Mo’ money, less scrutiny: Why higher-paid examiners grant worse patents by Derrick Harris.
From the post:
As people get better at their jobs, it’s logical to assume they’re able to perform their work more efficiently. However, a new study suggests that when it comes to issuing patents, there’s a point at which the higher expectations placed on promoted examiners actually become a detriment.
The study used resources from the National Center for Supercomputing Applications to analyze 1.4 million patent applications against a database of patent examiner records, measuring each examiner’s grant rate as they moved up the USPTO food chain. What the researchers found essentially, according to a University of Illinois News Bureau article highlighting the study, is:
“[A]s an examiner is given less time to review an application, they become less inclined to search for prior art, which, in turn, makes it less likely that the examiner makes a prior art-based rejection. In particular, ‘obviousness’ rejections, which are especially time-intensive, decrease.”
….
See Harris’ post for charts, details, etc.
Great to have scientific confirmation but every literate person knows the USPTO has been problematic for years. The real question, beyond the obvious need for intellectual property reform, is what to do with the USPTO?
Any solution that leaves the current leadership, staff, contractors, suppliers, etc., intact is doomed to fail. The culture of the present USPTO fostered this situation, which has festered for years. Charging the USPTO to change is Einstein’s definition of insanity:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Start with a clean slate, including building new indices, technology and regulations and put an end to the mummer’s farce known as the current USPTO.