USPTO 2000 Patent Customer Satisfaction Survey P-1 Content of the Report Background Methodology (page P-4) Sampling and Weighting (page P-8) Quantitative

USPTO 2000 Patent Customer Satisfaction SurveyP-1

Content of the Report

Background

Methodology (page P-4)

Sampling and Weighting (page P-8)

Quantitative Results

Demographic Profile of Participants (page P-12)

Absolute View of Results (page P-20)

Comparison with 1999 Results (page P-31)

What Did the Survey Measure? Summary of Factor Analysis Results (page P-36)

A Review of Results by the 5 Factors (page P-45)

Examination Process (page P-46)

Customer Service (page P-57)

Timeliness (page P-60)

Problem Resolution (page P-65) Most Frequently Encountered Problems (page P-74)

Change in Service (page P-80) How Do Changes in Experience Compare to 1999? (page P-83)


Content of the Report (cont.)

Quantitative Results (cont.)

Questions Pertaining to the Overall Patent Process – Overall Questions (page P-93)

How Do the Five Factors Relate to Overall Questions? (page P-98)

Key Drivers (page P-101)

Identification of Key Drivers Separately for Service Standards and Patent Process Items (All Respondents) (page P-103)

Identification of Key Drivers Separately for Service Standards and Patent Process/ Problem Handling Items (Respondents Experiencing Problems) (page P-111)

Moving Customers From Neutral to Satisfied in Overall Satisfaction (page P-114)

Demographic Differences (page P-119)

Results by Technology Area (page P-130)

Qualitative Results

Summary of Open-Ended Comments (page P-140)

Use of Internet-Based Survey (page P-168)


Content of the Report (cont.)

Conclusions

Overall Summary (page P-171)

Conclusions (page P-175)

Appendices

Appendix A: Procedures and Methodology

Appendix B: Sampling and Weighting Procedures

Appendix C: Description of Analytic Techniques

Appendix D: 2000 Patent Survey Instrument

Appendix E: Crosswalk of 2000 Survey with 1999 Survey

Appendix F: Question-by-Question Frequencies for 2000 Data

Appendix G: Trend Data Comparing 2000, 1999, 1998, 1996, and 1995

Volume II

Appendix H: Verbatim Qualitative Comments by Category

Appendix I: Respondent Inquiries Report

Methodology

P-4


Methodology*

Purposes: Assess satisfaction with USPTO processes and standards.

Survey Items: Redesign was purposely kept minimal to maintain comparability with previous survey questions.

Summary of Changes in 2000 Survey:

Some items that were not used in the 1999 analysis or were difficult for respondents to understand were deleted fromthe survey.

New items were added. Respondents could select only one affiliation in

Question A1 – What is your affiliation? See crosswalk of 1999 and 2000 surveys – Appendix E.

Nonrespondent Analysis: Conducted a nonrespondent analysis in 1999 and found that

the following could be affecting response rates:

Respondents are too busy. Survey is too long. Too many surveys were sent. Summer data collection is a bad time of year. Respondents did not think results would be used by

USPTO.* Appendix A describes the methodology in more detail.


Methodology* (cont.)

Conducted Experiment: Conducted an experiment to determine if reminder postcard

and timing of second survey mailing affect response rate.

3 groups:

PC = sent postcard 2 weeks after initial mailing andsecond survey 4 weeks after initial mailing (response rate = 38%).

NPC2 = did not get postcard and sent second survey2 weeks after initial mailing (response rate = 36%).

NPC4 = did not get postcard and sent second survey4 weeks after initial mailing (response rate = 36%).

Changes to Methodology: Sent only one survey to each respondent regardless of

number of technology affiliations.

Sampling methodology changed from surveyingestablishments to surveying individuals.

Shorter field period – Closed data collection about one and a half weeks earlier than in 1999 so that reports could be produced sooner.


Methodology (cont.)

SurveyAdministration: From May 1, 2000 to July 6, 2000

4 mailings:

Advance letter – May 1, 2000

Initial survey packet (cover letter, surveyreturn envelope) – May 15, 2000

Reminder Postcard – May 31, 2000

Second mailing to nonrespondents (cover letter, survey,return envelope) – May 31, 2000 and June 13, 2000

Closed data collection – July 6, 2000

Response 7,333 Surveys mailed Rates: 2,545* Surveys returned complete

37% Overall patent response rate

Results: Weighted percents are used throughout this report

Unweighted N’s are provided for some selected analyses___________________________

* Of the 2,545 completed surveys, 201 were returned after the close of data collection. Those data are included in the above response rate calculations but are not included in the data analysis.

Sampling and Weighting

P-8


Sampling and Weighting*

Sampling Files: 7 separate files (one for each technology area) werepulled from the Patent Application Locator &Monitoring System (PALM).

File Cleaning: Duplicate records were deleted to get one record perperson at an establishment across all technologyareas. Records with incomplete addressinformation were deleted.

Sampling In 1998 and 1999, respondents were sampled by Methodology: establishment. In 2000, respondents were selected

by individual name and address. The samplingplan was changed to lower respondent burden byreducing the likelihood of a respondent receivinga survey from year to year.

___________________

*Appendix B presents more detail regarding the sampling and weighting procedures employed.


Sampling and Weighting* (cont.)

Sample Goal was to sample approximately 1,000Selection: respondents in each technology area. Targeted

number of completed surveys in each technologyarea was 400-450.

Technology Patent Filer Mail-Out Number of Sample Sizes: Area Population Size Completes

Biotech. & Organic Chem. (1600) 15,699 1,163 353

Chem. & Mtrls. Eng. (1700) 26,037 1,048 342

Communications & Info. Proc. (2700) 24,648 1,044 302

Physics, Optics, Semiconductors, etc. (2800) 33,062 986 304

Designs (2900) 14,354 1,019 350

Transport., Construction, Agr., etc. (3600) 19,472 1,041 351

Mech. Eng., Mfg, & Products (3700) 27,945 1,032 394

___________________

*Appendix B presents more detail regarding the sampling and weighting procedures employed.


Sampling and Weighting (cont.)

Weighting:

Each respondent was assigned a weight based on sampling rate and nonresponse adjustment. This procedure replaced the use of a small telephone nonresponse follow-up and minimized errors resulting from nonresponse differences:

Between technology areas, andBetween rare, occasional, and frequent patent filers.

Weighted survey results provide unbiased estimates for:

Entire patent filer population, andEach technology area.

Who Were the Respondents?

A Demographic Profileof Participants

P-12


A1. What is your affiliation?

2000 1999 1998 19961995 % %* %* %* %*

Federal government agency (n=34)** 2 2 2 1 1

University or college (n=10) 0 1 1 1 3

Large business (n=458) 18 16 18 30 34

Small business (n=109) 4 7 6 1 2

Law firm (n=1,471) 68 64 67 48 39

Individual inventor (n=170) 6 11 8 18 31

Other (Specify) (n=63) 2 5 3 6 6_______________________

* Percents from 1995 to 1999 may sum to more than 100% because more than one response could be chosen. In 2000, respondents could only choose one affiliation.

** Response categories changed from 1995/1996 to 1998/1999. The question is still comparable from year to year.

Affiliation results are quite similar to the 1999 profile, although there are slightly fewer individual inventors this year. Law firms continue to make up about two-thirds of the survey population.


A2. How often did you contact the USPTO for products or services over the past year?

Over three-fourths of customers continue to contact the USPTO often during the year. Contact frequency is quite similar to the 1999 profile.

2000 1999 1998 1996 1995 % % % % %

Never (n=47) 2 2 2 4 6

Only once (n=42) 1 2 2 5 4

Rarely (n=102) 4 4 3 4 5

Occasionally (n=406) 16 19 13 16 17

Often (n=1,725) 78 73 80 71 68


Frequency of Contact During the Year, by Affiliation

Ranked by Most Frequent Contact (A2)

% % % % %Affiliation (A1)* Often Occasionally Rarely Only Once Never

Law Firm 85 12 2 0 1

Large Business 79 16 3 0 1

Federal GovernmentAgency 79 14 0 7 0

Small Business 45 37 8 5 5

Individual Inventor 19 37 16 14 14

Other** 54 33 9 2 2

_________________

* Affiliations accounting for less than 1% of respondents are not shown.** Other affiliations specified most frequently were Patent Agents and Sole Practitioners.

Most of the respondents from law firms, large businesses, and federal government agencies had frequent contact with the USPTO during the year. Respondents from small businesses had frequent or occasional contact.


A3. What is your relationship with the USPTO?

Most of the respondents are continuous customers of the USPTO.

2000 1999 1998 1996 1995 % % % % %

A continuous customer (n=1,945) 87 83 90 76 74

A frequent, but not continuous customer (n=133) 5 7 3 5 7

An occasional customer (n=163) 6 6 5 10 10

A one-time customer (n=58) 1 3 2 5 5

A former customer (n=16) 1 1 0 2 2

Not a customer* -- 0 0 2 2

_____________________

* The option “not a customer” was removed from the survey in 2000.


C8. What is your job title?

Most of the respondents to the survey identified themselves as patent agents/attorneys.

% in Category Job Categories

80 Patent Agent/Attorney

6 Executive

4 Patent Administrator

3 Professional

2 Paralegal

2 Support Staff

1 Inventor

2 Other (Retail, Artist, Mom,Shareholder, Retired – no title, etc.)


Affiliation (A1) by Job Title (C8)

Of the respondents affiliated with federal government agencies, 19% are paralegals. Of those affiliated with small businesses, 42% are executives.

Affiliation

%PatentAgent,

Attorney

%Director,Manager

%Executive

%Inventor

%Professional

%Paralegal

%Support

Staff

%SkilledTrades

%Other

%Total

FederalGovernmentAgency (n=24)

56 0 0 0 22 19 3 0 0 100

0University orCollege (n=8)

33 0 6 0 61 0 0 0 100

Large Business(n=332)

86 6 1 0 1 2 4 0 0 100

Small Business(n=73)

26 19 42 0 10 2 1 0 0 100

Law Firm(n=1,037)

89 2 3 0 0 2 3 0 1 100

0IndividualInventor (n =105)

3 4 25 19 28 1 6 14 100

Other (n=48) 91 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 100


Demographic Profile – In Summary

Over two-thirds of the respondents are affiliated with law firms and 18% represented large businesses. Individual inventors made up 6% of the survey population, down slightly from the 1999 level.

Over three-quarters of the respondents contacted the USPTO often during the year. Contact frequency is similar to 1999 results.

Close to 90% of the respondents said they are continuous customers. There was a 4 percentage-point increase in the number of continuous customers from 1999 to 2000.

Most of the respondents completing the survey identified themselves as patent agents/attorneys.

