Greetings to all! As I’m sure virtually no one noticed, I haven’t posted in a while. This is largely because I’ve been so busy having started my first job out of college (it’s taking up a lot of my time and leaving me exhausted, but I’m starting to get used to it.)
I’m currently 9 weeks into the eight month initial training program, the Patent Training Academy. As of week 9, we transition from college style lecture and exercise based training to actually examining patent applications (with guidance from senior examiners.)
Since it’s a fairly unusual job (as I understand, there are fewer than 7,000 of us in the US, 99% working in the DC metro area) I figured that a thread of this sort might generate some interest. (If not, I’ll just sink back into obscurity; that works too.)
Hey Carrot. I, too, am sorry I didn’t get the chance to meet you in person last year. How’s my old stomping ground?
The training tends to fall into three categories (not officially; these are my own unofficial categories):
The most common training is on patent examining procedures: parts of a patent application, how to interpret language in an application, how to report a case to your supervisor, how to write a report on patentability.
The other two are legal training and resource training and are about equal in frequency.
In the US, patent law is covered by title 35 of the US Code. The sections that an examiner needs to know most are 101 (patentable subject matter), 102 (novelty requirements), 103 (obvious inventions) and 112 (a description of what has to be in an application.)
The rest of the training covers the resources available to an examiner. This includes the computer applications we use to prosecute an application, the databases we have available to search and the assistance that’s available if we get stuck on a search.
None of them are especially funny, but there are a few unusual terms floating around. Easy and hard to examine applications are sometimes referred to as bunnies and dogs. Most of the really unusual terms are the result of the federal government’s love of acronyms. We have STIC, TQAS’s, our main search tools are EAST and WEST, and (my personal favorite) the lawyers who provide legal advice to examiners are LIEs.
I won’t have much interaction with the public except for some communication back and forth with the applicants’ lawyers or agents or with the applicants themselves (in the case of those who didn’t hire lawyers.)
Is what you do the same thing Albert Einstein did in his first job? One always hears him described as a “patent clerk”, thence downgraded into a “mere clerk”, as if he was doing the filing or something.
I assume that in actuality patent examiners need a considerable amount of education before they can even get into the training program.
Are you encouraged to ask for clarification on possible prior art, or to get them through as quickly as possible? My first two patents (and all the ones file from my group) always had inquiries coming back from the patent office which had to be answered. My last two, more recent, had none, and it wasn’t like they were all that revolutionary.
How much do you know about computer software? Can you refuse to examine a patent because you have no idea whether it even makes sense in terms of the technology it describes? (For example, if you don’t know much about computer science you could possibly grant an application for a method to determine whether an arbitrary program given arbitrary input will always halt, not knowing it’s the CS equivalent to a perpetual motion machine.)
Unless I am very much mistaken, good old Al was, in fact, held the same (basic) job I do (I say basic because he worked for the Swiss Patent Office and I’m sure that the job isn’t identical between patent offices.) There’s definitely a lot more to it than just filing paperwork.
The education requirement isn’t as high as one might think. All that you really need to get in (education wise) is a BS in a relevant field of engineering or in a relevant physical science. (I say relevant because you don’t get too many patents that require the specific expertise of (for instance) a geologist.)
The training academy hasn’t said anything about asking the applicants to clarify prior art, but we are definitely supposed to take questions about interpretation (of both prior art and the application) to our Trainers and SPEs (supervisory patent examiners) and other, more experienced examiners.
My computer science experience is limited to 2 years in high school and about 6 credits worth in college. Fortunately, I won’t be called on to examine any computer science applications.
Examiners are divided technology centers with big specializations like mechanical engineering, computer science or chemical engineering. Each TC is further divided into a BIG number of art units with a narrower focus (so an art unit in a mechanical engineering TC might have a focus on cutting tool or fasteners.)
I’m in Art Unit 3744 (in TC 3700) which means that every application that shows up on my docket relates to refrigeration, automatic environmental control (thermostats and humidifiers) or heat exchangers.
That being said, if an application shows up that we don’t know a thing about, we can ask our SPE to pass the case off to someone else who knows it better. Generally, however, if the application is focused on ones technology field, one will do the research to understand the application rather than just pass it off.
Are there specialists in the different fields that examine the relavent patent?
(A) Are patents related to electronics are examined by an electrical engineer ?
(B) Are chemical patents examined by a chemist, and so forth?
The same question as question 1, wherein I ask what your area of expertise is?
The same question as question 1, wherein I ask what are the different areas of specialization within the USPTO?
The same question as question 1, wherein I ask if as a new examiner do the other examiners haze you by giving you patent applications to examine for perpetual motion machines and/or sex toys?
How do you and your colleagues feel about the controversy over genetics patents? Especially companies who patent genes that already exist in our bodies and just happened to be sequenced by a company? What about patenting genetically modified lifeforms?
What are the other cutting edge and controversial new areas of patenting? What’s the big buzz in the patent world right now?
How do you feel about the time length of patent protection? Does being in patents give you any insight or other interest or opinion on the related fields fo copyright and trademarks?
Are there any ways in which you’d like to see patents reformed?
Detailed Answer Question Objections
Question 1 is objected to due to the following minor informalities:
Question 1 uses the word “relevent.” This word was probably intended to read “relevant.”
