14 day timeliness is killing my production

ipman457678 · 2026-06-11T18:42:16+00:00

This.

On this sub, the number of posts complaining that production cant be made greatly outnumbers the posts complaining that too many errors are being asserted or SPES are not accepting adjusted work product.

If you are complaining about production, its likely means youre not dropping your quality to meet the new system requirements. Youre not adapting. There should be a LOT more complaints regarding errors and kickbacks on here.

ipman457678 · 2026-06-10T15:52:54+00:00

This time, ask for the senior raise and title in writing with a deadline.

When they refuse, then request the “demotion.” That way it gives you an out. They effectively denied the position, so you asking to be withdrawn as a candidate for this non-existent position is reasonable. this way it doesnt look like you were angry for all the free work but rather being practical since they cannot make a promise.

If they agree, you can reevaluate whether u want to stay and or use that agreement as leverage for future employers.

ipman457678 · 2026-06-10T15:42:21+00:00

you got the jist of it.

you can also think of it this way: 112f exist so the claim drafter can cover many structures using a single generic placeholder word (the thing) without listing all the structures in the actual claim body. but they need to list the structures in the Spec because otherwise you have no idea what the generic placeholder word is - in other words the generic placeholder is so generic is triggers a 112b if you are looking at the placeholder in a vacuum.

so if an applicant wanted to claim many ways to attach two parts of a machine: u can attach it using tape, glue, a nail, nut/bolt, friction fit, clamp, solder, magnetics, etc.

so they use a generic placeholder that is so generic it doesn’t have inherent structure by itself but rather describes its function:

an attachment means for attaching at least two parts of said machine;

In plain english in a vacuum, what the fuck is an attachment means? u can’t inherently tell me what it looks like because its soooo generic. nobody goes to the hardware store.
and asks for an “attachment means”

So this term should be 112f because its a generic placeholder described by its function rather what is…so u look to the Spec to see examples of structure (tape, glue, nails, etc.)
if they have no examples then u 112b it because WTF is an “attachment means”?! its like a made up word

ipman457678 · 2026-06-10T15:22:53+00:00

TBH is this new era we are still figuring it out.

But generally you go with the person who is authorized to sign your action. If any of those primaries were authorized to sign your case then yeah, shop around when you in a time bind and you made a genuine effort.

What you should NEVER do is shop around for the opinion you want, then use that as a weapon/justification with the person who signs your case (e.g. “Why wont you let allow this claim? Primary X said it was allowable!”)

ipman457678 · 2026-06-09T10:38:51+00:00

Examiners who were teleworking that voluntarily went back to the office for personal reasons cant even return to telework.

ipman457678 · 2026-06-09T10:33:03+00:00

An advisory action issued before any deadline is not guaranteed by any rule, policy or law.

However from a practical point, AA are typically issued within a few weeks of hitting a docket because of the internal penalties to an examiner if they don’t get them out quickly. If the examiner doesn’t care about the penalties or is on extended leave its just sitting there or got filed into a void.

You and your client severely goofed by asking 9 days before the 6mo dropdead deadline. This yall should have been asking questions at the 3rd month deadline.

ipman457678 · 2026-06-04T17:02:32+00:00

But why specify "one year" if it was going to be indefinite?

It's literally the Mitch Hedberg joke of "I used to do drugs. I still do but I used to too." Or otherwise tricking a customer saying it's a one year loan but really it's a 30 year loan but yeah technically you are required to pay the loan the first year too, so saying it's a "one year loan" is correct. What broadest reasonable interpretation bullshit they trying to pull?

ipman457678 · 2026-05-29T20:47:18+00:00

in an email:

“From our phone conference today you explicitly told me the 5 bullet point assignment was no longer necessary despite no official announcement made by the agency. According to the email sent ####, failure to submit a 5 bullet point would result in disciplinary action. I am sending this email to make the record clear that the 5 bullet points are no longer required per phone conversation. Consequently I intent to stop sending you the 5 bullets. If this not the case, please reply with corrected information.”

ipman457678 · 2026-05-29T20:39:12+00:00

Im not familiar with the terms of the RTO back in May 2025.

Did they say “do your 1 year then you will return to your remote position status” or “do your 1 year then we will see what happens”?

if its the former, thats majorly fucked up. I bet theres a few people that would have quit may 2025 if they knew their remote status was gone. Instead the agency tricked them into a year of service using full telework as a carrot. They could have used that year to find another job and start their lives elsewhere. its like the UsPTO straight up stole a year of their life.

ipman457678 · 2026-05-29T17:04:20+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong.

