Thank you for replying with citations and data - very cool way to debate! So I'm surprised at what these sources say, and I think it may come down to tech cent

Thank you for replying with citations and data - very cool way to debate! So I'm surprised at what these sources say, and I think it may come down to tech center / art unit differences. I worked in a very 'high technology' art unit, where first action allowances were unheard of. A SPE would laugh you out of their office if you proposed a first action allowance. I don't think I ever even heard of one in my art unit. So first action allowances just weren't on the table for us in any meaningful way. But, I suppose it's possible that examiners in some other art unit may look at it that way. I also disagree with the statement about RCE's. Examiners definitely get (or used to get) a count for a first action after an RCE. That first action is a gimme in terms of difficulty, as the examiner already knows the application well and knows the applicant well. In fact, it seems like from the USPTO's website that they're working to incentivize first action allowances over examiners encouraging continuation practice, likely for this very reason: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/patent-examiner-count-system https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/patent-examiner-co... The other thing I'll say is that all issued patents aren't the same. A patent with very narrow claims is harmless. So just incentivizing issuance isn't necessarily bad. In fact, most people don't realize it's very easy to get a patent issued, as long as your claim is super long and therefore super narrow. We used to call them 'two-handers' as in, it takes both hands to cover it up on a printed page. Encouraging more of those doesn't really harm anybody (except the applicant).