Absolute View of Results

P-20


A Review of Results By:

Most and Least Satisfied Questions

Most Dissatisfied Questions

Major Changes from 1999 Data

Questions Grouped into Five Factors

Questions Pertaining to the Overall Patent Process

Questions That Have the Strongest Relationship with Overall Satisfaction (Key Drivers)

Demographic Differences

Results by Technology Areas

Most and Least Satisfied Questions

P-22


What Respondents Are Most Satisfied With

B1. Treat with courtesy each timeyou contact us

C1AP2. Clarity of application instructions

C1AP3. Use of telephone for examinationissues

C1AP1. Amount of time needed to submitrequired information

C1OP1. Outcome met your objectives

C4c. Overall courteousness(handling of problems)

72%

74%

76%

78%

79%

87%

Survey Item #

Satisfied


65%

66%

68%

69%

70%

What Respondents Are Most Satisfied With (cont.)

B14. Respond to amendments within 4 months of receipt

B2. Direct you promptly to the properoffice or person

C1OP2. Fairness of the final decision

B6. Widely disseminate informationon changes in practices beforeeffective date

C1SR1. Assistance at a time convenientto you

Respondents reported they are most satisfied with staff courtesy, the application process, the use of telephone for examination issues, and the outcome of the process.

Survey Item #

Satisfied


What Respondents Are Least Satisfied With

C4a. Handling of delays

C4b. Handling of mistakes

C4d. The way your problem or difficulty was handled

B5. Respond to status letterswithin 30 days of receipt

B8. Match properly addressed faxes ofFormal Amendments with file anddeliver to examiner within 3 days

C1AP4. Consistency of examinations

B10. Mail filing notices within30 days of receipt

46%

44%

44%

39%

32%

30%

21%

Survey Item #

Satisfied


52%

51%

48%

What Respondents Are Least Satisfied With (cont.)

B7. Deliver “Informal” faxes to examinerswithin 1 business day of receipt

C1P1. USPTO fees for patent applications

C1P2. Good value for the amountof fees paid

Survey Item #

Respondents are least satisfied with the handling of problems and the consistency of examinations, as well as certain process time standards (status letters, faxes, and filing notices).

Satisfied

Most Dissatisfied Questions

P-27


What Respondents Are Most Dissatisfied With

C4a. Handling of delays

C4b. Handling of mistakes

C4d. The way your problem or difficultywas handled

B5. Respond to status letterswithin 30 days of receipt


B9. Mail accurate filing notices

B10. Mail filing notices within 30 daysof receipt

B15. Mail patent grant within 4 monthsof issue of fee payment

26%

27%

28%

31%

32%

34%

45%

46%

Survey Item #

Respondents are most dissatisfied with problem resolution, examination consistency, mailing filing notices accurately, and certain timeliness standards.

Dissatisfied


Absolute View of Results – In Summary

Most Satisfied

Courteous service The application process Use of telephone for examination issues Outcome of the process

Least Satisfied

Problem resolution Consistency of examinations Process time standards

Respond to status lettersInternal standards on fax transmissionsFiling notices


Absolute View of Results – In Summary (cont.)

Most Dissatisfied

Problem resolution

Consistency of examinations

Meeting process standards

Mailing patent grant

Status letters

Filing notices

Comparison with1999 Results

P-31


Major Improvements from 1999 (6 percentage points or more)

Ranked by % Change

66

64

74

69

48

56

57

67

63

42

% Sat 2000 % Sat 1999

B6. Widely disseminate informationon changes in practices beforeeffective date

C7. Overall satisfaction with patentprocess


B2. Direct you promptly to theproper office or person

B7. Deliver faxes to examiners markedinformal/draft within 1 business day

Change in% Satisfiedfrom 1999

+10*

+7*

+7*

+6*

+6*

Survey Item #

__________________

* Change in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant.

Statistically significant improvements are seen in the dissemination of information on changes before effective date, overall customer satisfaction, patent process outcome, directing customers promptly, and fax delivery.


Trends 1998 to 1999 (29 comparable items - differences in % satisfied)

0 01

5

16

6

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

# of Items

Declined Improved

Responses to 27 of 29 items improved from 1998 to 1999. Only one item declined and one remained the same. The majority of improvements are in the 6-10 percentage-point range.

>10 6 - 10 1 - 5 6 - 10 >101 - 5 0

Percentage-Point Change


0 0

4

16

5

0

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

# of Items

>10 6 - 10 1 - 5 6 - 10 >101 - 5 0

Trends 1999 to 2000 (27 comparable items - differences in % satisfied)

Declined Improved

Responses to 21 of the 27 comparable items improved from 1999 to 2000.

Percentage-Point Change


Major Changes from 1999 – In Summary

Statistically significant improvements in percent satisfied from 1999 include:

Widely disseminating changes before effective date (+10 points) Overall satisfaction (+7 points) Outcome met your objectives (+7 points) Direct you promptly to proper person/office (+6 points) Deliver faxes to examiner within 1 business day (+6 points)

Most of the items improved by 1 to 5 percentage points.

There are no statistically significant declines.

Of the 4 items that declined, 2 declined by 3 percentage points, and 2 declined by 1 percentage point:

Handling of delays (-3 points) Thorough patent search (-3 points)

What Did the Survey Measure?

A Summary of the FactorAnalysis Results*

* Appendix C provides a description of the analytic procedures.

P-36


The Five Factors

Examination Process

Customer Service

Timeliness

Problem Resolution

Change in Service


Examination Process

B4 Clear written communications of position of examiners

B11 Conduct a thorough search during patent examination process

C1AP1 Amount of time needed to submit required information

C1AP2 Clarity of the application instructions

C1AP3 Use of the telephone for examination issues

C1AP4 Consistency of examination

C1OP1 Outcome met your objectives

C1OP2 Fairness of the final decision

C1OP3 Efficiency of the examination process

Survey Item #


Customer Service

B1 Treat you with courtesy each time you contact us

B2 Direct you promptly to the proper office/person

B3 Return calls within 1 business day

C1SC1 Ability to provide accurate answers to questions

C1SC2 Genuinely committed to providing the best possible service

C1SR1 Assistance at a time convenient to you

C1SR2 Prompt and helpful service

C1SR3 Flexibility in trying to address your needs

C4C Overall courteousness (handling of problems)

Survey Item #


Timeliness

B5 Respond to status letters within 30 days of receipt

B6 Disseminate information on changes in practices and procedures before effective date

B7 Deliver Informal faxes to examiners within 1 business day of receipt

B8 Match properly addressed faxes of Formal Amendments with file and deliver to examiner within 3 days

B9 Mail accurate filing notices

B10 Mail filing notices within 30 days of receipt

Survey Item #


Timeliness (cont.)

B12 Respond within 30 days to papers filed

B13 Provide first action within 14 months of filing

B14 Respond to amendments within 4 months of receipt

B15 Mail patent grant within 4 months of issue fee payment

B16 Provide patent grant within 36 months of filing

Survey Item #


Problem Resolution*

C4a Handling of delays

C4b Handling of mistakes

C4d The way your problem or difficulty was handled

Additional Relevant Questions**

C2 Have you experienced any problems or difficulties with USPTO services over the past year?

C3 Was your problem resolved?

________________* Includes only customers who experienced a problem or difficulty over the past year (n=1,433).

** These questions were not included in factor analysis because they do not specifically ask about satisfaction.

Survey Item #


Change in Service Compared to Previous Filing

C6a Handling of problems/complaints

C6b Quality of patent search

C6c Written communications

C6d Proactive individualized service

C6e Timely filing receipts

C6f Accurate filing receipts

C6g Phone calls returned within 1 day

C6h Directed promptly to proper person

C6i Examiners receive faxes within 1 business day

Survey Item #


How Well Did USPTO Do On Each Factor?

66%

64%

55%

29%

29%

Examination Process

Customer Service

Timeliness

Problem Resolution

Change in Service (Average of % Better)

The Examination Process and Customer Service factors are the most positive, whereas the Problem Resolution and Change in Service factors are the least positive.

Average Percent Satisfied or Better*

__________________

* For each respondent, average percent satisfied is calculated by summing the number of items in each sector for which a person responded 4 (satisfied) or 5 (very satisfied) then dividing by the total number of items answered and multiplying by 100. For the change in service factor, a 4 or 5 indicated a response of better or much better, respectively.

A Review of Resultsby the 5 Factors

P-45

Examination Process

P-46


Examination Process Ranked by % Satisfied

C1AP2. Clarity of the application instructions

C1AP3. Use of telephone for examinationissues

C1AP1. Amount of time needed to submit required information


C1OP2. Fairness of the final decision

B4. Clear written communications of position of examiners

Change in % Satisfiedfrom 1999

+2

**

-1

+7*

+1

0

8

8

15

18

14

21

21

24

23

79

78

76

74

68

63

3

5

3

% Dissatisfied % Neutral % SatisfiedSurvey Item #

________________

* Change in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant.** New question for 2000.


Examination Process (cont.)Ranked by % Satisfied

B11. Conduct a thorough search during patent examinationprocess

C1OP3. Efficiency of the examinationprocess



-3

+2

**

16

18

23

29

25

61

53

4431

% Dissatisfied % Neutral % Satisfied

Respondents are positive about the application submission process and aspects of examination quality, including the fairness of the final decision, and the use of the telephone for examination issues. Consistency of the examinations was the only area showing a low level of satisfaction, with close to one-third of respondents dissatisfied.

Survey Item #

_________________

** New question for 2000.

Analyzing Consistency in the Examination Process

P-49


Consistency of Examinations

1. Examination Consistency by Affiliation*

Consistency of Examinations (C1AP4)

Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied

Individual Inventor 65% 16% 19%Small Business 64% 18% 18%Law Firm 44% 25% 31%Large Business 36% 27% 37%Federal Government Agency 31% 21% 48%

Since only 44% of respondents are satisfied with examination consistency (C1AP4) and there were numerous write-in comments about the lack of consistency in the examination process, we analyzed the data to better understand consistency and its relationship with other key drivers.

___________________

* Affiliations accounting for less than 1% of respondents are not shown.

Federal government agencies, large businesses, and law firms are the least satisfied about consistency of examinations.



Satisfied

B4 C1OP2 C1OP3Clear B11 Fairness Efficiency C7

C1AP4. Consistency of written Thorough of of Overallexaminations position search decision process satisfaction

Satisfied 87% 84% 90% 81% 86%

Neutral 58% 52% 61% 39% 61%

Dissatisfied 32% 34% 41% 22% 35%

Perceptions about consistency are strongly related to perceptions about examination quality and overall satisfaction.

2. Consistency of examinations by selected examination issues.



C2. Have you experienced problemsover the past year

Yes, Yes, C1AP4. Consistency of contacted USPTO not No, no

examinations USPTO contacted problems

Satisfied 46% 6% 48%

Neutral 60% 9% 31%

Dissatisfied 66% 15% 20%

Eighty-one percent of those dissatisfied with consistency experienced problems over the past year, compared to 52% of those satisfied with consistency.

3. Consistency of examinations by experience with problems.


Satisfied

C7. Overall Satisfaction C1AP4with Patent Services Consistency of examinations

Satisfied 60%

Neutral 20%

Dissatisfied 14%

Respondents who are either neutral or dissatisfied overall with the patent process gave much lower ratings to consistency of examinations compared to those who are satisfied with overall patent services.


