Improving the time/quality of examination would reduce the number of bad patents, and thus raise the bar for something to get patented, requiring MORE actual innovation, and less fake process based crap.

How would the examiners be able to turn "limited time" into incentive to create "innovation in tools" [that they themselves aren't the ones building]?

Old orgs with old tools aren't improved by putting more pressure just on the users of those tools.

Pressure for (perceived) innovation is one of the things that drives bad patents. Removing this pressure has positive consequences (in addition to the negative consequence of potentially novel IP not being protected in time--but is that actually a bad thing? I don't know).

There's a parallel also in the world of academic paper publishing--the pressure for constantly innovating and publishing is a major reason for bad publications.

I am speaking anecdotally, from my experience as a past PhD student and a current young professional in the research industry.