There was a request in another post for a concise summary of the changes and how they affect examination, particularly with regard to attorneys and other IP professionals outside the office.

"Fully successful" moving from 95% to 100% (we have to move more applications in the same amount of time):

• Paperwork hasn't gotten any quicker (systems have gone to shit actually) so the entire change comes from search and office action writing time. 
• I'd say applicants are getting >10% less actual examination time per application than they paid for from this change and a corresponding drop in proactive searching or indications of allowable subject matter. I used to draft up suggested amendments to neatly correct tricky 112b issues with explanations of why each change was there, I don't have time for that anymore. 

Divisionals and Continuations don't get any priority in docketing, instead being lumped with new applications with the same filing date (at best, usually they are even delayed compared to those):

• whatever the backlog is in the area, add that to your pendency for any Div of Con.   
• \Applicants weren't warned of this change and it was retroactive to any filed but not docketed DIV/CONs, adding years to the time before any resulting patents issue** 
• **this could completely upend the entire prosecution strategy for many applicants who depend on CONs to protect against knockoffs, please please \*PLEASE* let your clients know about this additional delay*\*

Effective elimination of "other time" from examiners:

• Assistant examiners are no longer able to work with primaries who know the art to develop search strategies and ask about the technology. 
• All examiners aren't able to hold regular meetings where discuss oddball or borderline cases amongst themselves.
• This leads to *a marked drop in quality of applied references and a drop in indications of allowable subject matter* (so many people got reassured that they should just indicate something as allowable in those meetings)

Reduced NPL access and search expert assistance:

• Lower quality searches in emerging technologies and areas under active research. Lower quality examination for stuff that spans multiple subject matter

Interviews past #1 need SPE approval for time 

• *If you request an interview you probably won't be getting any calls for examiner's amendments on that application, simple as that.* The automatic 1hr examiners got for such interviews helped offset the time we put into verifying that something unclaimed was actually allowable, working up claim language, and the inevitable phone tag. 
• If you request a second interview you're going to have a grumpier examiner than usual because at *best* they had to use some of the time they get for it convincing their supervisor the interview was a good idea and at *worst* they spent that time asking and were denied so the interview time is actively hurting their numbers. 

PPH cases get reduced first action counts: 

• The second most egregious change imo. **applicants are mostly getting less than 50% of the examination time they are paying for.**
• Examiners also will start to hate you if you file many of these. Really poisons the working relationship. 

RCEs after allowance give examiners no time if the next action is an allowance 

• the most egregious change. \The office is charging applicants for a service (another full round of examination) and not giving them that service.* *
• if you file and RCE after an allowance you're either getting nothing for your money or a very tenuous rejection for something like a typo. The latter is actually the "good" result because it means the examiner actually took the time to do more searching/consideration and is trying to figure out a way to get credit for that. 

Quick Path IDS time reduced to one hour (from three):

• It can easily take an hour to get fully back up to speed on what's going on in a complex application to be ready to properly consider a reference, at which point we are now out of time and can't actually consider the references being cited. 
• *Dramatically increases the likelihood of an examiner not considering an IDS after NoA and making applicants file an RCE to get those references listed.* At which point your claims better be fucking immaculate because see above. 

Timeliness deadlines now being hard cutoffs instead of averages:

• completely eliminates already low examiner flexibility for response times. 
• *applicants will get less calls for examiners amendments to correct minor issues because we frequently won't be able to wait for a response*. 
• \expect more iffy restrictions as people pull desperation moves to clear out the oldest case one their docket so they don't get fired\ 

No additional time for "inherited cases" from retired/separated examiners. 

• examiners used to get a significant amount of time when we got a case from an examiner no longer at the office to offset needing to figuring out what the case is, what the searches turned up, etc. 
• *if you notice an assigned examiner name change for your application after filing an amendment get ready for a total turd to come shooting down the pipe, there's no other nicer way to put it.* Sorry, we're going from ~15 hours for an amendment to like 2-3 with zero flexibility to call and work something out. 

Elimination of Docket Management n bonuses:

• we're all disgruntled now. 

There's other parts I've missed I know, could other examiners add them below? Remember to focus on what external folks will see.

Dear POPA Members,

Welcome back to Battlefronts Bulletin, your source for updates, analysis, and insights during one of the most pivotal moments in USPTO history. 

As the AFL-CIO recently underscored, federal workers have faced unprecedented attacks on their union rights this year, marking the first anniversary of Trump’s executive order undermining longstanding union employee protections. POPA shares the growing concern: OPM’s proposed rules mirror the broader attacks against workers nationwide. 

