Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USPTO exempt entirely

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Information%20Memo%20-%20Return%20to%20In-Person%20Work_0.pdf

Exempt….from the memo. Not from RTW

no, Commerce pretty clearly excercised the discretion in the EO to exempt the Patent Office from RTO. Glad they had some sense.

Ok so the USPTO hasn’t put out directions yet

I’m hearing they just did. Does anyone know what it says?

Not sure what they intended by the exemption from the Commerce memo, but we've just been told all telework agreements not covered by CBA's are kaput.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USPTO exempt entirely

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Information%20Memo%20-%20Return%20to%20In-Person%20Work_0.pdf

Exempt….from the memo. Not from RTW

no, Commerce pretty clearly excercised the discretion in the EO to exempt the Patent Office from RTO. Glad they had some sense.

Ok so the USPTO hasn’t put out directions yet

I’m hearing they just did. Does anyone know what it says?

It’s on Reddit

Doesn’t make much sense

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USPTO exempt entirely

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Information%20Memo%20-%20Return%20to%20In-Person%20Work_0.pdf

Exempt….from the memo. Not from RTW

no, Commerce pretty clearly excercised the discretion in the EO to exempt the Patent Office from RTO. Glad they had some sense.

Ok so the USPTO hasn’t put out directions yet

I’m hearing they just did. Does anyone know what it says?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USPTO exempt entirely

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Information%20Memo%20-%20Return%20to%20In-Person%20Work_0.pdf

Exempt….from the memo. Not from RTW

no, Commerce pretty clearly excercised the discretion in the EO to exempt the Patent Office from RTO. Glad they had some sense.

Ok so the USPTO hasn’t put out directions yet

Anonymous wrote:This is the agency that had that scandal in the 2000s when they realized their remote workers weren't actually working. I thought they cracked down on remote stuff after that.

Please STFU if you do t know what you’re talking about. A minimum level of examiners were found to be taking advantage of TW. It got blown out of proportion by media. And since then they have expanded the programs but vastly increased requirements to ensure performance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USPTO exempt entirely

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Information%20Memo%20-%20Return%20to%20In-Person%20Work_0.pdf

Exempt….from the memo. Not from RTW

no, Commerce pretty clearly excercised the discretion in the EO to exempt the Patent Office from RTO. Glad they had some sense.

Anonymous wrote:USPTO exempt entirely

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Information%20Memo%20-%20Return%20to%20In-Person%20Work_0.pdf

Exempt….from the memo. Not from RTW

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumor on Reddit is that there is an exemption filed for Patent Examiners from a reliable source.

If true, I wonder if that will also be applicable for APJ's.

What does this mean?

Administrative Patent Judge's (APJ's) work for the Patent Trial and Appeals Board and review decisions by the Examiners, and also preside over trials brought under the America Invents Act.

And for those wondering whether APJs deserve telework, we not only have production quotas but also work under strict statutory deadlines. Losing half the judges to RTO would have been a sh$t show.

So, everyone wants to telework, even judges. Why not let people be happy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumor on Reddit is that there is an exemption filed for Patent Examiners from a reliable source.

If true, I wonder if that will also be applicable for APJ's.

What does this mean?

Administrative Patent Judge's (APJ's) work for the Patent Trial and Appeals Board and review decisions by the Examiners, and also preside over trials brought under the America Invents Act.

And for those wondering whether APJs deserve telework, we not only have production quotas but also work under strict statutory deadlines. Losing half the judges to RTO would have been a sh$t show.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USPTO exempt entirely

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Information%20Memo%20-%20Return%20to%20In-Person%20Work_0.pdf

Are non-examiners exempted, such as attorneys in the Office of Enrollment and Discipline and Office of Policy and International Affairs?

The entire PTO is exempt. So yes.

Anonymous wrote:USPTO exempt entirely

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Information%20Memo%20-%20Return%20to%20In-Person%20Work_0.pdf

Are non-examiners exempted, such as attorneys in the Office of Enrollment and Discipline and Office of Policy and International Affairs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rumor on Reddit is that there is an exemption filed for Patent Examiners from a reliable source.

If true, I wonder if that will also be applicable for APJ's.

What does this mean?

Administrative Patent Judge's (APJ's) work for the Patent Trial and Appeals Board and review decisions by the Examiners, and also preside over trials brought under the America Invents Act.

Anonymous wrote:USPTO exempt entirely

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Information%20Memo%20-%20Return%20to%20In-Person%20Work_0.pdf

Along with OIG and Commissioned Officer Corps of NOAA (I assume not the entire org)

USPTO exempt entirely

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/Information%20Memo%20-%20Return%20to%20In-Person%20Work_0.pdf

Anonymous wrote:This is the agency that had that scandal in the 2000s when they realized their remote workers weren't actually working. I thought they cracked down on remote stuff after that.

They have a strict quota so it's impossible to not actually do work. The scandal was someone subcontracted their job to someone in China and got caught when that person logged in to USPTO systems. It was very innovative in the 2000s but ultimately an obviously illegal thing to do in federal service.