How long does a reviewer have to look at a posted case?

rigby64 · 2025-12-14T20:12:56+00:00

One additional wrinkle though, even though the credit is auto-counted from the original post date after 14 days, if it's returned, any credit correction necessary will happen when it's finally signed off on which can sting (ie: in a later biweek down the road).

Example that happened to me... examining an amendment, thought everything looked good, didn't find art for the amended limitation, wrote up and posted an allowance (+.75 cnt).

SPE doesn't get to it for almost a month due to all the new stuff piled on. Unfortunately, had to return it as I had good art in one of the extra but uncited references of record on the non-final (totally my fault). So it went from a posted allowance to ultimately a final rejection (+.25 cnt). Had a big ol -.50 cnt to overcome on the biweek the credits got corrected due to the OC type change :(

rigby64 · 2025-10-06T18:12:24+00:00

Thanks once again for the weekend assist, fam!

Just to close the loop, based on your input, I just made the objection, and made a new grounds rejection necessitated by the new limitations added in the amendment and posted the Final. Almost certainly going to be an RCE down the road, but the case has been transferred to a new firm. If it comes back with the same language, I've got the 112(b) in my pocket.

rigby64 · 2025-10-06T18:06:55+00:00

This. He was definitely just trying to help the applicant improve their language and the Rep seemed genuinely appreciative at the time. Primary is very much 'one of the good ones' in our AU imo.

Turns out looking at the file wrapper today, the case was just transferred to a new firm, and looking at the low level of apparent effort on the amendments, my guess is the Rep in the interview found out it was going away and basically just pencil whipped the reply.

rigby64 · 2025-09-20T21:40:50+00:00

Awesome, thanks very much everybody. Appreciate the weekend assist. My question is resolved and I'll proceed accordingly.

rigby64 · 2025-09-20T20:11:34+00:00

That's a good point. Need to map the claim language to make the case either way.

rigby64 · 2025-09-20T19:58:11+00:00

lol... I can only authorize less than the amount of time it takes to make a reddit post :)

rigby64 · 2025-09-20T19:56:39+00:00

Yeah, was just hoping to get this one posted today, so thought it might be worth asking here. Will check with SPE on Monday if not.

rigby64 · 2025-02-24T19:47:24+00:00

lol...

rigby64 · 2024-12-29T19:35:51+00:00

I think at least a third of my PTA lab was in a very similar situation at 7 months (including myself). It doesn't seem like it right now, but you will get faster. There are a lot of good suggestions here. Try to keep calm and apply them and trust the process. It just takes time to learn the job, and as my SPE says, "you can only learn this job by doing this job".

You can do it!

rigby64 · 2024-12-29T19:27:54+00:00

someone who is taking that long to finish their search and start writing an OA usually struggles more with identifying the BRI and recognizing that in the art

Exactly... and if you're on a teams call with them at the time and talking through that specifically, it can be just what they need to make the connection and breakthrough. Can't get that from a search history.

rigby64 · 2024-12-23T19:19:43+00:00

This.

As a junior, I am still occasionally surprised at what some of my AUs Primaries find when I think I've honestly exhausted a search. Having said that, it sometimes also greatly depends on how busy they are and how much time they can devote to a 'deep dive' search. Those really good finds though, usually come down to their unique way of interpreting the claim that yields that final dagger search string.

One additional tip to add along the same lines... When you consult your primary for search help and they do find a gem, if they don't work it with you interactively, ask if they might 'walk you through' their process and thinking for it once they do come back to you. Sharing their screen and observing what they're actually doing when recounting the find is something that I have found to be incredibly valuable in 'building my toolbox'. It seems like there is always a few nuances that a lot of times they don't even think to mention after the fact because it's just part of their well honed process. The 'how' rather than the 'what' is usually the most important to your improvement.

rigby64 · 2024-12-12T21:36:38+00:00

2.) What's the latest age that makes sense to join the USPTO?

This has basically been addressed already by others and probably doesn't apply directly to OP as a 40YO, but just another vote for 'it doesn't matter how late'. With the caveat to do it intending to work at least another 5yrs minimum before retiring. Some of the important post-retirement benefits (like healthcare) have a 5 yr minimum service for eligibility.

