As to Examiner visits, I would be concerned about transparency. EPO Exrs are discouraged from acceding to personal interviews, face to face or telephone, for the good reason that third parties perusing the prosecution record find it frustrating to guess what turned the opinion of the Exr. I like to see the written record, and so does everybody else (except Applicant). I note that personal interviews are a common feature of USPTO prosecution, and don’t care for it. I like the EPO system better. Three Exrs have to sign off, and they mostly come from different countries. That promotes consistency, an aspect of quality.

As for branch offices, the EPO has them too. In the context of the EPO it works well enough because, in Europe’s civil law landscape, everybody appeals and then fact-finding starts anew, and all the 21 Technical Boards of Appeal are in one building, here in Munich. That imposes a degree of consistency, and quality. Conversely, consistency and quality within the 31 national Patent Offices of the Member States of the EPC, all administering the same Statute, might not be so easy to find and verify. Your idea of USPTO branch offices could work super, especially if 1)measures are in place to stop each branch office “going native” and 2) Exrs are often called upon (as they are in the EPO) to balance the petitions of the Opponent with those of the Inventor, so that they learn to give reasonable legal certainty to the public and at the same time fair protection to the inventor. Then they will not get into the habit of favouring the “local” Applicant community.

I agree…the Examiner visiting the applicant in some circumstances is not that wacky. US Examiners make trips similar to the ones you describe…they aren’t focused on individual cases, but rather on a technology in general. These “training sessions” occur more frequently in the biotechnology and medical device fields, but aren’t unheard of in other areas. Unfortunately, the ability of the Office to allow Examiner to take such trips is frequently tied into the budgeting process, and it becomes difficult to determine if such trips are permitted in any given year.

The “wackiness” of that idea lies in that which doesn’t currently happen (either in the US or in Europe, apparently) — a focus on an individual case or related series of cases. It’s the concept of “intense prosecution” that is a bit wacky…and a bit genius.

As for branch offices…I’d have to answer your question with a ‘maybe.’ I’ve seen law firms use branch offices in very different ways…with very different results. I don’t think efficiency can ever increase with a branch office setup, but the decrease due to the setup could certainly be minimized. More importantly, though, I don’t think the idea of branch offices is focused solely on efficiency gains. The core of that idea is to allow the Office to tap specialized local labor markets for qualified Examiners. Surely a gain in quality would be realized when better-trained Examiners are on the case.

I really think that both of these ideas are worth exploring.

Thanks again for the comment.

Branch offices(of the USPTO)? Now that really would be wacky! Look at most patent law firms that run branch offices. Does it raise efficiency and quality? You tell me.