Hey I don't mean for this to become an adversarial conversation. Each examiner is unique in their approach. My approach is to issue the strongest claim possible that can withstand public scrutiny, within the resources I'm given.

< That signature on the NoA doesn't mean much if its overturned by a court or one of a hundred other methods of attack....

The patent is only as strong as the prosecution history. Other than court invalidation, what other methods do you propose?

< I've had Examiners reject applications on frivolous grounds, then allow them if I "add some more lines to the independent claim" - not add more limitations, just make it wordier.

This practice is garbage. I have on many occasions said that I will allow a shorter, more precise claim. Don't throw me a 5 page claim thinking it will get allowed. It will not, and most times my rejection will stand affirmed on appeal.

< I can't tell you how many applications have been approved because the Examiner made me jump through meaningless hoops (that don't improve prosecution or reduce subsequent litigation) to improve his own numbers and/or reduce his chance of being audited (or whatever you guys call it).

"approved"? You mean "allowed"?

The meaningless hoops you speak of. Would you care to share some? I've seen some bogus at worst, questionable at best, rejections in my days, and somewhere a supervisor stands by it.

OPQA does internal reviews of allowances. If you don't allow anything, there's nothing to review.

The immediate supervisor and director can also do their own review of everything.

I can't speak for these other people you're speaking about, but from my own perspective, it is much easier and faster for me to write a valid rejection than to issue a questionable allowance.

Allowances get WAYYYYY more scrutiny. I would be a fool to push an applicant towards a questionable one.