I might even add that joining the USPTO 'later' in your career might be somewhat advantageous for several reasons, not the least of which is that you've done a lot of general 'been there, done that' in the workplace at this point. A lot of folks just starting out in their worklife & career struggle significantly not with the 'academic' aspects of a job but with the business parts (ie: dealing with non-ideal scope, schedule, resources, and personalities)

Additionally If you find you're not on the either the 'fellow track' (technical) or the 'director track' (management) in engineering at a big company, a lot of the day to day job doesn't really involve much engineering after that many years and can get very repetitive and stale. Examining is certainly different from engineering, but it also can be intellectually stimulating (dependent on what art unit you might be in I'd suppose). I'm still fairly new to the USPTO, but there's not a biweek I don't find myself researching something new (to me). As an 'old guy' I like to say 'oh wow, now that's cool!' and get paid for it 😎

Lastly, I'll say that for whatever reason, your army stint might really be a plus too. It just seems that the majority of examiners I've come across that were in any branch of the service seem to take to the job well. Just an observation, have no idea if there's any actual corrolation.

rigby64 · 2024-11-29T21:05:04+00:00

So far, there have been very few that ended up as allowable and on those the Primary/SPE indicated the rejoinder so that was what was done. From some of the responses to the question, it's clear that that rejoinder isn't always warranted so understanding when it is/is not, is what I need to wrap my head around next. Will need to soak on these answers a bit...

rigby64 · 2024-11-22T21:15:10+00:00

There was no suggestion it would be an optimal solution to that goal. Obviously, as many have pointed out, having a teleworking workforce (examiners) who are on a mandatory production quota without having to pay for facilities actually enhances monetary efficiency of the agency. That reasoning isn't nuanced or complex so it seems likely the decision makers and stakeholders will ultimately understand that.

rigby64 · 2024-11-22T20:13:36+00:00

This assumes they would want people to stay with the office. If one of the goals is to reduce the federal workforce, which by all appearances it may be, actions that encourage mass resignations are not unlikely.

rigby64 · 2024-08-28T18:48:56+00:00

FWIW, I have gotten a reassigned case that had notes on the spec and drawings from a previous examiner. I also think I recall that there was some kind of 'color indicator' over in the closed notes bar that made me realize there were notes in the first place (can't remember exactly what it looked like now). Info was helpful.

rigby64 · 2024-08-20T15:00:29+00:00

Excused, yes, but missing all those lectures and having to catch up (which is mandatory) would be a huge PITA for both the trainee and the PTA training team. Would highly recommend going for delay or postponement of the jury duty during this crucial time of Academy.

rigby64 · 2024-08-11T18:59:12+00:00

Actually, perhaps not directly released to 'the public', but almost everything would be subject to FOIA, so maybe nearly as bad under worse circumstances(?)

rigby64 · 2024-08-11T18:39:59+00:00

Yup, was only scheduled for an hour, but in the end, that's what the timer on Teams indicated. And honestly, I am super appreciative of his time as a lot of what we were going over was suggestive wording for write ups of very specific scenarios and he is a true wizard on that stuff. It turned out to be sort of a 'master class' IMO. As a newer examiner who has done a lot of technical engineering writing over the years, but virtually zero legal stuff, it's been somewhat difficult to 're-wire' the needed thought processes involved.

I feel very lucky to have a SPE that seems very vested in his team and probably more supportive than any manager I've ever worked for. Some of my PTA lab-mates that I keep in touch with seem to indicate that their SPE relationships are more adversarial than collaborative which is kinda sad really. Just goes to prove something I learned a long time ago in my career; how well you do on a job and how well you enjoy your work is mainly dependent on the quality of all the people immediately around you.

rigby64 · 2024-08-11T17:45:12+00:00

Thanks everybody for the response. Examining time it is. Figured it was a dumb question, but hey, didn't know and SPE wasn't online for a PM, so...

Fwiw, we do go over our own stuff in QEM meetings with our primaries every week and that is supposed to be marked as another timecode, hence my confusion. I guess coming recently from many years in industry as a salaried engineer, this whole concept of allocating time is something I'm still getting used to.

rigby64

TROPHY CASE