Attorney Advisor (Trademark Examining Attorney) for USPTO Forum

[Anonymous User]

Any idea how many people they are interviewing and how many openings now that it is back in person?

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone been contacted for an interview yet for the position that opened 12/09/25-12/30/25? I hit referred status on 1/07/26 but haven’t heard anything since.

[Anonymous User]

I got referred early Jan, got an interview invite a couple of weeks later, and had the interview at the end of January. No updates since the interview...fingers crossed.

[Anonymous User]

I interviewed with them 2 weeks ago.

[Anonymous User]

I interviewed with them 2 weeks ago through Teams. I feel like I didn’t do very well, but I’m really hoping I still get the job. Does anyone know how long it usually takes to hear back?

[Anonymous User]

Still nothing today!

[Anonymous User]

got an email to contact references this morning.

[Anonymous User]

Anybody hear back after interviewing for the Dec posting?

[Anonymous User]

I also interviewed about the same time and the panel told me apr 20th is the class start date. So we should hear back before then, how much beforehand I couldn’t say, but my prior experience working in fed govt tells me that it will be close to that date (maybe 2 weeks before?).

I believe that others have posted in prior threads for past hiring classes that they send acceptances before rejections.

Just to note, I also felt like my interview didn’t go all that well. The large panel of 7 current trademark attorneys with rapid fire questions was intimidating and made it really difficult to gauge how I was being received. Time will tell.

Here’s to good news in the upcoming weeks!

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone received an offer after the request to check references for this round?

[Anonymous User]

People hired last cycle who may be lurking on here--tell us how it's going in general and with that forced AI initiative. TM practitioners dealing with the USPTO have noticed AI hallucinations in case citations in office actions. Also, any updates on new hires' inability to join the union and RTO until the end of time?

[Anonymous User]

Got an email for reference check over 2 weeks ago and nothing today. Has anyone received an offer after the request to check references yet? Thank you

[Anonymous User]

Got the offer today!!

[Anonymous User]

People hired last cycle who may be lurking on here--tell us how it's going in general and with that forced AI initiative. TM practitioners dealing with the USPTO have noticed AI hallucinations in case citations in office actions. Also, any updates on new hires' inability to join the union and RTO until the end of time?

From Reddit:
"Some things I wish I had known: Because new hires are not part of the union you will be in a windowless interior office doubled up with another examiner. Your telework flexibility will be 52 hours a year. Your quota will be harder to meet than it was for past examiners because in addition to having someone in an office with you, you won’t be able to work from home and you will eat up those 52 telework hours very quickly. You will go into the office and barely have time to speak with others because you will be grinding to meet your goals, especially in the first few months. A few people will pick it up much faster than others, but decreased flexibility and the disparity in work environments based on when you were hired are generally contributing to decreased morale and greater projected attrition rates. Management does care and the people here are great. However, do not expect to be teleworking more at the year mark or to have your own office anytime soon."
https://www.reddit.com/r/patentexaminer/s/vViHOD9Imm

[tttesq]

People hired last cycle who may be lurking on here--tell us how it's going in general and with that forced AI initiative. TM practitioners dealing with the USPTO have noticed AI hallucinations in case citations in office actions. Also, any updates on new hires' inability to join the union and RTO until the end of time?

There is no "forced AI initiative," as far as I am aware. I've been working at the USPTO as an examining attorney for a while now and have never used any AI tool at work, and all I can recall on the topic was a mention during an all hands meeting that the Office was exploring using some AI in some way.

So, your report of "AI hallucinations in case citations in office actions" simply does not track. Maybe these were just typos--not sure?

[Anonymous User]

People hired last cycle who may be lurking on here--tell us how it's going in general and with that forced AI initiative. TM practitioners dealing with the USPTO have noticed AI hallucinations in case citations in office actions. Also, any updates on new hires' inability to join the union and RTO until the end of time?

There is no "forced AI initiative," as far as I am aware. I've been working at the USPTO as an examining attorney for a while now and have never used any AI tool at work, and all I can recall on the topic was a mention during an all hands meeting that the Office was exploring using some AI in some way.

So, your report of "AI hallucinations in case citations in office actions" simply does not track. Maybe these were just typos--not sure?

The USPTO application under Trump has completely changed with an entire question prompt devoted to how new examiners will be part of a new AI examining initiative.

Long-time practicing attorneys have noticed and noted that examination is even worse than usual, e.g.:
"Apparently the USPTO had a wave of new hires and I'm not fond of how they are being trained.... I'm convinced they are using AI or something because some of these OA arguments I've been seeing look like hallucinations to me ."