4. Overall satisfaction by consistency of examinations.


Examples of Comments About Consistency of Examinations

“Inconsistencies in examinations, especially in the use of 112 rejections. One examiner will allow while another may give numerous rejections.”

“The examiners are very, very inconsistent—even with continuations and divisionals having the same specifications and similar claims. Primary examiners should be required to be more involved with the new examiners.”

“The examiners appear to take different policy positions in key examination issues, making it difficult to get consistent examinations of multiple applications having similar, if not related, subject matter.”

“I am troubled by the lack of consistency in the biotech examining corps with respect to section 101, 112, 103 rejections.”

“Inconsistency in critique of drawings from one examiner to another.”

“Inconsistent application of drawing requirements.”

“Inconsistency in applying U.S. law to PCT law, i.e., require abstract in examination when one was filed on PCT application.”


Examination Process – In Summary

Customers continue to have a high level of satisfaction with the application submission process.

Over two-thirds of the respondents reported satisfaction with the fairness of the final decision, and close to three-quarters indicated that the outcome met their objectives (a statistically significant increase of 7 percentage points from the 1999 level).

Examination quality (B4 and B11) shows satisfaction ratings of over 60%. However, satisfaction with conducting a thorough search declined slightly from 1999.

Respondents are quite satisfied (78%) with the use of the telephone for examination issues.

Just over one-half are satisfied with the efficiency of the examination process.


Examination Process – In Summary (cont.)

The only weak area appears to be consistency of examinations, with about one-third of respondents dissatisfied (new question in 2000).

Perceptions about consistency are related to perceptions about all aspects of examination quality.

Respondents who are neutral/dissatisfied overall with the patent process tend to give low ratings to consistency.

Most of the respondents giving low ratings to consistency expressed and reported problems during the past year.

Customer Service

P-57


Customer ServiceRanked by % Satisfied

B1. Treat you with courtesy each time you contact us

C4c. Overall courteousness(handling of problems)

B2. Direct you promptly to the proper office/person

C1SR1. Assistance at a time convenient to you

B3. Return telephone calls within1 business day

C1SR2. Prompt and helpful service

C1SC1. Ability to provide accurate answers to questions

C1SR3. Flexibility in trying to address your needs

C1SC2. Genuinely committed to providing the best possible service


+3*

+2

+6*

+2

+3

+4*

0

+2

+2

8

19

15

18

16

19

9

20

19

24

20

27

26

31

28

87

72

69

65

61

58

56

53

53

4

11

12


Courtesy to customers and directing customers promptly to the proper office/ person have the highest levels of satisfaction.

Survey Item #



Customer Service – In Summary

All areas of customer service, except ability to provide accurate answers, showed improvement in satisfaction levels over 1999 levels. Directing customers promptly to the proper office/person had the highest increase in percent satisfied, with a 6 point increase. This increase is statistically significant.

Courtesy by the USPTO staff continues at high levels of satisfaction and shows a statistically significant improvement.

About two-thirds of respondents reported that assistance is provided at a time convenient to the customer and that they are being directed promptly to the proper office/person.

While certain aspects of customer service (ability to provide accurate answers to questions, prompt and helpful service, flexibility, and genuine commitment) continue to have satisfaction levels under 60%, dissatisfaction rates are under 20%. Further, satisfaction with prompt and helpful service increased significantly over 1999 rates.

Timeliness

P-60


TimelinessRanked by % Satisfied

8

11

14

20

26

23

22

23

28

25

19

23

70

66

58

55

55

54


B14. Respond to amendments within 4 months of receipt

B6. Disseminate information on changes in practices and procedures before effective date

B16. Provide patent grant within 36 months of filing

B12. Respond within 30 days to papers filed after examiner allows the application

B15. Mail patent grant within 4 months of issue fee payment

B13. Provide first action within 14 months of filing


**

+10*

**

+1

**

**

Survey Item #

____________________



Timeliness (cont.)Ranked by % Satisfied

28

27

21

23

32

20

27

31

33

29

52

46

48

44

39


B9. Mail accurate filing notices

B10. Mail filing notices within 30 days of receipt

B7. Deliver informal faxes to examiners within 1 business day of receipt

B8. Match properly addressed faxes of Formal Amendments with file and deliver to the examiner within 3 days

B5. Respond to status letters within 30 days of receipt


**

**

+6*

+3

+1

Survey Item #

____________________


Responding to amendments within 4 months of receipt, disseminating information about procedural changes, and providing patent grant within 36 months are the most favorable items in this factor. Responding to status letters within 30 days and the timely delivery of faxes are the least favorable items.


Timeliness – In Summary

Responding to amendments within 4 months of receipt and disseminating information on changes before the effective date were the only timeliness items with satisfaction levels over 60%.

About one-quarter or more of the respondents are dissatisfied with mailing patent grants within 4 months of issue fee payment, mailing filing notices within 30 days of receipt, responding to status letters within 30 days of receipt, and mailing accurate filing notices for complete standard application.

As an overall measure of timeliness, providing patent grants within 36 months of filing had a satisfaction level of 58%, with a 14% dissatisfaction level.

There are significant increases from 1999 levels in the percentage of respondents satisfied with information on changes being disseminated before their effective date and delivery of informal faxes to examiners.


Timeliness – In Summary (cont.)

For the 2000 survey, the 1999 item on filing receipts was divided into two items: one dealing with accuracy and the other dealing with timeliness of filing receipts. On the 1999 survey, the filing receipt question shows 41% satisfied. This year, 52% were satisfied with filing notice accuracy and 46% were satisfied with timeliness. Both items show higher levels of satisfaction and lower levels of dissatisfaction compared to 1999.

Problem Resolution

P-65


Problem Resolution

Change in %2000 1999 from 1999

C2. Have you experienced any problems withUSPTO services over the past year?

Yes, and I contacted someone at the USPTO 55% 61% -6*

Yes, but I did not contact the USPTO 10% 10% 0

No, I did not experience a problem 35% 29% +6*

C3. Was your problem resolved?

Yes, and it was handled quickly 24% 24% 0

Yes, but it was not handled quickly 46% 45% 1

No, problem was not resolved 30% 31% -1

About two-thirds of the respondents had problems with USPTO services over the past year, down significantly from 1999. However, 30% continue to indicate that their problems were not resolved.

________________

* The change in percent from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant.


Problem ResolutionRanked by % Satisfied

34

45

46

34

25

33

32

30

21

% Dissatisfied % Neutral % SatisfiedFor those who had a problem…

C4d. The way your problem or difficulty was handled

C4b. Satisfaction with handling of mistakes

C4a. Satisfaction with handling of delays


-1

+1

-3

All aspects of problem resolution have relatively low levels of satisfaction. For example, only 32% of the respondents were satisfied with the way their problem was handled. Satisfaction with handling of delays declined by 3 percentage points from 1999.

Survey Item #


The Relationship Between Time to Resolve Problem and Perceptions About Overall Problem Handling

(1) Yes, and handled quickly 52% 69% 80%

(2) Yes, but not handled quickly 11% 18% 20%

(3) No, problem not resolved 13% 16% 10%

The way a problem was resolved is strongly related to respondent’s satisfaction with the way the problem was handled. Respondents have higher satisfaction ratings when a problem is handled quickly than when it is not handled quickly or not resolved at all. In fact, satisfaction ratings for not handling problems quickly are similar to satisfaction ratings for not having the problem resolved at all.

C4. Handling of Problems

(a) (b) (d)

Handling Handling The way problem

C3. Was Problem of delays of mistakes was handledResolved? Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied

Of those who had a problem...


Relationship of Problem Handling with Overall Satisfaction

C2. Have you experienced a problem over the past year? C3. Was problem resolved? C7. Overall Satisfaction

Satisfied

Yes, but did not contact USPTO

10%

Respondents who had a problem, contacted the USPTO about it, and had it handled quicklyhad an overall satisfaction rating of 80%, compared to respondents who had a problem, contacted the USPTO about it, and did not have it handled quickly (47%) or respondents who did not get their problem resolved at all (42%).

Yes, and contacted USPTO

55%

No, I did not experience a

problem

35%

85%

45%

80%

47%

42%

Yes, and handled quickly (27%)

Yes, but not handled quickly (48%)

No, problem not resolved (26%)


Is Having Problems Related to Perceptions About Overall Customer Service?

Satisfied

B2Direct you C1SC2 C1SR1 C1SR2

C2. Have you experienced promptly Genuinely Assistance Promptany problems with the proper committed at time andUSPTO services office/ to providing convenient helpfulover the past year? person best service to you service

(1) Yes, and I contactedUSPTO 63% 45% 58% 50%

(2) Yes, but did notcontact USPTO 59% 32% 52% 42%

(3) No, no problem 82% 71% 81% 78%

Having problems is negatively related to perceptions about customer service. Note the higher levels of satisfaction for those respondents not experiencing problems.


Relationship of Handling Problems Quickly with Perceptions About Staff Responsiveness

Satisfied

C1SR1 C1SR2Assistance at time Prompt and

C3. Was your problem resolved? convenient to you helpful service

(1) Yes, and it was handledquickly 81% 74%

(2) Yes, but it was nothandled quickly 50% 43%

(3) No, problem was not resolved 48% 37%

Handling/not handling problems quickly is related to perceptions about responsive customer service.


Relationship of Handling of Problems with Perceptions About Customer Service

Satisfied

C1SC2 C1SR1Genuinely Assistance C1SR2 C1SR3committed at a time Prompt Flexibility

C4d. Satisfaction with to providing convenient and helpful in trying toHandling of Problem best service to you service address needs

Satisfied 68% 84% 81% 71%

Neutral 37% 50% 41% 33%

Dissatisfied 26% 39% 28% 24%

Satisfaction with handling of problems is positively related to perceptions about customer service. Of those who are satisfied with problem handling, 81% are satisfied with receiving prompt and helpful service; only 28% of those dissatisfied with the handling of problems are satisfied with prompt and helpful service.

Of those who had a problem...


Problems/Difficulties with USPTO Services Over Past Year by Affiliation

C2(1) C2(2) C2(3)Yes, and Yes, but did No, did not

contacted not contact experienceAffiliation someone someone problem

Federal Agency 51% 8% 41%

University/College 24% 0% 76%

Large Business 55% 9% 36%

Small Business 39% 6% 55%

Law Firm 59% 10% 31%

Individual Inventor 27% 7% 66%

About 70% of law firm respondents experienced problems during the past year. Fewer than 40% of individual inventor respondents experienced problems.

What Are the Most Frequent Problems That Customers

Encounter?

(Write-In Comments)

P-74


C5. What are your most frequently encountered problems?

Respondents were asked to comment on their most frequently encountered problems. These responses were coded under the following categories.

