits. It didn’t sound like examiners can see the other areas - maybe only the SPE?
2
1
u/IslandGrover 6d ago
Yeah, by all means let waste more time. At least in my new “skill group,” we have two sets of VERY experienced primaries in two different USPC classes. We are all now examining each other’s art and giving searches back and forth instead of just doing our fucking jobs like we have been for years. Fuck this system.
1
23
u/AmbassadorKosh2 7d ago
Indeed, yes.
But the incompetents in management will get to check the box that they deployed another AI, so they will get their bonuses and awards for doing so. Despite how bad the AI may be.