Former USPTO patent examiner here. As the article suggests, the main problem with overly broad patents comes down to a lack of time given to examiners. Can't fi

Former USPTO patent examiner here. As the article suggests, the main problem with overly broad patents comes down to a lack of time given to examiners. Can't find it in the time given? You'll often be told to allow the application (that is, grant a patent). Other "solutions" like punishing examiners for making bad allowances (which seems to be the current focus at the USPTO) are just band aids on the problem. The amount of time examiners get was basically set in the late 1970s based on some IBM study from the 1960s as far as I'm aware. There have been some increases in time since then but if the number of documents to search is increasing exponentially in time, a modest increase in time is not enough, period, even accounting for the fact that searches are computerized now. I wouldn't have minded staying at the USPTO for longer if I was given more time. The lack of time was the main reason I quit. My understanding is that the time issue would be more easily solved by better funding the USPTO. Right now the USPTO is funded only by fees they charge, and the Department of Commerce diverts some of that funding outside of the USPTO. Fund the USPTO via taxation in addition to allowing the USPTO to keep the funds it brings in and I think we'll start to see improvements in the time given to examiners. (There are other issues, like the fact that examiners barely get any more time for having more claims. Typical patent applications are 20 claims, but I only got an hour more for examining a particularly annoying application with over 40 claims. That's over twice the work with barely any more time! By the way, the USPTO charges the applicant extra for these extra claims.) There are other patent quality problems that I think come down to the incentives of attorneys. Too many patents are written in vague legalese that no "person having ordinary skill in the art" would understand. As an examiner I was told that I could not do 112(a) rejections for those sorts of things (this is the sort of rejection it would fall under) and that seems to be typical USPTO policy.