Percent inCategory* Problem Category

28 Lost or Misplaced Files, Papers, and Other Documents

22 Filing Receipt and Other Document Errors

21 Patent Examiner/Examination Issues

17 Delays and Problems After Allowance and Payment of Issue Fee/Petitions

13 Administrative Staff and Process/Paperwork Management

8 Telephone Service/Employee Accessibility and Responsiveness

8 General Processing Delays

8 Correction of Errors/Problem Resolution

7 Delays and Problems in Office Actions________________

* Percents do not add up to 100% because comments were often coded under more than one category.


C5. What are your most frequently encountered problems? (continued)

Percent inCategory* Problem Category

6 Status Inquiries and Notification

5 Mail Problems/Fax Delivery

4 Problems with Fees/Deposit Accounts

4 Abandonment Because of USPTO Errors

4 Miscellaneous

3 Communication Skills

2 Reexaminations and Appeals

1 Drafting/Drawings

1 Systems and Technology

1 Patent Cooperation Treaty

________________

* Percents do not add up to 100% because comments were often coded under more than one category.


C5. What are your most frequently encountered problems?— Some Verbatim Comments

“Delays in examination due to cases being lost, responses not being matched to case, or office action for a different application being sent to me.”

“Time delays due to “losing” or misrouting papers and files in the PTO, both within the examination group and during the issue process.”

“Applications in the same family being assigned to different examiners resulting in inconsistent patentability examination.”

“Errors in issued patents. Amendments not entered correctly. Typographical error in the cover page (title, inventor name). Unacceptable delay in responding to petitions. Inconsistent and incorrect restriction requirements.”

“Inconsistency of examination between examiners and between applications; failure to apply or consider governing legal standards; occasional adversarial stance taken by some examiners beyond what is required to properly discharge responsibilities; delays, particularly when files are not in the hands of the examiner.”

“Erroneous filing receipts, amendments submitted with the issue fee to conform the specification to formal drawings that never make it into the issued patent, even though the amendment is approved.”

“Abandonments that were not the fault of the applicant and most often are due to the loss of papers by the PTO.”


“Lost documents by the PTO (particularly IDS references); wrongful abandonment of applications.”

“Lost files or file parts (e.g., some drawings omitted at publication)—unexplained delays in publication after payment of issue fee, or inability or unwillingness to ascertain why delays have occurred in the process.”

“It was impossible to get a filing receipt corrected. After four re-submissions for correction, I gave up.”

“Delay in receiving patents (over 6 months after paying the fee); examiner gives overly expansive scope to marginally relevant prior art; need better searches.”

“Unable to correct data in patent office computer records, e.g., incorrect inventors, incorrect filing dates, continuing application data, etc.”

“Papers not matched to files timely or accurately; examiners frequently ask me to use informal fax numbers to assure they will get the papers in a reasonable time.”

“Delays in issuing office actions; delays in acting on responses; delays in acting on cases remanded by the board; examiners merely word processing office actions.”

C5. What are your most frequently encountered problems?— Some Verbatim Comments (cont.)


Problem Resolution – In Summary

The problem resolution process continues to be an area for improvement.

About two-thirds of the respondents experienced problems/ difficulties with USPTO services over the past year (a statistically significant declineof 6 percentage points from 1999). Only 10% of respondents with a problem did not contact USPTO about it (the same level as in 1999).

The handling of delays, mistakes, and problems continues to have relatively high levels of dissatisfaction.

The handling of delays has a satisfaction level of 21% (a 3 percentage-point decline from 1999).

Handling a problem quickly has a strong positive relationship with customer satisfaction and perceptions about responsive customer service.

It should be noted that 30% of the respondents who contacted USPTO about a problem did not have it resolved.

The most frequently encountered problems appear to be lost/misplaced files and documents, errors in filing receipts, and examination issues.

Change in Service

P-80


6

7

14

11

13

57

57

54

58

57

37

36

32

31

30

% Worse % Same % Better

C6d. Proactive individualized service compared to previous filings

C6a. Handling of problems/ complaints compared to previous filings

C6e. Timely filing receipts compared to previous filings

C6c. Clear written communicationsof position of examiners compared to previous filings

C6i. Examiners receive faxes within1 business day

Change in ServiceRanked by % Better

Survey Item #

____________________

* Change in percent better from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant.

** Not asked in 1999.


12

9

8

26

58

64

69

54

30

27

23

20


C6g. Phone calls returned within 1 business day compared to previous filings

C6h. Directed promptly to proper person compared to previous filings

C6b. Quality of patent search compared to previous filings

C6f. Accurate filing receipts compared to previous filings

Survey Item #

Over one-third of respondents report better services in proactive individualized service and handling of problems/complaints compared to previous filings. For the most part, respondents are more likely to indicate that service was better compared to service in previous filings than they were to indicate that service was worse. The only exception was the accuracy of filing receipts.

Change in Service (cont.)Ranked by % Better

How Do Changes in Most Recent Experience Compare with

Satisfaction Results from 1999?

P-83


Change in Handling of Problems/ComplaintsComparison with Problem Resolution Questions

C6a. Handling of problems/ complaints compared to previous filings 7 57 36


Reports of better overall handling of problems/complaints in most recent filings compared with previous filings were over 5 times as great (36%) as reports that overall handling of problems/complaints was worse (7%). Satisfaction levels for problem resolution items show no significant improvement over 1999 levels.

Handling of Problems/Complaints

Change in % Satisfiedfrom 1999 to 2000

C4a. Handling of delays -3

C4b. Handling of mistakes +1

C4d. The way your problem or difficulty was handled -1


Change in Quality of Patent Search Comparison with Search Questions

C6b. Quality of patent searchcompared to previousfilings

8 69 23


Quality of Patent Search


B4. Clear written communications ofposition of examiners 0

B11. Conduct a thorough search during patentexamination process -3

C1OP2. Fairness of the final decision +1

Reports that the quality of the patent search was better for most recent filings clearly outnumber reports that the quality was worse (23% vs. 8%). Quality of examination shows no significant change from 1999, and over two-thirds felt that quality of search is about the same as in previous filings.


Change in Written Communications Comparison with Written Communications Questions

C6c. Clearly written communicationsfor position of examinerscompared to previous filings 11 58 31


Written Communications

Change in %

Satisfiedfrom 1999 to 2000

B4. Clearly written communications of position of examiners 0

While clearly written communications of position of examiners has the same level of satisfaction as in 1999, close to three times as many respondents reported that written communications were better than did respondents who said they were worse.


Change in Proactive Individualized Service Comparison with Service Questions

C6d. Proactive individualized service compared toprevious filings 6 57 37


Change in % Satisfied

from 1999 to 2000

C1AP3. Use of telephone for examination issues **

C1SR1. Assistance at a time convenient to you +2

C1SR2. Prompt and helpful service +4*

C1SR3. Flexibility in trying to address your needs +2

C1SC2. Genuinely committed to providing the best possible service +2

Over one-third of respondents believe proactive individualized service was better compared to previous filings, and prompt and helpful service shows significant improvement in satisfaction compared to the 1999 level.

Proactive Individualized Service

________________

* Change in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant.** Not asked in 1999.


Change in Timely Filing Receipts Comparison with Filing Receipt Questions

C6e. Timely filing receiptscompared to previousfilings

14 54 32


Timely Filing Receipts

Change in %

Satisfiedfrom 1999 to

2000

B10. Mail filing notices within30 days of receipt **

Almost one-third of the respondents believe filing receipts in their most recent filing were more timely compared to previous filings. Fourteen percent believe timeliness was worse.

_____________________



Change in Accurate Filing Receipts Comparison with Filing Receipt Questions

C6f. Accurate filing receiptscompared to previousfilings 26 54 20


Accurate Filing Receipts

Change in %

Satisfiedfrom 1999 to

2000

B9. Mail accurate filing notices **

Accuracy of filing receipts continues to be a concern, with more respondents reporting that accuracy was worse than reporting that it was better compared to previous filings.

_____________________



Change in Returned Phone Calls Comparison with Returned Phone Calls Questions

C6g. Phone calls returned within 1 business day compared to previous filings 12 58 30


Returned Phone Calls

Change in %

Satisfiedfrom 1999 to 2000

B3. Return phone calls within 1 business day +3

Close to one-third of the respondents reported that returning phone calls within 1 business day was better compared to previous filings, and the satisfaction level improved by 3 percentage points compared to 1999.


Change in Directing Customers Promptly Comparison with Directing Customers Promptly Questions

C6h. Being directed promptly to proper person comparedto previous filings

9 64 27


Directing Customers Promptly


B2. Direct you promptly to the proper office or person +6*

Satisfaction with being directed promptly to proper office/person improved significantly compared to 1999, with three times as many respondents reporting it was better compared to previous filings as those who reported it was worse.

________________



Change In Service – In Summary

Overall, respondents were more likely to indicate that aspects of service were better compared to previous filings than they were to indicate that aspects of service were worse.

The items with the highest levels of percent better include proactive individualized service and handling of problems. Satisfaction with prompt and helpful service showed a significant improvement from 1999.

The items with the lowest levels of percent better include quality of patent search and accurate filing receipts. Accurate filing receipts also has the highest level of percent worse.

Satisfaction levels with handling of problems remain low and show no significant improvement from 1999.

Questions Pertaining to the Overall Patent Process

(Overall Questions)

P-93


Overall Questions

C7 Overall satisfaction

C1P1 USPTO fees for patent application

C1P2 Good value for USPTO fees paid

Survey Item #


Overall Question - Overall Satisfaction

64

23

13

57

26

17

52

27

22

Satisfied (%)

Neutral (%)

Dissatisfied (%)

2000 1999 1998

C7. Considering all of your experiences with the USPTO patent process, how satisfied are you OVERALL?

Change in %from 1999

to 2000

+7*

-3

-4*

Overall satisfaction increased significantly compared to 1999. Only 13% of the respondents are dissatisfied, down significantly from 1999.

________________

* Change in percent from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant.


51

32

17

49

29

22

31

26

43

Satisfied (%)

Neutral (%)

Dissatisfied (%)

2000 1999 1998

52

31

17

49

28

23

36

30

34

Satisfied (%)

Neutral (%)

Dissatisfied (%)

2000 1999 1998

Overall Questions - Fees and Value

C1P1. USPTO fees for patent application**

C1P2. Good value for the amount of USPTO fees paid**

There were improvements in satisfaction levels. There were also statistically significant reductions in dissatisfaction levels for fees paid and good value for the amount of fees paid compared to 1999 levels.

________________

* Change in percent from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant.** In 1999 and 2000, the term “fees” was used instead of “costs” which was used in 1998.

Change in % from

1999 to 2000

+2

+3

-5*

Change in % from1999 to 2000

+3

+3*

-6*


Overall Questions – In Summary

Overall satisfaction improved by 7 percentage points compared to 1999 levels—a significant increase. Dissatisfaction is down to 13%.

Satisfaction with fees for patent application and value for the amount of fees paid is about 50%. While these levels are still fairly low, they continue to improve from 1999 levels.

