現役審査官による分析です。(
Just a patent examiner)
また、米国の知財関係者によるカウントシステム変更案に関する議論は＜
ここ＞でもされています。
-- Docket ManagementRCEs will now be placed on an examiner's Special New docket, instead of their Amended docket as before.
The requirement that examiners work on their oldest cases first has always been there. The problem is that its enforcement has always been very arbitrary. Some TCs or art units are required to adhere to the rule, while others never have. Enforcing this requirement across the entire Office should ensure that tough applications are not put off.
The new RCE docketing procedure, I think, may well have a very significant impact on the prosecution of applications by attorneys.
Currently, an RCE will be placed on an examiner's Amended docket, requiring them to take action within 2 months.
The new provision treats RCE just like any other continuation or divisional application, placing them on the examiner's Special New docket. This means that there is no fixed deadline for preparing the next action. They will be, of course, subject to the requirement that the oldest new application be worked on every 2 bi-weeks, but that only requires the examiner to do one case from their Special New docket each month. For examiners with large dockets, those RCEs could definitely back up on their Special New docket.
For instance, I averaged about 5 RCEs filed in each quarter last FY. Under the new rules, I'm only required to work on 3 per quarter. You see where I'm going here; this provision could serve as a big disincentive to filing RCEs, because you're going to have to wait longer for your RCE to be examined (although with the backlog at the BPAI, appeal might be an even less attractive alternative).
The provision will certainly serve to address first action pendency, because it will reduce the number of applications on an examiner's Amended docket, thereby giving them more time to work on new applications. It's possible that some examiners may continue to work on their RCEs as they come in, since they're still getting counts for the first action (as they would for any continuation or divisional). The point is, they are no longer
required to send out that first action after RCE within 2 months.
確かに新しいカウントシステムだと、RCE後のファースト・オフィス・アクションを2か月以内に出すという動機づけが著しく減退しそうです。
例えば、ノルマを達成が容易な時はRCE後のアクションをストックしておいて、新出願のファースト・オフィス・アクションに専念してカウント（1.5/件）を稼ぎ、新出願が手ごわくノルマ達成が危うい時にストックしておいたRCE案件についてファースト・オフィス・アクションを出してカウント数の帳尻を合わせるなんてことができそうです。
新しいシステムが実現したら、出願後のオフィスアクションは早いけど、RCEのファースト・オフィス・アクションは中々出ないということも生じそうですね。
-----------09/10/01--------------
約束通り、新しいカウントシステムの案が公表されました。
審査官にとってRCEのうまみが減らされていますので抵抗は大きいでしょうね。
これまで、（私の経験では）ファイナル・オフィスアクションの後、ニュー・イシューの導入が無い、わずかな補正もRCE無では考慮してしてもらえませんでした。このカウントシステムが実現してもそれは変わりそうにないですね。
だとすると、私たちの実務にどう影響してくるのだろうか・・・
(
USPTO Press release), (
Proposal)
USPTO Joint Labor-Management Task Force Proposes Significant Changes to Examiner Count System
WASHINGTON —Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) David Kappos has unveiled a series of proposals to bring significant change to the examiner “count system” – the methodology for determining the time a patent examiner has to complete a patent examination and how much credit is given for each stage of an examination. The proposal was developed by a task force comprised of senior managers in the Patents organization and leadership of the Patent Office Professional Association (POPA), the union that represents patent examiners.
(
PatentlyO)
-----------09/09/02--------------
USPTOのKappos長官は評判の悪かったUSPTOのカウントシステム（審査官の出来高カウントシステム）の改良に乗り出しました。
最初の案が10月1日までに提出されるようです。
(
Juat a patent examiner) (
PatentlyO)
USPTOの審査官はその審査数によってポイントを得ます。
最初にOA発行：1カウント
特許最終処理（発行、放棄など、RCE含む）：1カウント
例えばRCEで1カウント得ることができるので、審査官にとってはRCEは非常においしいと思われます。
アドバイザリーアクションが出た後、追加調査が必要がないマイナーな補正も認められずやむなくRCEするというケースはしばしば経験していると思いますがそれはカウントシステムも一因であると考えられます。
また、どんなにクレーム数の大きな複雑な出願でも1カウントにしかならないのに対し、分割出願は1カウントされるのでリストリクションが頻繁に発行されるのもうなずけます。
今度の改良が審査官にとっても、出願人にとっても益のあるものになることを祈っています。
memo
The count system serves multiple purposes. In an ideal world (yes, I am well aware that this one is far from ideal), it would encourage compact prosecution, in that examiners do not receive any credit for 2nd actions which are non-final (or any subsequent actions). It also serves as a guide for the amount of work an examiner has to do. Each examiner is required, on a per fiscal-quarter basis, to produce a number of counts. The goal varies depending on technology. In theory, simpler technologies require less time to search and write up (fewer 112 issues, for example). Additionally, the goal depends on an examiner's rank. GS-14 (primary examiners, with full signatory authority) are required to produce 35% more than a GS-12 (someone with a PhD who has been at the office a year, for example).
As an examiner, the count system is useful to me because I am acutely aware of how much work I need to do in order to keep my job (several consecutive quarters of not meeting your goal can lead to firing) and how much more I need to push myself in order to receive a bonus. Furthermore, the count system does force us to work on new cases, albeit probably not as many as applicants would like. I can look at my amended docket (cases due in the next 2 months) and see how many first actions I have coming up, and how many are allowable (or might be close, i.e. if attorney is willing to take what I consider to be allowable subject matter as opposed to argue for broader scope) and look at my list of rejected cases and try to guess which cases will go abandoned. Knowing that, I know how many new cases I have to work on.
Every round of examination is allotted two counts: a "new" count, and a "disposal" count. A request for RCE ends the current round, and begins the next round. An examiner gets a "new" count when he or she does a first non-final office action (per round) or a first-action allowance. An examiner gets a "disposal" count for an allowance, abandonment, examiner's answer, an RCE request, and I think a couple of other relatively rare things. An examiner gets no counts for finals, 2nd or subsequent non-finals (per round), advisory actions, or other tasks (312s, misc. communications, etc.).
If the sequence of the case is NF, FINAL, ADV, RCE, NF, FINAL, ALLOW, the examiner gets a "new" count for each of the two NFs, and gets a "disposal" for each of the RCE request and the allowance. The examiner gets no counts for any of the other actions. If the case sequence is NF, 2ND NF, FINAL, ADV, ALLOW, the examiner got counts for the first NF and the allowance. For a first action allowance, the examiner gets both a "new" and a "disposal" count, so the examiner gets 2 counts. This also holds true after RCE. That is, for the sequence NF, FINAL, RCE, ALLOW, the examiner got a new count for the NF, a disposal for the RCE, and both new and disposal counts for the allowance.
Based on the art unit and the examiner's GS level (GS-12 is the middle examining level; most examiners start at GS-7, GS-13 is partial signatory authority, GS-14 is a primary, and GS-15 is a SPE), each examiner has to do a certain number of counts each bi-week. The number of counts is based on the GS-12 expectancy, which is different for each art unit. If a GS-12 in a particular art unit is expected to complete a round of examination in 25 hours, then a GS-12 in that art unit is expected to turn in a count for every 12.5 hours that they work. Requirements for examiners at other grade levels are determined by multiplying that by particular factors (for example if a GS-12 has to do a count every 12.5 hours, then a GS-7 in that art unit has to do a count every approximately 18 hours).
Patent statistics for decision makersのプレゼン資料がEPOのHPで公開されました。(LINK)
投稿
