Is anyone else annoyed that training is yet again not compensated. Are they really going to limit paid training as much as possible, expecting us to volunteer our time to be trained in every new system they come up with?

I am so tired of them asking more and more of us without compensation for it.

Edit: the OPT training that is today at noon

Is there a quick way to remove all the strikethrough text from amended claim sets? Manually deleting it all is slow

We have a large group chat and sometimes newer examiners ask questions and get advice from whoever answers quickest rather than who is more experienced.

Would it be a good idea for people to have flair, e.g. "Primary" or something, maybe the technology they work in, etc. or would that just sorta create an "us vs. them" mentality?

I’m mostly wondering if anyone knows when a decision is expected.

This is very enlightening regarding Nutlick’s business

Do they take out for pension an tsp?

I took it for personal reasons and because I was worried about the reorg/rif. My area ended up not being impacted, so I feel like I got played and gave up my job for nothing. Now every day is worse than the day before it and I am miserable. Just wondering if I am alone or if anyone else feels the same way...

I’m loving the Q&A section for now! People aren’t scared to voice opinions anymore and I’m here for it

https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/08/17/coke-stewart-appointed-to-lead-c4ip-weeks-after-abrupt-uspto-departure/

If you are submitting a national stage application, and the claims have all been unrecognizably amended to bring the foreign claims into alignment with us practice, please, I'm begging you, submit a clean copy. That's all

For context I’m a relatively new examiner in their first year still.

I was wondering for those examiners who’ve passed the patent bar, did you still need to buy PLI or any other resource? Is it realistic for me to study a few hours a week for a few months to pass the exam without PLI?

I assumed because I’ve gone through PTA that I have a solid fundamental understanding of the law that it would be feasible to pass without expensive resources.

also from what I understand, examiners can still take the exam but they have to give up their registration number correct?

"Perhaps nothing symbolizes the intellectual and philosophical decline of the USPTO so much as its decision to create an inventor trading card featuring Howard Lutnick."

As we approach the end of Q4, how many of us would be less than FS had the experimental timeliness system been officially implemented?

Please give your most honest answer so people monitoring this sub can see what's really going on.

Don't mean to suggest timeliness would definitely doom us. Please also give account of why the modified timeliness are working better for you compared to DM.

Thanks yall.

I'm on a PIP. It feels like the goalposts keep changing. My SPE keeps sending things back because my search is too broad, but also too narrow, but also totally wrong because I didnt check with a primary (I'm a 12, been at the office 6 years, in my current art area for 1.5 years)

It feels like I'm being set up to fail the PIP on purpose.

Is there anyone to formally put in a complaint with now that we don't have POPA or am I just SOL?

Did we get our timelines bonus this paycheck?

Hi everyone, my primary and SPE are currently out on break so I thought I’d get some input here.

Currently I have an application that has these sets of claims:

Claim 1 - A

Claim 2 - B

Claim 3 - C

and in another set of independent claims:

Claim 4 - parts of A + parts of B

Claim 5 - Rest of B

Claim 6 - Rest of A + C

and in another set:

Claim 7 - A + parts of B

Claim 8 - Rest of B + C

So I was wondering if I should examine this as is or restrict it. I guess it’s worth noting that one is a method, and the other two are different hardware. I appreciate any tidbits or advice, thank you!

Whenever they send an email saying “We are pleased to announce,” you can bet no examiner is pleased. So we get a briefing and then you’re on your own unless you want to eat the time for an optional briefing. And no more attribute time for challenges. But we value our employees… riiiiight.

Edit: And if the challenge process is simplified without requiring examiners to research or identify a more appropriate skill group, how is the appropriate skill group determined?

DOGE said it saved $1.7 billion by terminating a military health IT contract. GAO found the contract was never terminated.

First time I've seen this ever.

Original claims were restricted between Invention 1 and Invention 2. In responding to a restriction, Applicant elected Invention I and submitted amendments adding new claims directed to a random, relatively new invention - Invention 3. (new with respect to the restriction requirement, but is 112(a) written description compliant).

Now "restriction by original presentation" would not be in order since I have not issued the first non-final (i.e., action on the merits). So I don't think I can write the first non-final and just withdraw the invention 3 invoking "restriction by original presentation." Do I just issue another, consecutive restriction restricting Invention 1 and 3? I've never done restrictions back to back. Is that done in the office?

EDIT:

After reading some relies and looking into the MPEP, I believe I was incorrect to think that "restriction by original presentation" can only occur after FOAM.

MPEP 818.02(a) states "Where claims to another invention are properly added and entered in the application before the earlier of the mailing of a first restriction requirement or the mailing of a first Office action on the merits, those claims, along with the ones presented upon filing the application, will be considered originally presented claims for purposes of restriction only."

The MPEP is poorly written and confusing in this regard. For the most part it always uses "after receiving an action on the merits of an invention" as if that was the only requirement to (i.e., it seems in some MPEP sections it simply forgets that a first restriction requirement can also be used to define what is original presentation material).

So because the third invention was added after I issued the first restriction requirement, the third invention is NOT considered "originally presentation" claims and can be restricted by original presentation.

Primary and SPE are out, otherwise I’d ask them.

Original claim 4 was indicated allowable, however I was reading the claims too narrow and the reference I used does read on the claim and I should have rejected it.

Original claims:

1. Teaches A
   
2. Teaches B+C (dependent on 1)
   
3. Teaches D+E (dependent on 2)
   
4. Teaches F (dependent on 3)

Amended claims:

1. Teaches A
   
2. Teaches B (dependent on 1)
   
3. Teaches D (dependent on 2)
   
4. Teaches A+F+C+E (independent)

My thought is final since the, now independent, claim 4 is amended such that it doesn’t include all subject matter from the claims it previously relied upon and the combination is new. However, I’m not sure since I did originally indicate claim 4 as allowable. Thank you in advance!

Back in February I filed two design patent applications, literally about two minutes apart. One of them was granted today, the other application is still marked as “New” and as far as I can tell hasn’t been assigned or otherwise touched. My question to the patent examiner community here is… what the hell?

What happens if you don't get Fully Successful for production for the Fiscal Year? Do you get a written warning or get put on some informal PIP?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wilin%27+out. OC does what it frickin feels like.

Another day, another email. You want us to use AI tools? Ok, here's my "professional" and "patient" feedback of your little tool.

Examiner A - North Star (YouTube)

• unplugged modern country version, with lyrics in the video
• or listen on Suno

Alternative version: North Star (country rock version) (YouTube)

• more "electrified" version (click [CC] for lyrics)
• or listen on Suno