There are positive trends in all three overall questions. In addition, dissatisfaction levels are less than 20%.

How Do the Five Factors Relate

to the Overall Questions?

P-98

Ranking of How Factors Relate to Overall Questions

Factors

Customer Service 1**Timeliness 4** Change in Service 3** Examination Process 2**

Single Item

Problem or DifficultyOver Past Year 5**

R2 *** .517

USPTO 2000 Patent Customer Satisfaction Survey

C7Overall

Variables Satisfaction

P-99

____________________

* Numbers indicate rankings, with 1 being the strongest predictor and 5 being the weakestpredictor of the outcome measure.

** Statistically significant at the p < .05 level.

*** R2 is the proportion of the variance in each overall question accounted for by all variables in themodel. As an example: .517, or 51.7%, of the variance in overall satisfaction is accounted for by allthe variables in the model. (An R2 value less than .30 indicates the variables, as a group, have lowexplanatory power, that is, they do not do a very good job of predicting that question.)


Impact of the Five Factorson Overall Questions – In Summary

The four factors and the single item, as a group, are good predictors of overall satisfaction. They help to explain differences in overall satisfaction levels.

The Customer Service and Examination Process factors are the strongest predictors of overall satisfaction.

Key Drivers:

Questions That Have the Strongest Relationship with

Overall Satisfaction

P-101


Key Driver Analysis

Two key driver analyses were performed:

Identification of key drivers was done separately for Service Standards and Patent Process items covering all respondents.

Because only those respondents who experienced problems in the past year answered questions about problem resolution, a separate identification of key drivers was done based on respondents who stated they had had a problem in the past year. The purpose of this second analysis was to see if any of the problem resolution items are key drivers of overall satisfaction. The first analysis did not include items on problem resolution.

______________

Note: All key drivers listed for each of the two analyses are strongly related to overall customer satisfaction. The key drivers are listed in the order they appear in the survey.

Identification of Key Drivers Separately for Service Standards

and Patent Process Items

(All Respondents)

P-103


Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction – By Service Standards and Patent Process*

(Excluding Problem Handling Item)

Service Standards Satisfied

B2. Direct you promptly to 69%proper office or person

B3. Return phone calls within 61%one business day

B4. Clear written communications 63%of position of examiners

B9. Mail accurate filing notices** 52%

B11. Conduct a thorough search 61%during patent examinationprocess

B16. Provide patent grant within36 months** 58%

Patent Process Satisfied

C1AP4. Consistency of examinations 44%

C1OP1. Outcome met your objectives 74%

C1OP3. Efficiency of the examination 53%process

C1SC2. Genuinely committed to 53%providing the best possibleservice

C1SR2. Prompt and helpful service 59%

C1SR3. Flexibility in trying to 53%address your needs

Search quality, telephone service, filing receipts, outcome of the process, and commitment to customer service represent areas strongly related to customer satisfaction.

________________

* Respondents who did not experience problems during the past year did not answer survey items on problem handling. Therefore, these problem handling items are not included in this analysis.

** Not asked in 1999 and is a new key driver in 2000.


1999 2000

1999 Key Drivers 2000 Comparison New This Year

B4. Clear written communications B4. Key Driver B16. Provide patent grantof position of examiners within 36 months

B8. Match properly addressed B8. Not a Key Driverfaxes with file and deliverwithin 3 days

B2. Direct you promptly to B2. Key Driverproper office or person

B9. Mail correct filing notices B9. Key Driver*within 30 days of receipt

B10. Conduct a thorough search B11. Key Driverduring patent examinationprocess

B3. Return phone calls within B3. Key Driverone business day

Comparison of 2000 Key Drivers to 1999 Key Drivers –Service Standards

________________

* In 2000, the question reads “Mail accurate filing notices for complete, standard application.”** Not asked in 1999 and is a new key driver in 2000.

Delivery of faxes is no longer identified as a key driver. Providing patent grant within 36 months is a new key driver not asked on the 1999 survey.


1999 2000

1999 Key Drivers 2000 Comparison New This Year

C3SR3. Flexibility in trying to C1SR3. Key Driver C1AP4. Consistency ofaddress your needs examinations**

C3OP3. Efficiency of the C1OP3. Key Driverexamination process

C3OP1. Outcome met your C1OP1. Key Driverobjectives

C2SC2. Genuinely committed C1SC2. Key Driverto providing best possibleservice

C3AP1. Length of the application *process

C3SR2. Prompt and helpful C1SR2. Key Driverservice

Comparison of 2000 Key Drivers to 1999 Key Drivers – Patent Process

________________

* Not asked in 2000.** Not asked in 1999.

Key drivers remain the same, with the addition of a new question on examination consistency.


Example: Relationship of Key Driver Timeliness Items with Overall Satisfaction and Customer Service

Satisfied

C1SC2. Genuinely C7. committed to

Key Driver Overall best service satisfaction possible

B16. Provide patent grant Satisfied 80% 63%within 36 months Dissatisfied 29% 30%

B2. Direct you promptly to Satisfied 77% 64%proper office or person Dissatisfied 22% 18%

B3. Return phone calls within Satisfied 77% 67%one business day Dissatisfied 33% 23%

Satisfaction vs. dissatisfaction with timeliness key drivers reflect large differences in overall satisfaction levels. For example, 80% of those satisfied with providing patent grant within 36 months are satisfied overall, compared with a 29% overall rating for those who are dissatisfied with timeliness of patent grants.


Example: Relationship of Examination Process Items with Overall Satisfaction and Customer Service

Satisfied

C1SC2. Genuinely

C7. committed to

Key Driver Overall best service satisfaction possible

B4. Clear written communications Satisfied 80% 63%of position of examiners Dissatisfied 21% 23%

B11. Conduct a thorough search Satisfied 79% 64%during patent examination Dissatisfied 30% 32%process

C1OP3. Efficiency of the examination Satisfied 86% 72%process Dissatisfied 22% 21%

C1AP4. Consistency of examinations Satisfied 86% 71%Dissatisfied 35% 28%

C1OP1. Outcome met your objectives Satisfied 78% 63%Dissatisfied 10% 12%

Satisfaction vs. dissatisfaction with examination key drivers also show large differences in levels of overall satisfaction.


Key Drivers – Separately by Service Standards and Patent Process – In Summary

(All Respondents)

For the Service Standards, the following are the key drivers: Direct you promptly to proper office or person Return phone calls within one business day Clear written communications of position of examiners Mail accurate filing notices Conduct a thorough search during patent examination process Provide patent grant within 36 months

For the Patent Process, the following are the key drivers: Consistency of examinations Outcome met your objectives Efficiency of the examination process Genuinely committed to providing the best possible service Prompt and helpful service Flexibility in trying to address your needs


Key Drivers – Separately by Service Standards and Patent Process – In Summary (cont.)

(All Respondents)

Key drivers that are well below the 60% satisfied level include: Mailing accurate filing notices Consistency of examinations Efficiency of the examination process Flexibility in addressing needs Genuinely committed to providing the best service

Providing patent grant within 36 months and prompt/helpful service are just below the 60% satisfied level.

Identification of Key Drivers Separately for Service Standards

and Patent Process/Problem Handling Items

(Respondents Experiencing Problems During the Past Year)

P-111


Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction – By Service Standards and Patent Process/Problem Resolution*

ServiceStandards Sat.

B2. Direct you promptlyto the proper office/person 69%

B3. Return phone callswithin 1 businessday 61%

B4. Clearly written position of examiner 63%

B11. Conduct a thoroughsearch 61%

B12. Respond within 30days to papersfiled after application allowed 55%

B15. Provide patent grantwithin 4 months ofissue fee payment 58%

PatentProcess Sat.

C1AP4. Consistencyof examinations 44%

C1OP1. Outcome metyour objectives 74%

C1OP3. Efficiency of theexaminationprocess 53%

C1SC2. Genuinely committed tobest possibleservice 53%

C1SR1. Assistance attime convenientto you 65%

C1SR2. Prompt andhelpful service 59%

ProblemResolution Sat.

C4a. Handling of delays 21%

C4d. The way yourproblem/difficulty washandled 32%

__________________

* Covers those respondents experiencing problems during the past year.

Quite similar to the first set of key drivers. Additional items include responding within 30 days to papers filed after application allowed, assistance at a time convenient to you, and the handling of delays/problems.


Key Drivers for Those Experiencing Problems – In Summary

The key drivers for those experiencing problems are quite similar to the key drivers for all respondents.

However, there are some items that are different:

New Key Drivers

B12 Respond within 30 days to papers filed after application is allowed

C1SR1 Assistance at a time convenient to you

C4a Handling of delays

C4d The way your problem/difficulty was handled

B15 Provide patent grant within 4 months of issue fee payment

Key Drivers Not Included

B9 Mail accurate filing receipts

C1SR3 Flexibility in trying to address your needs

Handling of delays and the way your problem was handled have low levels of satisfaction. In addition, responding within 30 days to papers filed after application allowed has a satisfaction level of 55%.

Moving Customers From Neutral to Satisfied in Overall Satisfaction

P-114


Moving Customers From Neutral to Satisfied in Overall Satisfaction

Since it is often easier to move customers from neutral to satisfied than from dissatisfied to satisfied, we analyzed the data for customers who reported they were neutral in overall satisfaction (C7)—23%.

We examined how those responding neutral to the overall satisfaction question responded to the key driver items compared to how those responding satisfied to the overall satisfaction questions responded to the key driver items.


Comparing Neutral and Satisfied Groups (% Difference)*

% Satisfied

Satisfied NeutralOverall Overall Difference in

Question (C7) (C7) Satisfaction

C1OP3. Efficiency of the examination process 70 24 46

C1SC2. Genuinely committed to providing the best possible service 71 26 45

C1SR2. Prompt and helpful service 78 33 45

C1SR3. Flexibility in trying to addressyour needs 71 28 43

C1AP4. Consistency of examinations 60 20 40

C1OP1. Outcome met your objectives 90 50 40

B11. Conduct a thorough search 76 37 39

B4. Clear written position of examiners 78 41 37

Examination quality, efficiency, and responsive customer service are key areas to increasing overall satisfaction.

________________

* Shows largest differences.


Experiencing Problems by Overall Satisfaction

C2 C4dExperienced Satisfied with way

a problem problem was handled

C7. Neutral Overall 80% 14%

C7. Satisfied Overall 53% 52%

Of those responding neutral to C7, 80% experienced a problem. Only 14% were satisfied with the way the problem was handled.


Moving Customers From Neutral to Satisfied in Overall Satisfaction – In Summary

Examination quality and responsive customer service, especially when reporting problems, are the key areas to focus on in moving customers who are neutral overall to satisfied overall with patent services.