Question 1, limitation A asks “Are patents related to electronics are examined by an electrical engineer?” This was probably intended to read “Are patents related to electronics examined by an electrical engineer?”
Appropriate corrections are required.
Question Rejections under 35 USC §102
Questions 1 and 2 are rejected to under 35 USC §102(a) as having been answered by SDMB Post No. 10157058 by Lord Il Palazzo.
Il Palazzo answers question 1, “Examiners are divided technology centers with big specializations like mechanical engineering, computer science or chemical engineering.” in ¶2.
Il Palazzo answers question 2, “I’m in Art Unit 3744 (in TC 3700) which means that every application that shows up on my docket relates to refrigeration, automatic environmental control (thermostats and humidifiers) or heat exchangers.” in ¶3.
Questions 3-4 are objected to as being dependent on rejected question 1. They may be answerable if reasked in independent form.
Conclusions
Any inquires concerning the preceding answers may be directed to Lord Il Palazzo in this thread.
Ok, now for anyone who didn’t get the preceding post. Shark formatted his questions to look like the claims of a patent application. The first was formatted as an independent claim and has indented, lettered limitations. The other questions were formatted as dependent claims, referencing a previous claim and building on it.
In response, I formatted my response to Shark’s question to resemble an office action (an examiner’s report on patentability.)
Now to actually answer the third and forth questions.
3) Here’s a list of the different technology centers within the patent office. Click on the TC number for a list of the specific art units within that Center.
No (thankfully.) Our SPE’s (Supervisory Patent Examiners) assign cases to our dockets based on our specializations. That being said, one of my fellow trainees, (a guy assigned a biotech field that includes pacemakers) mentioned that he was assigned some sort of subcutaneous electrical sexual stimulator. So there are a few out there, but they’re docketed to people who know the field rather than to just anyone as a hazing kind of thing.
Since this is so far from being my area of expertise, I’m not the most qualified person to answer but I will try. I don’t think that patents should or will be granted on genes. Naturally occuring phenomena are specifically excluded as patentable subject matter. (Practical applications of natural phenomena (like a wind powered turbine) are fair game.) Now if they had a new method to insert the gene into a lifeform that didn’t naturally have it, that might be something patentable, but the gene itself doesn’t and shouldn’t qualify.
I believe that genetically modified lifeforms are considered patentable and I think that that seems fair, but once again it’s not my specialty.
One thing that the US has recently starting giving patents on that seems a bit silly is business methods. These are (as they sound like) patents for methods of doing business (e-commerce methods, banking methods and the like.) Most other countries don’t currently allow patents on business methods.
The big buzz at the moment in patent examination is the KSR decisionfrom last year. KSR makes it a lot easier to make a rejection under 35 USC 103 by deeming the invention to be merely an obvious step above a previous invention. Before KSR, you actually needed a secondary reference (the primary reference being the invention being improved) that disclosed the improvement and gave a firm motivation to combine. Now you can use common sense reasons to combine inventions even if neither reference gives a specific motivation.
I think that the duration of patent protection (from issue date to 20 years after the filing date) is about right, though it may be on the long side. With how fast technology is moving these days, it seems like 20 years of protection might be a little bit too long to wait before an invention is completely fair game.
As far as trademarks and copyrights go, I don’t know too much about either, but it really seems like copyrights have a rediculously long term of protection (lifetime of the creator plus 70 years.)
I’ll get back to this question later. I need to give it a little thought.
Have you seen the Patently Absurd archive?
[/QUOTE]
How much do you know about the USPTO’s track record on software patents? Can you tell me with a straight face they’re something the USPTO is qualified to handle? (I’m more than willing to provide plenty of examples as to why I think the USPTO should stay far away from any software patent, but I won’t bother if you already know the worst of it.)
Hey everyone. I’m sorry that I neglected this thread for most of the weekend (though in my defense, I was busy moving.)
I would really like to see the various patent systems of the world streamlined and maybe even consolidated into an international patent system.
As it is, and applicant must file for a patent separately in each of the countries (s)he wants patent protection in although the Patent Cooperation Treaty makes that a little easier. Also, there are differences in what is and isn’t considered patentable from country to country.
Also, I’d like to see the waiting time for a patent cut down. As it is, what with the USPTO’s humongous backlog, the applications on my desk are all over two years old and are just now starting to be examined (some technologies have even longer waits.) Since the term of protection extends from issuance of a patent to twenty years from the date of filing, this can easily cut 10-20% off of the term of protection.
Yes. I think that a lot of the inventions that are shown there are hilarious. I personally approve of silly inventions getting patents. Just because your idea is absurd doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have the right to protect it and besides, it may have some other use that nobody’s foreseen. (The fact that these people’s application fees pay my salary is another plus side.)
Meanwhile, I hate to say it but it’s late and I’m exhausted (and I have work tomorrow.) hdc_bst and Derleth (and anyone else who would like to ask a question,) I promise that I’ll answer your questions after work tomorrow (examiners are discouraged from posting on message boards during working hours and, being a new employee, I’m going to try and avoid anything that might anger the higher ups.)
Really roughly, how competitive is the application process to become a patent examiner if you fit the established requirements from the usajobs.com job postings?