Talk:Patent examiner/Archives/2012

American examiners
The section "American examiners" is POV and sounds advertisement-like. Needs strong cleanup. --Edcolins 08:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It all factual. It's the requirements of the examiner. I also put in advert tag, as that is your objection. It doesn't need that much of a clean up. If it does, please state the precise points so that it can be done. Otherwise the tag should be removed. USPatent 15:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please state WHY this is an advertisement? USPatent


 * Do not scream, right, be patient. I cannot edit both pages at the same time! Well, for instance:
 * "The American "patent examiner" position is at the forefront of new technologies" sounds like an advertisement to me. Patent examiners in all countries are somewhat at the forefront of new technologies since they can gain knowledge of inventions before patent applications are published. Patent attorneys gain knowledge of inventions before patent examiners, and of course inventors and employees in R&D dept are probably at the very forefront of technology.
 * What do you mean by "GS-5, GS-7, or GS-9 grade levels"?
 * "Legal, technical and automation training is provided to examiners at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to ensure they possess the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their job." sounds POV. Looking to hire examiners?
 * "[EPO clerks] support innovation and competition for the benefit of its member states citizens." POV as well
 * --Edcolins 17:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lets's see ...
 * Sound like that sould be moved up to the duties of all examiners.
 * GS-5, GS-7, or GS-9 grade levels are the employee classification scheme within the US government.
 * Are they or are they not provided with this?
 * They don't support innovation and competition?
 * USPatent 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok now.
 * I added a note. Ok now.
 * The tone does not seem to be appropriate.
 * The issue is that this has not been verified (see Verifiability).
 * --Edcolins 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Great.
 * Great.
 * I'll cut off the ending "they possess the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their job"
 * I put in a ref.
 * USPatent 16:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Additions: Because this article is about American patent examiners, I plan to add facts about examiners' experience, such as tools used to examine applications, examiner rating/evaluation system, promotion program to primary examiner or supervisory patent examiner. Just another paragraph or so. Please critique it and let me know your thoughts. Juxtapos99 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. Hmm... the article is about patent examiner and should represent a worldwide view. The section about the "United States" should not grow too long. Feel free to create an article Patent examiner in the United States or Patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office for instance where the subject could be develop in more details. I would be very interested in reading it and in contributing to it. Go ahead! (just make sure proper to cite your sources). Thanks in advance for your contributions. --Edcolins 09:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Good suggestion. Makes sense. Juxtapos99 08:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Forefront......
I really don't like the sentence "Patent Examiners can gain knowledge of patent applications before the public can, so that they may be viewed somewhat as being at the forefront of new technologies."

While I admire patent clerks; there job is certainly important and I have no doubt that they are all inteligent well qualified people. But they are not at the forefront of new technologies. If I invent the worlds greatest widget and take a taxi to the patent office is the taxi driver at the forefront of technology. They have contributed to the widgets success? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemec2 (talk • contribs)


 * I removed the sentence under WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. --Edcolins 09:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "Examiner" the more common term these days?
Patent Clerk strikes me as an old fashioned term, from the days of Einstein. In my experience, the phrase patent examiner is used exclusively when referring to those people working at the USPTO, the JPO and the EPO. The word examiner is also used to refer to those working at the UK Patent Office and German Patent Office. I have never heard them referred to as Patent Clerks.

I think the term patent clerk is also more likely to refer to people working at Patent Offices where there is little or not real examination - such as the French Patent Office.

The term "clerk" also has a slightly pejorative ring to it: definition from Dictionary.com is "a person employed, as in an office, to keep records, file, type, or perform other general office tasks". Hardly representative of the technical and legal training that every examiner in the three big patent offices has. Not to mention the high level of language skills for those at the EPO - not that I'm bitter at being unable to get a job there due to not speaking German! :).

So, I suggest that the redirect from Patent Examiner to Patent Clerk be reversed and the article be re-named "Patent Examiner". Although I admit to not being quite sure how this would be done.

Comments? GDallimore 14:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your (excellent) proposal and sorry for having taken so long to "implement" it. I have just moved the article. I will change the Category:patent clerks as well for consistency. --Edcolins 18:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

the official term is the Patent Examining Corps. google on that to find lots of USPTO documents calling it that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.56.181.196 (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Trade union
I just wonder why this sentence
 * Although considered white collar employees, examiners are represented by a trade union, Patent Office Professional Association (POPA).

starts with "Although considered white collar employees". What's surprising in trade union of white collar employees? Is it rare in the United States? --Edcolins 09:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the US the stereotypical union is blue collar. Mojodaddy 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"This entire paragraph is incorrect..."
An anonymous user (68.98.159.23) has isolated the following paragraph:
 * Further, after successfully demonstrating examination expertise over a thirteen bi-week review period, an examiner is granted Partial Signatory Authority and a GS-13 grade level. After a second thirteen bi-week review period, a successful examiner receives the designation Primary Examiner and a GS-14 grade level. - Source: Collective Bargaining Agreement

and added: "[This entire paragraph is incorrect. Please review the CBA for an accurate explanation of the Signatory Review Program]"