Key driver items in which the neutral group had the lowest percent overall satisfaction include:

Consistency of examinations Efficiency of the examination process Genuinely committed to providing the best possible service Flexibility in trying to address your needs

Demographic Differences

P-119


Overall Satisfaction – Differences by Demographics* (Ranked by % Satisfied)

9

10

13

14

12

17

4

9

6

15

12

12

22

23

27

23

20

18

27

24

79

78

65

63

61

60

90

76

73

67

61

10

% Dissatisfied % Neutral % SatisfiedA1. Affiliation

Small Business (n=107)

Individual Inventor (n=163)

Federal Government Agency (n=34)

Law Firm (n=1,146)

Large Business (n=450)

Other (n=60)

A2. Frequency of Contact

Only once (n=40)

Occasionally (n=397)

Rarely (n=98)

Never (n=45)

Often (n=1,697)

____________________

* Demographics groups with fewer than 1% of the respondents are not shown.



4

8

8

14

11

12

22

24

85

80

70

62

% Dissatisfied % Neutral % SatisfiedA3. Relationship with USPTO

A one-time customer (n=57)

An occasional customer (n=156)

A frequent, but not continuous customer (n=130)A continuous customer (n=1,911)


Overall Satisfaction – Differences by Demographics* (cont.) (Ranked by % Satisfied)

____________________

* Demographics accounting for less than 1% are not shown.


Affiliation and Frequency of Contact

For all respondents, there is a significant negative relationship between frequency of contact (A2) and customer satisfaction (C7)—the more frequent the contact, the less positive the overall satisfaction level.

However, when controlling for law firms/large businesses (which have lower levels of satisfaction than other affiliations) there is a decrease in the strength of the relationship between frequency of contact and customer satisfaction.


Job Title by Overall Satisfaction

16

17

24

16

60

67

% Dissatisfied % Neutral % SatisfiedC8. Job Title

Patent Agent, Attorney, Lawyer,Counsel, Partner.

All other job titles

C7. Overall Satisfaction

Respondents identifying themselves as attorneys on the write-in job title item (C8) are less satisfied overall than all other respondents who wrote in a job title.


Demographic Differences in Overall Satisfaction – In Summary

Levels of overall dissatisfaction are low across all demographic groups.

Law firms and large businesses have the lowest levels of overall satisfaction, while individual inventors and small businesses have the highest levels (note that there were only 34 federal agency respondents). Levels of dissatisfaction for all affiliations are below 20%.

Customers who contact USPTO often have lower overall satisfaction levels.

Regarding relationships with USPTO, one-time and occasional customers have higher levels of overall satisfaction than frequent and continuous customers.

Respondents who identify themselves as attorneys are less satisfied than all other respondents.

Demographic Differences by the 5 Factors

A1. Affiliation

Individual Inventor 74 73 72 43 28Small Business 76 74 68 35 34Federal Government Agency 69 66 61 42 26Large Business 63 64 56 26 32Law Firm 65 63 52 28 29Other** 69 68 60 28 28

A2. Frequency of Contact

Never 73 76 73 45 25Only once 84 77 79 48 31Rarely 77 70 65 26 25Occasionally 75 74 65 41 37Often 63 62 52 26 28


______________________


** Other affiliations specified were mostly Sole Practitioners and Patent Agents.

P-125

Examination Customer Problem ChangeOverall Patent Data* Process Service Timeliness Resolution in Service

Average % Satisfied Avg. %Better

Demographic Differences by the 5 Factors (cont.)

A3. Relationship with PTO

A one-time customer 84 86 84 39 59

An occasional customer 78 76 73 46 28

A frequent, but not continuous customer 72 70 61 40 37

A continuous customer 64 63 53 27 29

______________________


P-126

Examination Customer Problem ChangeOverall Patent Data* Process Service Timeliness Resolution in Service

Average % Satisfied Avg. %Better



Demographic Differences by Factors – In Summary

In reviewing the differences, remember that around 80% of law firms and large businesses have frequent contact with USPTO throughout the year, while only 20% of individual inventors have frequent contact.

Except for the Change in Service factor, large businesses and law firms are among the least satisfied, especially for the Timeliness and Problem Resolution factors.

Individual inventors and small businesses are the most positive on the Examination Process, Customer Service, and Timeliness factors.

For the Change in Service factor, small businesses were the most positive, followed by large businesses.


Demographic Differences by Factors – In Summary (cont.)

Customers who contacted USPTO only once over the past year are the most satisfied on all factors except for Change in Service. Those who contacted USPTO occasionally during the year are the most positive about service being better. Those that contacted USPTO often are among the least positive across all factors.

The longer the relationship with USPTO, the less positive customers are across all factors except for Change in Service.

For the most part, demographic differences followed the same pattern as last year.

The demographic differences again show similar results for two customer segments:

Law firms/large businesses and individual inventors/small businesses.


20

16

18

15

30

17

31

16

50

66

51

69


Selected Key Driver Questions by Customer Segment

C3SC2. Genuinely committed to providing best possible service

Large Business/Law Firms

Small Business/Individual Inventors

C3OP3. Efficiency of the examination process

Large Business/Law Firms

Small Business/Individual Inventors

Differences such as those displayed above are typical between large businesses/law firms and small businesses/inventor customer segments.

Results by Technology Area

P-130


Technology Area by Affiliation

Federal Univ. or Large Small Law Indep.Agency College Bus Bus. Firm Inventor Other Total

Biotech & OrganicChem (1600) 0% 1% 29% 4% 63% 1% 2% 100%

Chem & MaterialsEngineering (1700) 2% 0% 30% 4% 59% 3% 2% 100%

Comm & InformationProcessing (2700) 1% 0% 16% 3% 74% 4% 2% 100%

Physics, Optics (2800) 3% 1% 18% 2% 71% 2% 3% 100%

Designs (2900) 0% 0% 10% 3% 75% 8% 4% 100%

Transportation,Construction (3600) 2% 0% 12% 3% 71% 10% 2% 100%

Mechanical Engineering,Manufacturing (3700) 1% 0% 16% 5% 68% 8% 2% 100%

Affiliation

Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry and Chemical and Materials Engineering have the lowest levels of respondents from law firms and the highest levels of respondents from large businesses.


Differences in Overall Satisfaction by Technology Area(Ranked by % Satisfied)

10

13

13

11

15

15

17

18

21

23

25

24

25

28

72

66

65

64

61

60

55


Designs (2900)

Transportation, Construction, Agriculture, and Security (3600)

Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products (3700)

Chemical and Materials Engineering (1700)

Communications and Information Processing (2700)

Physics, Optics, Semiconductors, and Electrical Engineering (2800)

Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry (1600)

C7. Considering all of your experiences with the USPTO patent process, how satisfied are you overall?

Five of the technology areas show an improvement of 6 percentage points or more compared to 1999 levels. Designs and Physics show statistically significant improvements.


+8*

+6

+6

+4

+9

+12*

-1



B2. Direct you promptly to the proper office/person

Designs (2900)

Mech. Eng., Manufact., & Products (3700)

Chem. & Mtrls. Eng. (1700)

Comm. & Info. Proc. (2700)

Trnsp., Constr., Agric., & Security (3600)

Physics, Optics, etc. (2800)

Biotech. & Organic Chem. (1600)

B3. Return calls within one business day


Designs (2900)






10

12

12

15

15

12

14

16

18

18

16

17

23

21

75

70

70

69

68

65

65


17

15

17

18

22

23

23

19

22

20

21

18

20

21

64

63

63

61

60

58

57

Selected Key Driver Questions by Technology Area(Ranked by % Satisfied)


+5

+6

+7

+6

+5

+5

-1

+3

0

+9

+1

+10

+1

-6


B4. Clear written communicationsof position of examiners

Designs (2900)







B11. Conduct a thorough search duringpatent examination process

Designs (2900)







Selected Key Driver Questions by Technology Area (cont.)(Ranked by % Satisfied)

5

14

13

14

21

17

22

17

22

23

22

20

29

25

78

64

64

64

59

54

52


7

11

14

15

19

23

22

21

19

23

25

25

23

27

72

70

63

60

56

54

51


+6

-1

+2

+3

+1

-7

-5

-1

+5

-2

-6

-7

-4

-11*



B16. Provide patent grant within36 months

Designs (2900)








Designs (2900)







Selected Key Driver Questions by Technology Area (cont.) (Ranked by % Satisfied)

8

12

13

10

18

22

24

19

23

25

33

30

31

37

78

66

62

57

52

47

38


17

31

30

28

37

32

48

20

22

23

26

25

35

20

63

48

47

45

39

32

32


**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**



C1OP3. Efficiency of the examination process

Designs (2900)







C1SR2. Prompt and helpful service

Designs (2900)








14

15

17

15

22

25

23

20

29

26

31

33

32

36

66

56

56

54

45

43

41


13

13

18

12

17

16

14

21

25

23

30

24

28

31

66

63

59

58

58

56

55


+8

0

+4

+5

-1

-2

-7*

+7

+7

+6

-2

+7

+1

-1



C1SR3. Flexibility in trying to address your needs

Designs (2900)








12

15

15

19

16

17

24

31

30

31

28

33

33

30

57

55

54

53

51

50

46



+2

+1

+3

+3

-1

+3

-4


Differences Between Technology Areas

The Designs area continues to show the highest levels of satisfaction across most of the survey items.

However, among the other 6 technology areas, there are several items that have differences greater than 10 percentage points in percent satisfied.

Summary of

Qualitative Findings

P-139

Summary of

Open-Ended Comments

P-140


Methods and Procedures

Respondents were asked for their positive and negative feedback about the application process.

Respondents were asked if they had any recommendations for improvements in products and services (including any new products/services) at the USPTO.

Respondents were also asked to describe their most frequently encountered problems.

All responses were transcribed and are presented verbatim in Appendix H (Volume II of this report).

Project staff reviewed all responses and for each question developed categories which summarized the content of the responses.

Responses could be placed under more than one category depending on content.

Eighty-four percent of the respondents gave a response to at least one open-ended item (C5 or Section D).

Percentages given are out of the number of respondents who answered that question.


Overview of Open-Ended Comments

This year, the percentage of respondents who wrote comments increased from 76% in 1999 to 84% in 2000.

An unusually high number of comments and phone calls were received from respondents.

Those who responded were very interested in being heard and in expressing their opinions.

The qualitative findings support the quantitative results.

QUESTION D1What would you say particularly pleased you about the way your patent application was handled?

Percent inCategory* Responses were coded into 15 categories:

33 Employee Competence and Helpfulness24 Proactive Assistance / Suggested Amendments, Interviews,

Use of Telephone and Fax to Expedite Resolution of Issues18 Timeliness / Responsiveness / Status Updates13 Improvements in Process13 Employee Courtesy12 Searches and Examination Quality8 Office Actions and First Actions3 Outcome of Process / Smooth Process2 Organization of Process / Procedures / Instructions / Forms2 Accuracy and Administration of Paperwork2 General Problem Resolution1 Filing Receipts1 Systems and Technology1 Assistance of Supervisors1 Costs / Value

P-143

__________________

* Percents will not add up to 100% since comments were often placed in more than one category.