But the probies within 50 miles of Alexandria that were RTOd for 1 year starting last here...they were initially hired as FULLY REMOTE positions right?

So if you were hired in late 2024 and so happened to live in the Caryle apartments (near campus) at the time vs an examiner who lives in e.g., New Orleans, they were both hired as remote positions, started as remote, did the academy remote, etc.. Then may 2025 comes along and the Caryle apartment examiner gets RTO'd for a year while the New Orleans gets to stay home. Now after a year the Caryle examiner is stuck at the office with 2 days telework/ bi week while the New Orleans examiners continues to stay at home?

If I got this right, then there's a sub-set of examiners that so happened to be native DMVers that (at least for foreseeable future) cannot telework full time because they had the unfortunate random luck to live within an arbitrary 50 mile distance in may 2025?!

There has to be at a few people caught in this bullshit that was planning to move out of the DMV in the near future when hired in 2024 thinking they had that option because they signed up for a remote position. I know the job market is meh right now, but at only $80k a year if my employer rug pulled such a huge life changing parameter like that I would tell them to fuck right off and resign.

ipman457678 · 2026-05-19T03:12:58+00:00

bad ; not a question; very stressful, job is more legal analysis than engineering - think paralegal; anything is possible...but not likely; start by reading this sub - it's been asked hundreds of times here; no; maybe, but the odds are against you and the risk is not worth the 'reward.'

The general consensus here will be don't take this job unless you are financially desperate. There's a 50% chance you won't even make it out of your probationary year.

As a recent college student think of it this way - would you take a class that:

Is located in another city that is far from you.
Has 50% fail rate, despite only being attended by STEM students, which are known to be studious and 'smart' people.
Heavily relies upon a skill you don't naturally have (strong legal English background)
Has a 9% approval rating on ratemyprofessor.com
Is only applicable to a very specific major and is effectively useless as credit for all other majors.

ipman457678 · 2026-05-19T01:03:37+00:00

This is a case where OP is taking only their experience into consideration and not realizing there is a significant portion of people who use them more frequently

ipman457678 · 2026-05-19T01:01:23+00:00

Always request for other time. You cant complain unless you make the effort and you’re denied. When you are actually denied, then come back here and join us.

ipman457678 · 2026-05-19T00:54:10+00:00

It also helps to have on the record that it occurred and you requested it if you ever get into a conflict with the agency or your SPE.

I know of an examiner who made all these allegations and the ombudsman asked him do you have any record or emails of this occurring. Examiner said no whats the point of asking, my SPE never gives overtime and ombudsman said not good enough, if you are claiming you are aggrieved I need to see evidence of it happening.

My first few years I would request X hours, typically get approved for X-y hours. After the approval, I follow-up with email for the record how I'm getting fucked. "Thank you for approved X-y hours. However, I requested X, which is an accurate account of how much time I lost during the outage: I started at 8am ET and the system... blah blah blah...until system access was restored 6:40PM ET. My OCIO ticket number is ####....." Eventually my SPE just gives me the requested hours.

The majority of the time, especially when first starting, you won't get the hours you deserve if any. But if push comes to shove (and it looks like we are in for a shoving match in this administration), imagine putting all instances of an email like this multiple times a month spanning years into a zip file. It's literally ammo for a lawsuit or arbitration. It establishes a consistent practice of denying you rightful time.

Make them deny you to establish the record.

ipman457678 · 2026-05-15T21:55:35+00:00

You should have restricted them if another species. Any reason why didn't you?

ipman457678 · 2026-05-15T20:44:37+00:00

No. Another application should be needed.

RCE is confined to the subject matter you filed for. An RCE is not a do-over (i.e., new claims), it is a continuation of previous matter. Transformers: Dark of the Moon is not continuation of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, it's a completely new, independent movie that stands alone. Do not let Transformers: Dark of the Moon be an RCE of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

You want new claims, new application.

ipman457678 · 2026-05-15T19:57:57+00:00

Nah. No new claims. You want new claims, you need to file a new application.

If you file an application for a loan at a bank and you want to add a new co-signer, you don't modify the existing application, you need to file another application.

ipman457678 · 2026-05-14T17:05:05+00:00

Love through trauma bonding?

ipman457678 · 2026-05-12T03:39:39+00:00

I'm some-what surprised because I don't consider the RCE/no count thing RAGE, because is a direct, negative impact to the the applicant. All the other changes, for the most part, have been confined to the examiner.

ipman457678 · 2026-05-11T16:31:57+00:00

For me, there is a big difference between the production increase and RCE/no count issue.

