Accelerated Examination at the USPTO: view and counterview

If,
we begin with the hypothesis that all endeavours (read as ‘inventors’) may be classified in the following formats:

- the absolute genuine; one having the premise that he understands the entire spectrum of the subject matter of his invention, its credibility, its genesis, its patentability and its subsequent conjecture in relation to the technological advance over the prior art;

- the discombobulated; one having the premise of understatement (not able to recognise the worthiness of his efforts and invention) with respect to his subject matter, or with a genuine interest in his know-how, albeit, not aware whether his know-how is prosecutable for protection;

- the marauders; one having the premise of nonchalant destruction and is prying the system only to scavenge for loopholes, and plausible leeway to gain entry and sublime recognition;

Then,
assumption of the hypothesis validates the clause that only the first type of people enumerated above, should arguably follow this new path.

Follow the two diametrically opposite viewpoints cited below:

1) Pointing the anomalies of the system;
versus
2) Elaborating the worthiness of the system.