Yes the patent office expects applicants to be perfect and clairvoyant, while allowing itself to talk as long as it likes to do things and to rely on an unlimited number of prosecution reopenings to correct deficiencies that could have been avoided by greater diligence in the initial and subsequent searches and care in the preparation of office actions.

Even the rules themselves have been slapped together without sufficient diligence and care. Take proposed rule 75 for example. Under that rule, an applicant can, and is expected to, avoid the preparation and filing of the onerous “Examination Support Document” by filing an application with 5 or fewer independent claims and fewer than 25 total claims. It also requires that if and ESD is filed, it may only be filed before the first office action.

So, if an applicant files an application with 3 independent claims, 2 of which having 6 dependent claims and one of which having 5 dependent claims (3/20, well withing 5/25), and the examiner finds that the independent claims are just a tad too broad, but finds each of the dependent claims to be allowable if placed in independent form, rule 75 operates to prevent the applicant from canceling the rejected claims and accepting the allowed subject matter.

Doing so would create an application with 17 independent claims, which violates 5/25.

Did they mean to force applicants to forfeit allowed subject matter, or was it the result of over zealousness, thoughtlessness and carelessness?