About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« VentureSource Reports 35% Increase in 1Q Venture Funding | Main | European Patent Reform Suffers Another Setback »

April 27, 2011


I am skeptical of the proffered rationale of:

"[w]ithout the resources to hire a sufficient number of examiners to implement Track One, we must postpone the effective date of the program until we are in a position to implement it successfully while ensuring there will be no adverse impact on non-prioritized examination applications."

There is no way that staffing (hiring and training) of any appreciable number of new examiners could have taken place with UNLIMTED funding between the announcement of the program and the (now delayed) start of the program.

To offer this now as a reason is insulting.

Actually Skeptical it is my understanding that they had to curtail hiring by about 500 examiners they were planning to hire. There is no shortage of applicants for the job so far as I'm aware.


The point is not whether the Office was going to hire - the point is that the TIMING would have been impossible, even given unlimited funds.

" the point is that the TIMING would have been impossible,"

I'm not sure how you magicked that up from some forsaken abyss within your brain but, newsflash, if they hire 500 new examiners more than they did then those 500 new examiners can all be doing a lot of "fast track" apps or be doing slow track apps and free up primaries to do the fast trackers.

Oh and btw, they were PLANNING to hire a lot more people far in advance of the notice about the program they put out awhile back.

It is simply stunning how oddly your mind works.

It's utterly shameful that the patent office has had to suspend implementation of the Track One program. The initiative could go far to increase much-needed revenue for the woefully-underfunded agency, bite into its crushing backlog, help innovators get their inventions to market, and, as a result, reduce U.S. unemployment. And now that rumors predict the death of yet another patent reform bill, it looks like USPTO staff will have to go back to the drawing board in finding sufficient revenue to operate properly. What a disgrace.


"Oh and btw, they were PLANNING to hire a lot more people far in advance of the notice about the program they put out awhile back."

I will leave the invective aside and simply ask:

How many of that planned number had been ACTUALLY hired prior to the announcement that the fast track plan was postponed?

What was the time frame between initial announcement (when suppossedly the hiring would start) and teh point wherein the program was postponed?

The answer to those two questions will give you a rate of hiring (not a rate of someone specifically trained for fast track - and by the way, the announcements were NOT hiring to backfill, but hiring SPECIFICALLY for the program - kindly leave the goal posts as they were).

Next, apply that rate to the amount of time between the announcement and when the progam was supposed to start.

What level of gap do you come up with?

As I said, the annoucement is insulting.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29