D1: What would you say particularly pleased you about the way your patent application was handled?

“When matters were handled properly, even when the application was rejected, it was a pleasure to be part of the patenting process.”

“I was recently contacted by an Examiner who proposed detailed amendments in order to allow the application.”

“Lately the Examiners make use of telephone conferences to make suggestions. That is a very helpful practice. Further, the Examiners are much more cooperative now.”

“The examiner promptly reversed himself and accepted the application, once it was explained to him that he completely misunderstood the gist of the invention.”

“They most pleased me in the way of handling my patent application is that your Examiners (some of them) help me how to correct my patent claims in order to meet US patent practice.”

Some Verbatim Comments:


D1: Verbatim Comments (cont.)

“Patent office staff is clearly committed to trying to provide better service. They are hampered by time constraints and the variable quality of the Examiner corps.”

“Filing receipts are being sent on a more timely basis. Some examiners are prepared to discuss what is allowable subject matter to expedite prosecution.”

“The clarity of almost all written communications from the PTO is significantly improved, with positions on patentability much easier to follow.”

“Recently, I was able to obtain a corrected filing receipt by just calling and bringing the error to their attention. Within weeks I had the corrected filing receipt with minimal work. This is a significant improvement.”

“Some of the examiners we have worked with have taken a partnership approach to prosecution. They would tell us what they think is allowable and work with us to reach allowance. But, some examiners take a very pedantic, they-know-more-than-us view and do not even try to work with us. They just reject… reject… reject…”



“I have been working with the Patent Office for 20 years and have seen such an improvement. One of the biggest is accessibility to USPTO personnel. It is nice when you can take care of things over the telephone or via facsimile. I am able to call the various departments and get to the bottom of a problem in a timely manner. I have had Examiners call the attorney of record or his assistant and problems or issues are taken care of and followed up.”

“The Customer Assistance Line and PCT Help desks have been very helpful in addressing questions, problems, etc.”

“Professionalism in the examination process; flexibility with regard to inclusion of more than one embodiment where all embodiments would constitute the same invention for examination purposes, which increases efficiency and value.”

“The examiners are providing good first actions as to application of the prior art and objections to the applications. Issues can be addressed and prosecution completed quickly.”


31 Searches / Examination Quality, Time Period, Production Goals, and Requirements

20 Examiner Knowledge, Attitude, Assistance, and Communication Skills

16 Timeliness / Responsiveness

13 Clerical and Mail Room Competence, Communication Skills

11 Errors in Documents and Fees / Correction Process

10 Forms / Filing Procedures / Instructions / Process

9 Lost or Misplaced Materials

8 Problem Resolution / Interviews

8 Office Actions

8 Customer Service / Accessibility / Status Updates

P-147

__________________


QUESTION D2What, if anything, would you say particularly displeased you or what flaws do you see in the application process?


Percent inCategory* Categories (cont).

4 Patent Issuance Delays and Problems

4 Inconsistency of Decisions

4 Costs / Refunds / Deposits

3 Supervisory Review

3 Miscellaneous

2 Drafting / Drawings / Photos


P-148

__________________


QUESTION D2 (cont.)



Problems/Flaws in the Application Process (D2)by Satisfaction (C7)

To better understand the written comments on problems/ flaws in the application process (D2), we sorted the items by category and by three respondent groups: those responding dissatisfied, neutral, and satisfied to the question on overall satisfaction with the USPTO Trademark Process (C7).


What Displeased You/Flaws in the Application Process by Satisfaction Rankings (cont.)

Number of Comments by Category and Satisfaction Rating

What Displeased You/FlawsCategories – (D2)*

Response to Overall Satisfaction with Patents (C7)

Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Total

Lost or Misplaced Materials 20 26 51 97

Examiner Knowledge, Attitude, Assistance, andCommunication Skills

68 68 81 217

Timeliness/Responsiveness 34 41 118 193

Errors in Documents and Fees/CorrectionProcess

31 26 69 126

Forms/Filing Procedures/Instructors/Process 20 20 77 117

Clerical and Mail Room Competence,Communication Skills

37 36 71 144

Costs/Refunds/Deposits 13 10 33 56

Customer Service/Accessibility/Status Updates 22 18 45 85

Inconsistency of Decisions 11 18 40 69

Searches/Examination Quality, Time Period,Production Goals and Requirements

86 103 184 373

Office Actions 24 36 45 105

Problem Resolution/Interviews 21 32 51 104

Patent Issuance Delays and Problems 6 10 21 37

Supervisory Review 15 6 15 36

*Categories containing more than 35 responses.


What Displeased You/Flaws by Satisfaction Ratings - In Summary

The areas that displeased those dissatisfied and neutral overall (C7) deal with examiner competence and examination quality issues.


D2: What, if anything, would you say particularly displeased you or what flaws do you see in the application process?

“The adequacy of the search and the reasons given for rejection. The rejection was vague in the application of the facts and law. The examiners should be held to the same standard of specificity as the applicant.”

“It is extremely difficult to receive assistance and supervisory support relating to an inappropriate examiner. It often appears that management is aware of problem employees but is ineffective in correcting the problems generated.”

“Inconsistency of examination within the same group and unfamiliarity with the laws and rules.”

“Once the mistake has occurred, it takes a great deal of our time to correct it. Case in point - an application was lost in the Patent Office for nearly 2-1/2 years, it was somehow recovered in March of 2000, however with all the wrong filing data. So far we have not been able to correct this problem.”




“Inaccuracies in filing receipts. General mail room inefficiency.”

“After payment of issue fee, it has been difficult to obtain status and identify cause in delay of grant.”

“Getting files and communications to the examiners. I have yet to speak with an examiner who, when having a communication faxed to him or her, did not ask that they be notified in advance of the transmission in order to avoid the risk of losing the facsimile, or having to wait days for the facsimile to be transmitted to them.”

“Clerical problems that turn into more serious problems. Examination appears to be inconsistent. Some examiners turn out such poorly reasoned actions that it appears they have never read the application.”

“Quality of examination is uneven. Some office actions have been unclear, poorly written, non-responsive to amended subject matter and/or not based on an understanding of technical issues and statutory/ case law.”



“Inability to verbally communicate with examiners. Non-native English speaking examiners result in delays and misunderstandings of requests.”

“Most problems are of a clerical nature and can be corrected; however the time expended to make these corrections is extremely costly and adds frustration to the process.”

“I am still confronted with Notices of Abandonment for alleged failure to respond to Office Actions despite the fact that I have post card receipts and checks (cashed by the PTO) evidencing that my amendment was timely-filed.”

“I have not received good responses to my requests for status letters. This is especially true for applications, which for some reason appear to have become sidelined during the prosecution process.”

“Inaccuracy in both Filing Receipts and Notice of Recordation Lost Replies/Amendments and Faxes. Lost or misplaced file wrappers.”

QUESTION D3How can products and services be improved at the USPTO? (including any new products or services)



15 Staff Supervision, Reviews and Accountability / Compensation /Staffing and Qualifications

12 Examiner Training: Knowledge, Responsiveness, andCommunication Skills

12 Administrative Process / Accuracy and Management of Paperwork

8 Searches / Electronic Searches and Tools

8 Timeliness

6 Costs / Use of Fees / Fee Reminders / Deposit Accounts and Refunds

6 Time to Perform Examination / Productivity Measures / Workload /Examiner Staffing

6 Examination Quality and Consistency

6 Examiner Proactive Assistance / Interviews / Problem Resolution

6 Support Staff Training: Technical and Clerical Skills, Responsiveness, and Communication Skills

P-155

__________________



QUESTION D3 (cont.)

Percent inCategory* Categories (cont.)

5 Changes in Examination Process, Requirements, and Drawings

5 E-mail Communications / Fax Operations

5 Access to Status Information / Updates of Status Database

4 Telephone Operations, Directory, and Assistance / Voice Mail

4 Forms / Instructions / Examples

3 Independent Inventors / Small Businesses

3 All Staff: Customer Service, Accuracy, Flextime

3 Review of Examinations / Second Opinions / Petitions / Appeal Process

3 Allowance and Post Allowance Procedures / Issuance Notification /Printing and Publication

2 Access to Information on Procedures, Policies, Rules, etc.

2 Mailroom Operations

4 Miscellaneous

P-156

__________________




D3: How can products and services be improved at the USPTO? (including any new products or services)

“Continue improvement in uniformity and quality of examination; find a better way to internally address your problem areas.”

“Cut back on the use of automated phone messages - especially for practitioners - people get me to the right person quickly - the automated system does not. Its use seems to be increasing.”

“More training, better dissemination of explanation of rules. Examiners tell me that they are the last ones to have a rule explanation.”

“Ensuring that Examiners provide “Quality” Office Actions which set out in a clear manner - the bases of rejections. Too often, they are too vague, leaving the attorney ‘guessing’.”

“Use of retired Patent Examiners as Limited Service Employees to conduct quality reviews of the examination of patent applications. Better and more SUBSTANTIVE training.”

“Provide more customer service for initial phase of application, i.e., a phone number dedicated to filing receipts.”




“One of the most difficult things to do is to find out the status of an application, particularly before it is assigned to an Examiner, and after a Notice of Allowance has been issued. Would like to see a special department that can run down the status of a case. Just one phone number to call. Now we must call several phone numbers trying to track down a case.”

“Make all reexamination and reissue papers available on-line to the public. Require all papers to be filed with an extra copy which will be scanned and put up on the web site and then placed in the public search room.”

“More training on subsection 112. E-mail order/filing of requests for patent copies. Faster/electronic ordering of prosecution histories. Ability to electronically order foreign references. Better forms on website - post forms that can be filled in like Library of Congress.”

“Change the PTO FORMS accessible online…to permit computer keying in entries into the blocks. WE HAVE TO PRINT THE FORMS AND TYPE THEM ON MANUAL TYPEWRITERS!!!!”

“Offer a current directory of phone numbers and names of PTO employees and responsibilities on the Internet.”

“If the PAIR system works, it will be helpful to be able to check the status of patent applications on line.”

QUESTION D4 Any additional comments?


14 Positive - Overall Patent Service / Improvement in Service

12 Negative - Examination Quality and Consistency / ProductivityMeasures / Time to Perform Examination

11 Negative - Costs / Use of Fees / Deposits / Refunds / Fee Reminders

10 Positive - Staff Competence & Customer Service / Examination Quality

10 Negative - Survey

7 Negative - Lost Files and Paperwork / Administrative Process / Mail Operations

6 Negative - Examiner Knowledge, Responsiveness, and Communication Skills

5 Positive - Systems and Technology

4 Negative - Staff Qualifications / Training / Supervision

4 Negative - General Customer Service and Employee Competence

3 Negative - Regulations / Procedures / Process / Instructions / Forms

3 Negative - Timeliness / Responsiveness / Status Notices

P-159

__________________



QUESTION D4 (cont.)

Percent inCategory* Categories (cont.)

