 Procrastination or incomplete data? An analysis of USPTO examiner search activityCharles A.W. de Grazia, Alexander V. Giczy and Nicholas A. Pairolero Research Policy, 2024, vol. 53, issue 7 Abstract: Frakes and Wasserman (2020) finds evidence that United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent examiners disproportionately receive credit for examination activities at the end of production periods and interprets this behavior as systemic examiner procrastination. Using newly assembled micro data on the timing of USPTO examiner activities, our results show examiner work effort more closely resembles a uniform distribution over the production period, indicating consistent workflow and not procrastination. The assembled data better track the precise timing of examiner work activities than the data used in Frakes and Wasserman (2020), explaining the differences in our results. While Frakes and Wasserman (2020) conduct a thorough analysis of the markers and consequences of “end-loading”, its use of an inadequate proxy for examination activity (i.e., Office action count dates) leads to incorrect conclusions about the examination process (i.e., widespread examiner procrastination). Keywords: Procrastination; Patent policy; USPTO; Patent quality (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:respol:v:53:y:2024:i:7:s0048733324000829 DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2024.105033 Access Statistics for this article Research Policy is currently edited by M. Bell, B. Martin, W.E. Steinmueller, A. Arora, M. Callon, M. Kenney, S. Kuhlmann, Keun Lee and F. Murray More articles in Research Policy from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.