I have removed the paragraph for now. Can somebody have a closer look at this, to reinsert the paragraph if appropriate (with further sources and more explanations if possible)? Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference Needed?
Ahem. We have a 'reference needed' tag on a guy in the notables section...however, the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry on the guy (to which his name here links) is "Johan Vaaler (March 15, 1866–March 14, 1910) was a Norwegian patent clerk and inventor [...]" If, as it would seem, being a patent clerk is a good portion of what he was known for, must we cite sources to prove that he was a patent clerk? I'm not familiar with official Wiki policy on this, but it seems silly. 68.102.237.253 (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I have checked the article on Johan Vaaler and was unable to find a reliable reference supporting that he was patent clerk. The "citation needed" is therefore still in order. See also Self references (which more or less applies to the present case). Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

in US: patent clerks = legal instrument examiners
A while back, the job function of checking an application to make sure it was complete, as well as making sure the response from the Office regarding an application was completed correctly, along with the job of entry of certain documents and forms was the job of a patent clerks. Currently, this job function is performed by legal instrument examiners, of LIEs for short.

A patent examiner is one who make a determination if an application for a patent meets the requirements of being novel, unobvious, and is described in a manner such that one with ordinary skill in the particular art relating to the application could make/use the invention desclosed.

I don't think US patent examiners would consider their job title as interchangable with "patent clerk". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.246.4 (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

White collar
I have an issue with this sentence: "As the examiners are considered as white collar employees, only a minority of the examiners choose to be members of the representative trade union, Patent Office Professional Association (POPA)." This insinuates a cause/effect relationship: Because examiners are considered white collar, the effect is that only a minority join the union. There needs to be a citation to some sort of evidence to support the assertion of a cause/effect relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.172.134 (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any fact without a source can be removed at any time, particularly if it is open to dispute as that was. I have removed it. GDallimore (Talk) 09:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Supervisory Patent Examiner
In the disambiguation page SPE, the entry "Supervisory Patent Examiner" links to Patent examiner. We should have at least a note or something on "Supervisory Patent Examiner" here, in this article. What is a Supervisory Patent Examiner? Are they similar to directors at the European Patent Office (EPO)? How do you become Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) at the USPTO, or director at the EPO? --Edcolins (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

EPO examiner language profile
Hi Edcolins,

The entry about language requirements of EPO examiners is not correct. I am an EPO examiner since 2001 and know the reality from inside.

The language requirements specified in the EPO website refer to the entry level, i.e for applicants to examiner posts, and even this is an understatement, because at present candidates are normally rejected unless they show some command of the third language.

In practice, "to work as an examiner", as stated in the Wikipedia page, examiners need good knowledge of all official languages because they study patent applications, search documentation and communicate with applicants in all three official languages.

This is the reality at the EPO and this is why I edited the Wikipedia page. Since this is the first time I did such thing, I am not sure I have used the correct procedure. I apologize if it was somehow rude, no intention at all.

If you find this information useful, you can edit the page accordingly. I will not do it, I don't intend to enter a discussion on this topic, I just thought I was in a position to improve the content of the Wikipedia page.

Best regards,

Miguel Aguilera EPO Patent Examiner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguilera1709 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Miguel, Thanks for your message. Knowledge from the front line is always extremely valuable, but on Wikipedia we can't rely only on this knowledge. We need verifiable sources, so that any reader can verify the statements made in the articles. I should have explained and clarified this when reverting. I was somehow rude, sorry. Would you be aware of any source that would back your knowledge? Note that I completely believe what you wrote, but that's unfortunately not sufficient. We need some supporting sources. This being said, I have just edited the section to make it "closer" to the source. I hope this is better now. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how the reliability of other sources compares to the EPO itself, so I'm not going to make a change, but this says that there's a "requirement for EPO examiners to be fluent in three languages". And these two books (same author) say that "all [examiners] speak and write three languages fluently". VernoWhitney (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Added, thanks. The sources say "three languages", which could also be English, German and Swedish. They do not say "the three languages", i.e. the three official languages of the EPO, namely English, French and German. --Edcolins (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Patent Clerk"- Obsolete term
Use of the term "Patent Clerk" is outdated and misleading, especially in the modern context. Webster defines a clerk as "an official responsible for correspondence, records and accounts". A Patent examiner clearly has higher levels of responsibility in his/her organization.In most countries,Examiners are top-of-the-rung government officials with clerical staff working under their supervision in supporting roles.For example, in the Indian Patent Office, an entry level Examiner is a Group A gazetted officer. This is the highest post in the set-up of the Indian Government. Below this post are other classes such as Group B,C and D. Clerks fall under Group C. Examiners of Patents must possess a science or engineering degree. Clerical posts do not require any such specific qualification, arts or commerce degrees are sufficient. A clerk would be a person performing routine tasks without any decision-making authority. In a patent office, the duty of a clerk would be to put up official correspondence and take care of formal requirements so as to enable decision-making tasks easy for Examiners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intpat (talk • contribs) 06:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to say that I support reversion your edit to remove "clerk" from the article. It may be outdated, but it still has historical relevance. Einstein is always referred to as clerk, not an examiner. GDallimore (Talk) 12:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't say always (e.g.,, but very often at least which is a good example of why I restored the mention of clerks. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)