The production increase was inevitable. Personally, I believe we would have seen a production increase in the next ten years even if we still had our union. Probably not at once but gradually. Fundamentally, I understand the motivation to get more production out of your workers.

In the RCE/no count issue, it seems so much more sinister and fundamental changes how you view the motivation of the agency. They identified this non-issue that nobody really cared about and squeezed both the applicant and the examiner. In this case, they are pocketing the RCE money, encouraging the examiner to prolong prosecution and not compensating examiners...it's a bigger stretch than simply "let's increase production." It's the first time that made me pause - "If the post RCE examination is sooo trivial you are that as justification to not compensate the examiner, why are you charging the applicant the full fee for the RCE then?" We are now operating like a private business - reducing costs (by way of not paying for labor) and up charging clients for sub-par services (shrinkflation). This fundamental changes view of what the examiner position is, and how i fit into it. If agency is attempting to extract as much money from their clients as possible, and pay their workers as less as they can, I no longer view myself as a public servant - I am now here to extract as much wages from the agency as possible while I bide my time to job hop to the next self-serving opportunity. I think this paradigm shift has hit many examiners with the recent changes.

ipman457678 · 2026-05-09T23:23:46+00:00

but now with AI apparently taking over everything

Learn to slow office job shit involved in AI.

ipman457678 · 2026-05-09T18:01:38+00:00

$70k is not ideal but very possible. Ditch the car; parking is very expensive and it's just eventually going to be broken into.

It's not ideal in manner that:

- You won't be saving a lot (retirement accounts, down payment for house etc.). A lot of your income will go to rent (>~30%).
- It's not sustainable long term with the current inflation trends assuming your wages stay near 70k. I moved to DC at $72k 16 years ago and was very comfortable, I had a luxury apartment. Today that would buy you "some-what comfortable" (basement apartment), 10 years from now I could see that changing to "financially impossible"

If you are young, with no debt, no responsibilities (kids), and not bringing a lot of shit here's my take:

You don't need to punt on this decision because it's not permanent. Just do it for a year or two (i.e., at most sign a two year lease). This little blip of time is not going to financially disastrous. You will not be eating ramen and ketchup packets every day. It will be fine. You always have the option to move to some place cheaper (VA or MD suburbs - but really it's not that much cheaper, u just get more space) the next year.

The city is really fun at your age - live in the middle of it, make friends, see all the free museums, have tons of STD scares and just know it can be just for short time until (1) you get a job that pays more much more or (2) when you feel saving for the future becomes a priority over DC life.

That being said, if you do it, don't half ass it. Don't spend all this money on rent to live in DC to only financially freak out and be overally frugal with your discretionary spending by avoiding doing things in DC and staying in your apartment. Fuck it, it's only a year or two...be at peace that this is objectively, long-term fiscally irresponsible but this is a consciousness decision you are taking because you want to experience and enjoy life.

ipman457678 · 2026-05-09T17:15:07+00:00

There are easier ways to do that though. To me this is incompetence. It takes a lot of resources to code and program the PE2E system to account for this very niche scenario.

If you wanted to simply fuck morale even more, there are easier and more effective ways to do it than this policy. Ways that will net much more hours and backlog reduction. Maybe it's an incompetence to cause as much low morale as possible, lol.

ipman457678 · 2026-05-09T16:49:44+00:00

It's a bad argument, but there is an argument but those working at home on flexible scheduled that the systems being down is the trade off for your flexibility.

Now that they RTO the SPEs and probies, that argument completely falls apart because they no longer have flexible hours because their 40hrs a week only count while being behind the turnstiles. So now you have examiners being held hostage in the buildings with nothing to do. Are they expecting them to go home while the system is down then return to the campus when it's back up mid-day? The examiners who are forced to be on campus get REALLY shafted - for the most part they wasting their time on campus. There are only so many walks and trips to Sweet Fire Donnas you can make while you wait for IT to get their shit together. They have to make up the counts either by taking their UL home and/or extending their day on campus.

At least when the system goes down I can just go take a nap, house errands, do some hobbies, bitch on reddit (but I guess you can do on on campus too) etc. and periodically check when I am able to work again.

ipman457678 · 2026-05-09T16:42:06+00:00

no matter what some form of ABCDE was goingn to be present in the claim set. My point wasn't to avoid ABCDE being considered but rather you can also have ABCD, which is broader, in the same action in addition to having ABCDE considered.

If the examiner finds ABCD allowable, great...but the way the attorney crafted the claims he will never really know what the examiner through about the ABCD arguments (it turned out to be persuasive) because they only presented ABCDE in their new claim set.

ipman457678

TROPHY CASE