"My previous associate went to work at the PTO and he told me they’re basically issuing initial OAs without any real research, just haphazardly, and then only need to provide actual reasoning or research on final refusals. "

"My current associate just spent 5 years as an EA and says the same thing. it's easier to reject than really try to find the right answer. It's the demand to get pendency down."

"This is the real issue. Examiners are human and it's to be expected that you might occasionally get a surprising refusal. But now it happens so often that we include disclaimer language in our search summaries specifically addressing how unpredictable examiners can be when it comes to determining what kinds of G/S are related. And clients do not like that uncertainty."

"100% - I put much more emphasis on this now when discussing with clients and it really undermines our expertise! They come to us for real guidance but when there is so much unpredictability and irrational OAs, it’s hard for us to provide the value we are actually capable of providing if the office were properly following the rules of trademark law."
"Honestly? It’s because they refuse to hire anyone who’s actually qualified to do the job. I finally got an interview once and they basically told me through their line of questioning that they do not hire experienced trademark attorneys. With the rate they pay, they’re only gonna get people who just absolutely love it, which are the people they refuse to hire, or … well… people who don’t know anything and have little interest in figuring it out and doing it correctly. Sorrynotsorry - somebody had to say it."
"interesting - so often I get insane OAs from examiners who have been there for a long time and I get confused bc I expect it to be from an inexperienced examiner, but I guess if they’re coming in inexperienced and never getting proper training, that still explains it!"

"yep - examiners will even leave and get to return… even though they’re terrible. They’re returning/staying because they can’t do well anywhere else."

[Anonymous User]

People hired last cycle who may be lurking on here--tell us how it's going in general and with that forced AI initiative. TM practitioners dealing with the USPTO have noticed AI hallucinations in case citations in office actions. Also, any updates on new hires' inability to join the union and RTO until the end of time?

There is no "forced AI initiative," as far as I am aware. I've been working at the USPTO as an examining attorney for a while now and have never used any AI tool at work, and all I can recall on the topic was a mention during an all hands meeting that the Office was exploring using some AI in some way.

So, your report of "AI hallucinations in case citations in office actions" simply does not track. Maybe these were just typos--not sure?

The USPTO application under Trump has completely changed with an entire question prompt devoted to how new examiners will be part of a new AI examining initiative.

Long-time practicing attorneys have noticed and noted that examination is even worse than usual, e.g.:
"Apparently the USPTO had a wave of new hires and I'm not fond of how they are being trained.... I'm convinced they are using AI or something because some of these OA arguments I've been seeing look like hallucinations to me ."

"My previous associate went to work at the PTO and he told me they’re basically issuing initial OAs without any real research, just haphazardly, and then only need to provide actual reasoning or research on final refusals. "

"My current associate just spent 5 years as an EA and says the same thing. it's easier to reject than really try to find the right answer. It's the demand to get pendency down."

"This is the real issue. Examiners are human and it's to be expected that you might occasionally get a surprising refusal. But now it happens so often that we include disclaimer language in our search summaries specifically addressing how unpredictable examiners can be when it comes to determining what kinds of G/S are related. And clients do not like that uncertainty."

"100% - I put much more emphasis on this now when discussing with clients and it really undermines our expertise! They come to us for real guidance but when there is so much unpredictability and irrational OAs, it’s hard for us to provide the value we are actually capable of providing if the office were properly following the rules of trademark law."
"Honestly? It’s because they refuse to hire anyone who’s actually qualified to do the job. I finally got an interview once and they basically told me through their line of questioning that they do not hire experienced trademark attorneys. With the rate they pay, they’re only gonna get people who just absolutely love it, which are the people they refuse to hire, or … well… people who don’t know anything and have little interest in figuring it out and doing it correctly. Sorrynotsorry - somebody had to say it."
"interesting - so often I get insane OAs from examiners who have been there for a long time and I get confused bc I expect it to be from an inexperienced examiner, but I guess if they’re coming in inexperienced and never getting proper training, that still explains it!"

"yep - examiners will even leave and get to return… even though they’re terrible. They’re returning/staying because they can’t do well anywhere else."

So, without opining on observations regarding a perceived decline in quality, consistency, and legal soundness of OAs issued by newer examining attorneys (let's just say, it’s a sentiment I’m not inclined to dispute), there is currently no forced AI initiative, and I have not used or encountered AI tools at work. That's the only point I was making.

The rest is, well, unfortunate. And I agree that poor lawyering can be hard to distinguish from AI slop.

[Anonymous User]

Has anybody heard back after applying for the most recent cycle? Based on the hiring timeline, I thought this week would have some movement.

[Anonymous User]

What do you mean by movement, referrals or interviews?

[Anonymous User]

What do you mean by movement, referrals or interviews?

Anything that comes after the referral