Three Reasons Why an Examiner is Better Than an Allowance Rate

threereasonsexamineretaisbetterthanallowancerate

Besides the obvious fact that an examiner is better than an Allowance rate, there are three reasons why this is true. By understanding these three reasons, you’ll be able to help your students to avoid making a decision that could affect their results.

Allowance rate

Often a patent examiner can have an impact on the final disposition of a patent application. This can include determining whether the application should be patented, and whether or not the patent should be granted. However, an examiner’s allowance rate is based on a relatively small number of applications. Therefore, the patent examiner’s rate may not accurately reflect the ability of a patent examiner to grant a patent. This can lead to inaccurate bias against a patent examiner. Fortunately, PatentAdvisor’s examiner ETA (Examiner Tenure and Appeal Rate) is much more accurate than an examiner’s allowance rate.

The ETA is calculated using a proprietary algorithm that incorporates a patent examiner’s experience and tenure at the Patent Office, and examiner decision trends. In addition, it considers the examiner’s pending portfolio. If an examiner has a lot of applications pending, the ETA will indicate whether or not the examiner is likely to grant a patent on any of those applications. This can help to make the process of evaluating and prosecuting patents more strategic. It also eliminates the bias inherent in allowance rates.

If the examiner has a high ETA, it indicates that the examiner is likely to have a long, bumpy prosecution. On the other hand, an examiner with a low ETA may be more focused on a particular art unit. As a result, the ETA will indicate that the examiner is likely to take a longer time than average to approve a patent. The ETA is thus a better metric for measuring the likelihood of obtaining a patent.

An examiner’s rate can also be volatile, whereas the ETA is a constant. It does not account for actions taken by the applicant, such as failing to reply to an office action in a timely manner or willingly abandoning the patent due to a low business value. The allowance rate also does not account for the likelihood that an examiner will reject an application. This can lead to a false sense of security. If a patent examiner has historically been difficult, the examiner’s allowance rate may show that the examiner is difficult to work with.

Art unit breakdowns would be much better

Until now, the allowance rate has served as a great measure of patent quality, but is it really that accurate? It’s easy to make the case that this measure is flawed because of its skewed distribution between art units. As a result, this measure can be misleading and lead to a false sense of security. The real measure of examiner quality is not the amount of allowances, but rather the number of quality examinations conducted by the unit.

Historically, the skewed allocation of quality examinations between art units has been the main culprit in the skewed eta. The good news is that this problem is being addressed by a new patent quality measure called the PatentAdvisor ETA. This new measurement uses data from more than 200,000 patent filings to measure the performance of examiners across all aspects of their duties. This allows the PatentAdvisor ETA to provide a more complete picture of patent quality. It also takes into account the experience and expertise of each examiner. For example, the PatentAdvisor ETA includes a new “examiner experience rating” (XR) metric that allows examiners to be ranked based on the average percentage of examiners who are deemed competent by their peers.

Avoid bias against a particular examiner

Among the challenges that medical examiners face is how to avoid bias. There is a range of strategies that can help to reduce the chance of a misjudgment. These include the use of proper evidence-gathering procedures, as well as the application of antibias technologies such as blind verification. In addition to these, ensuring the accuracy of the information that is supplied to the examiner is crucial, and documenting the case can help to ensure that the details are not lost in translation.

Although there is no clear-cut answer to this question, Kassin and his colleagues found that three-quarters of examiners had a bias-related concern. More than two-thirds of examiners felt that bias was an overall issue, and nearly half believed that it affected them personally. The key to avoiding this type of bias is to ask applicants whether or not they have endorsed any of the items listed above, and to query the applicant about their endorsements if they do. Ultimately, the best way to combat bias is to establish a culture of evidence-based decision-making.