3 Negative - Searches

3 Negative - Systems and Technology

3 Negative - Reexamination and Appeal Process / Complaint Procedures

3 Suggestions for Improvements

3 Negative - Post Allowance and Issuance Problems and Delays

3 Negative - Examiners’ Proactive Assistance / Interviews / ProblemResolution

3 Positive - Survey

1 Negative - Support Staff Competence / Customer Service / Communication Skills

1 Negative - Staff Accountability / Cooperation / Incentives

1 Negative - Drawings

5 Miscellaneous

P-160

__________________




D4: Any additional comments?

“Keep up the on-going improvement programs. The on-line patent data base is enormously useful and was fabulously done. The data base is user friendly and intuitive.”

“Most frustrating thing about the PTO is inability to get answers to procedural questions/matters and failure to get directed to a person who can answer your question. The helpline is of no use at all!”

“The USPTO should hold regional meetings for attorneys and inventors to cover new laws, procedures, changes, etc. They should not be tied in with organizations like Stanford U that charge an excessive amount to attend.”

“I see very great improvements occurring at the PTO— helpfulness of examiners and some improvement in efficiency. The PAIR system and ultimately electronic filing should help with clerical problems. The change in your organization is most visible in, e.g., the USPTO Today. Keep up the good work.”




“Doing these surveys is a very good idea.”

“I would love to see my electronic filing/amendment system. Overall, service is good! People are friendly—this is the most important thing. Keep it up.”

“I use your website frequently and find it to be a wealth of valuable information.”

“A three month patent maintenance fee reminder. (The current reminder given is after the deadline is already past, a late fee is required by then). It is hard for us to even figure out when is the correct due date for those maintenance fees.”

“Would be helpful if a review board could resolve basic USPTO errors before and without petitions, especially when clear procedural error occurs and can be shown.”

“The PAIR system is terrific. Installed smoothly, almost never crashes, very helpful. The maintenance fee branch automated status phone line is helpful. Please put on-line. Also, put assignment records on line.”


Observations from Open-Ended Comments

There were many comments about improvements in attitude across the board and that staff are routinely listening, trying to be helpful, and working hard toward a customer service culture.

The comments show an appreciation for proactive assistance by examiners in clearly stating their concerns and suggesting amendments/actions that would address and surmount rejections. Respondents feel there is a willingness by examiners to communicate by telephone and fax, which helps to clarify issues and advance prosecution.

“All of my interactions with examiners by telephone have been helpful and courteous, generally resulting in advancing prosecution.”

There were also positive comments about PAIR.


Observations from Open-Ended Comments (cont.)

There appears to be more complaints this year about search quality. More specifically, respondents point to rejections not clearly set for them and supported by appropriate references, inconsistent quality of rejections (e.g., Section 102, 112 rejections), and poor prior art searches.

Respondents want more focus on examiners clearly stating reasons for rejection and allowable subject matter. There is a feeling that better training and reduced workload would improve searches and Office Actions. This especially shows in First Office Actions.

Most of the administrative problems and complaints focus on: Lost or misplaced files, correspondence, drawings, papers—paper

handling in general; Errors in filing receipts; Faxes not being delivered to examiners or official file in a timely

manner, especially faxed amendments; Timeliness of First Office Actions after application filing; and The length of time from payment of issue fee to issuance of the

patent.



Administrative problems continue to be a major source of customer annoyance and frustration about the process. Respondents are pointing to the mailroom and the poor document handling processes.

Respondents continue to complain about the language proficiency of some examiners. There is a feeling that this makes for a difficult examination process, especially when the applicant is unsure the examiner understands his/her position and the examiners do not communicate their positions effectively.

It is interesting that most of the complaints about timeliness focus on the front and back ends of the process:

Assignment to an examiner and First Office Actions; and Time from payment of issue fee to issuance.

When there are errors/delays in the process, there are complaints about the difficulties in getting timely status information. Lack of responsiveness to status inquiries appears to be a continuing problem.



There is a perception that it takes a substantial amount of time and effort by the applicant to correct errors and mistakes made by USPTO. Respondents still feel it is “hard to get things back on track.”

“If something goes wrong (incorrect filing receipt, missing submissions, etc.), there is no one within USPTO to assist in correcting the problem.”

However, there were also some comments about the ease of correcting errors on filing receipts through the telephone.

Some of the more frequent suggestions for improvement by the respondents include:

Better procedures for finding lost files/documents; On-line status verification; Better supervision of newer examiners; Electronic filing; and Cite patent law cases more often to support rejections.


The standards that attracted the most comments were:

Providing first action;

Mailing patent grant after issue fee payment; and

Mailing accurate filing notices.

Areas in which respondents suggested additional new standards include:

Matching IDs and documents with file;

Acknowledgment of receipt of communications, including faxes;

Board of Appeals pending; and

Responding to petitions and other financial matters.

Comments About Performance Standards – Section B

Supplemental Section

Use of Internet-Based Survey

P-168


Use of Internet-Based Survey

Completion of the customer survey was made available to all respondents via the Internet. A total of 18% of the respondents used the Internet-based survey.

For those completing the survey via the Internet, some questions were asked about ease of use.


Use of Internet-Based Survey (cont.)

S1. How easy was it to complete this Internet-based survey?

Very Difficult/ NeitherDifficult Difficult nor Easy Very Easy/Easy

1% 9% 90%

S2. Would you consider using the Internet-based survey again?

Definitely Not/ Definitely/Probably Not Neither Probably

1% 1% 98%

Almost all respondents who used the Internet-based survey found it easy to complete and would use it again.

Overall Summary

P-171

Overall SummaryStrengths and Opportunities for Improvement

P-172

The following pages summarize the strengths (60% or more satisfied) and opportunities for improvements (25% or more dissatisfied).

Strengths

Customer Service

Courteous service (B1 & C4c)

Telephone service/returning calls within 1 business day and directing customers promptly (B3* & B2*)

Providing assistance at a time convenient to the customer (C1SR1)

______________

* Key Driver.


Overall SummaryStrengths and Opportunities for Improvement (cont.)

P-173

Strengths (cont.)

Examination/Application Process

Examination quality (conducting thorough search and a clearly written position (B4* & B11*)

Use of telephone for examination issues (C1AP3)

The application process (C1AP1 & C1AP2)

Fairness of the process outcome and outcome meeting your objectives (C1OP1* & C1OP2)

Timeliness

Respond to amendments within 4 months and disseminate information on changes before effective date (B14 & B6)

______________

* Key Driver.


P-174

Opportunities for Improvement

Consistency of examinations (C1AP4*)

Time standards:

Mail patent grant within 4 months of issue fee payment (B15)

Mail accurate filing notices and mailed within 30 days of receipt (B9* & B10)

Respond to status letters within 30 days (B5)

Problem handling (C4a**, C4b, C4d**)

Overall SummaryStrengths and Opportunities for Improvement (cont.)


______________

* Key Driver.

** Key driver for those experiencing problems.

Conclusions

P-175


Conclusions

The results of the 2000 Patent Customer Survey are quite encouraging.

Overall satisfaction with Patent services has improved by 12 percentage points in the last two years, increasing from 52% in 1998 to 64% in 2000. Dissatisfaction is now 13%, down from 17% in 1999 and 22% in 1998.

Responses to 21 of the 27 comparable items improved from 1999 to 2000. Seven of these items improved significantly.

All of the Customer Service items improved or remained the same, especially directing customers promptly to the proper office/person and prompt/helpful service.

The number of respondents believing service has improved compared to previous filings far outnumber those believing it is worse (except for accurate filing receipts).

A growing number of respondents are commenting about the proactive and individualized service, as well as the helpfulness, of examiners in pointing out appropriate changes and working out issues over the telephone. Close to 80% are satisfied with the use of the telephone for examination issues.


Conclusions (cont.)

Important areas with acceptable levels of satisfaction include courtesy, telephone service, examination quality, the application submission process, and outcome/fairness of the final decision.

Why Did Overall Satisfaction Improve?

The reasons for the increase of 7 percentage points in overall satisfaction from 1999 to 2000 may include the following improvements:

A decline in the percent of respondents experiencing problems/difficulties An improvement in the key driver of directing customers promptly to the

proper office/person An improvement in the key driver of returning calls within one business

day An improvement in the key driver of outcome meeting customer

objectives An improvement in the key driver of the efficiency of the examination

process An improvement in the key drivers of prompt and helpful service and

flexibility


Conclusions (cont.)

However, there remain areas that, while showing improvement, still have low levels of satisfaction:

Meeting standards for responding to status letters, mailing patent grant within 4 months of issue fee payment, and mailing accurate filing receipts.

The handling of problems (about two-thirds of the respondents experienced some type of problem or difficulty this past year).

Inconsistency of examination, asked for the first time on this year’s survey, also has a low level of satisfaction.

Survey results show a decline of three percentage points in satisfaction from 1999 in conducting a thorough search, and a clear written position of examining attorneys showed no improvement. Some key customer service items, such as flexibility, ability to provide accurate answers, and prompt/helpful service, remain below 60% in satisfaction.

Those who are either neutral or dissatisfied have a much less positive view about examination quality and responsive customer service. In addition, over 80% of the respondents who are either neutral or dissatisfied overall indicate that they have experienced problems during the year.


Opportunities for Improvement - The Vital Few

From the write-in comments and the results of the survey data analysis, the following “vital few” opportunities for improvement have been identified:

(1) Address through additional training of examiners the perceived inconsistency in the quality of rejections:

35 USC 102 and 103 – Patentability over prior art Section 112 – Description, enablement, and clarity requirements Application of drawing requirements

In addition, analyze complaints about the quality of searches and inconsistency of decisions to determine patterns and potential actions, including focused training.

(2) Respondents recognize that problems, errors, and misplaced documents will occur given the large workload. However, needed changes include a simple customer-friendly process for quickly correcting administrative errors and better procedures for tracking lost documents. Full implementation of Customer Service Centers can significantly improve performance here.

Conclusions (cont.)


Opportunities for Improvement - The Vital Few (cont.)

(3) Given the continuing low satisfaction ratings for responding to status requests, publicize the use of the PAIR system for tracking status. First, though, ensure that access problems reported by customers have been resolved.

(4) Analyze the causes of delays after issue fee payment and take appropriate action.

(5) There is a growing demand for the use of e-mail in correspondingwith examiners. Provide an update to customers about this potential action.

(6) Explore the possibility of a process for follow-up on complaints about poor search quality and inconsistency of decisions. Provide feedback to the applicant about findings and corrective action. Most of the respondents who rated overall satisfaction as either neutral or dissatisfied appear to be dissatisfied with search quality and the service provided in following up on their problems and complaints.

(7) Continue to work on a problem management and resolution system. Emphasis should be placed on the timeliness of feedback and problem resolution. Implementation of a Customer Complaint Resolution System, including widespread deployment of a database for capturing, tracking, and analyzing complaints, is needed to attack this important driver of overall customer satisfaction.

Conclusions (cont.)