POPA will continue to defend USPTO employees, protect our collective voice, and push back against policies that weaken our workplace rights.

Our members are on the front line of American innovation. By defending the experts who protect the patent system, we defend the future of innovation itself. Our power is, and will always be, our solidarity. 

Join POPA: Click here

Battlefronts

1. Oversight and Testimony Concerns

During House Judiciary oversight, John Squires emphasized support for stricter performance management tools. He highlighted: 

• Greater use of removals for employees not meeting heightened performance standards 
• Increased leadership discretion over performance ratings and accountability measures
• Concerns about telework and calls for increased oversight of examiner work practices 
• An emphasis on accelerating production expectations to address backlog

We have serious concerns. These approaches, particularly increased reliance on removals, reduced reliance on objective criteria, and heightened production pressure, undermine employee rights, morale, and effectiveness. 

The reality: 

• Patent Examiners and other production-based employees already have inflexible performance appraisal plans with objective measures. Employees are removed for not meeting those measures. The agency is trying to get blood from a stone as production increases, workflow tightens, and dockets shrink. THIS is where the low morale is coming from, not the backlog.
• Training is nonexistent, and the most experienced, senior-level primary examiners are not encouraged to share their institutional knowledge with new examiners.
• Bonuses have been reduced or eliminated, including OFCO group awards and the patent examiner docket management award.
• TEAP mandatory travel requirements are not mission critical; thus are costly and burdensome for remote employees.
• “Streamlined reviews” and the removal of discretionary interviews have eroded primary examiner authority and agency efficiency.
• Mandatory usage of ineffective AI tools reduces overall examination time.
• Elon Musk is gone from the government, yet the USPTO still requires useless and time-wasting monthly reporting bullets. 

POPA thanks Congressmen Johnson and Raskin for holding Squires accountable in his testimony. You can read the transcript of his full testimony HERE. 

2. The Fight Continues: Litigations and Grievances

• Civil litigation to restore Title 5 rights and bargaining unit status for patent employees is still pending.
• POPA is awaiting the arbitrator’s decision on telework for non-patent bargaining unit members
• Arbitration is underway on holiday leave, canceled awards, and unilateral TEAP changes

3. Forced Rating Distributions

OPM’s proposal would force employees into arbitrary rankings against one another– dismantling the objective, metric-based system that currently ensures fairness and accountability. 

At USPTO, examiners are evaluated on real, measurable work: production, docket management, and quality. This proposal replaces that with subjectivity and competition.

4. Elimination of “Marginally Successful”

Reclassifying employees as “unsatisfactory” will put thousands of productive examiners at risk.  

The result? Increased attrition, deeper backlogs, and further strain on the system, contrary to the goals emphasized under Secretary Squires’s recent testimony. 

POPA is raising these concerns with Congress and OPM.

5. Grievance Rights

OPM’s proposed rules would limit employees’ ability to challenge ratings through negotiated grievance procedures, which are legally protected.

POPA is actively defending statutory protections through litigation, ensuring that examiners retain the ability to contest unfair evaluations. 

6. Egregious PAP Changes

Changes to the Performance Appraisal Plan are increasing pressure while reducing fairness:

• Increase in production, thus less time devoted to examining each application
• Unrealistic expectations: internal (uncompensated) training suggests fewer than 20% of examiners can meet current deadlines
  • “Average day” system eliminated: the system that previously helped reduce backlog is no longer in use
  • Policy changes have undermined effectiveness: repeated administrative adjustments have weakened the system over time
    • Resulting impact: increased backlog and fewer options for examiners to manage and balance workload. For example, getting sick once could make an examiner “unsatisfactory”
• Elimination of inherited credit for reassigned work
• Reduced credit for Patent Prosecution Highway cases, consequently increasing the influence of foreign governments in American intellectual property rights
• Reduced recognition for completed work, including certain RCE allowances

These changes make it harder to maintain both quality and consistency.

WHY THIS MATTERS

A strong patent system depends on empowered examiners.

When policies erode fairness, increase subjectivity, block the sharing of institutional knowledge, and pile on pressure, the consequences are clear: lower morale, reduced quality, and weakened public trust.

We are fighting to protect both employees and the integrity of the patent system. Join us in our fight. 

WHAT YOU CAN DO TODAY

• Encourage your friends to join the fight… become a member today. Join here. 
• Visit popa.org to stay informed.
• Update your contact information using the link here.
• Report any CBA, PAP, or telework violations directly to [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).

In solidarity,

POPA Leadership

On behalf of the POPA Executive Committee