Fall 2007 Customer Panel Quality Survey - 特許審査の出願人等による評価を踏まえた品質監理手法に関する調査研究

QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU, OUR CUSTOMER

1. What is your affiliation?

c

Law Firm or Sole Practitioner

d

Corporation

e

Independent Inventor

f

Other (University, Federal Government, etc.)

2. Which technology field listed below best describes the majority of patent applications you have filed over the past 3 months? (SELECT ONLY ONE)

c

Chemical (Technology Centers 1600 or 1700)

d

Electrical (Technology Centers 2100, 2600, or 2800)

e

Mechanical (Technology Centers 3600 or 3700)

f

Designs (Technology Center 2900)

g

Did not file a patent application in the past 3 months

3. Approximately how many Office Actions have you received during the past 3 months?

c

1 to 10

d

11 to 20

e

21 to 30

f

31 to 50

g

51 or more

h

Have not received an Office Action in the past 3 months

4. How often have you communicated over the telephone or in person with USPTO Patent Examiners in the past 3 months?

c

Have not communicated with patent examiners in the past 3 months

d

Only once

e

Rarely

f

Occasionally

g

Often

PATENT EXAMINERS’ DECISIONS

5. Consider your experiences over the past 3 months. Please think about the rules and procedures Patent Examiners must adhere to in their decisions. To what extent did the Patent Examiners you worked with adhere to the following rules and procedures with respect to:

Not At All

Small Extent

Moderate Extent

Large Extent

Don’t Know/Not Applicable

a. Citing appropriate prior art

c d e f g

b. Treating all claims

c d e f g

c. Providing enough information to

advance prosecution

c d e f g

d. Substantively addressing your

responses to Office Actions

c d e f g

e. Following appropriate restriction

practice

c d e f g

REJECTIONS PRACTICE

6. Consider all rejections you have received over the past 3 months. How often do you think the rejections made under the following statutes were reasonable in terms of being

technically, legally, and logically sound with respect to:

Rarely

Some of the Time

Most of the Time

All of the Time

Don’t Know/Not Applicable

a. 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections

c d e f g

b. 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections

c d e f g

c. 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections

c d e f g

d. 35 U.S.C. 112 Rejections,

Paragraph 1

c d e f g

e. 35 U.S.C. 112 Rejections,

Paragraph 2

c d e f g

OVERALL EXAMINATION QUALITY

7. In the past 3 months, how would you rate overall examination quality….

c

Very Poor

d

Poor

e

Fair

f

Good

g

Excellent

8. In the past 3 months, has overall examination quality….

c

Significantly Declined

d

Slightly Declined

e

Stayed the Same

f

Slightly Improved

g

Significantly Improved

9. In the past 3 months, have you experienced problems with the consistency of examination quality from one examiner to another?

c

Yes, to a large degree

d

Yes, to a small degree

e

QUALITY INITIATIVES

10. Focusing on those examiners who provide the highest quality examinations, what

distinguishes their work (i.e., what traits do they possess, or what practices do they follow, that result in a high-quality examination)?

_____________________________________________________________________________

11. You may be selected to participate in this survey again. If you are interested in completing this survey online, please provide your email address below:

Thank you for completing this survey.

Your information will be invaluable as we improve the

quality of our services for you, our customer!

⾗ᢱΤ ⾗ᢱ㧞

Concerning Measures for Understanding Evaluation of the “Quality of Patent Examination” by Customers

(Applicants / Patent Attorneys (Representatives))

Questionnaire

Name of your organization European Patent Office Respondent’s

Information (person in charge)

Name XXXXXXXX

Position Title XXXXXXXX

Department Principal Directorate Quality Management Address Bayerstrasse 115, D-80335 Munich

e-mail address

XXXXXXXX

Telephone number

XXXXXXXX

Facsimile number

*Definition of “examination”

In this questionnaire, “examination” refers to examination conducted from the filing of a patent application to a decision to registration (or to refusal). Specifically, it refers to

“determinations conducted by the examiners” (Note 1) in the “examination practice” (Note 2), and “examination procedures” (Note 3).

Note 1: Determinations made by the examiners, mainly on novelty, inventive step, description requirements, unity of invention, etc. (including determinations made on any one of these matters)

Note 2: Prior art document search (search report), sending of a notice of reasons for refusal (official communications by the examiners), a decision to refuse or register (grant),

dismissal of procedures taken by applicants (for example, refusal of amendments), and preparation of international search and examination reports in accordance with PCT

Articles 17 and 18, written opinions in accordance with PCT Article 34 and Rule 43bis, international preliminary examination reports in accordance with PCT Article 35, etc.

(including the cases of any one of these)

Note 3: Examination procedures, including the content of statements in notices issued by the examiners and the examiners’ response/attitude at the time of examination through interview or by telephone, FAX or mail.

Your answers to the questions below will not be used for any purposes other than those for this survey research. Some of your answers may be placed in the JPO’s Report on the Survey of Issues with the Industrial Property Right System in 2007, which the IIP (Institute of Intellectual Property) will prepare and submit to the JPO. Said report is to be disclosed to the public via the JPO’s website, etc.

Therefore, please consider availability for disclosure and select one from A to D below. The parts that should not be disclosed will be used only within the IIP and the department at the JPO in charge of this survey research.

*Please check the appropriate box below (put an ‘X’ in the appropriate box).

A. Available for disclosure

B. Available for disclosure without disclosure of country name (name of the patent office) C. Not available for disclosure

D. Partially not available for disclosure (please designate specific parts)

According to the Annual Report 2006

㧔http://www.epo.org/about-us/office/annual-reports/2006/business-report/patent-process.html㧕, user satisfaction surveys were conducted in 2006, and all 14 joint cluster units have been covered. In 2007, the surveys will be extended to cover written opinion added to search.

Could you explain to us the details of the user satisfaction surveys (in particular, contents of questions)? In addition, please tell us about other methods of understanding user evaluation of the quality of patent examination, if any.

Please incorporate the above points in your answers to the following questions.

Question 1. Concerning the status of implementation of measures for understanding user evaluation of the quality of patent examination (including customer satisfaction surveys on patent examination and user surveys)

Not available for disclosure

Please check the appropriate box below (put an ‘X’ in the appropriate box).

(A1) Measures are now being implemented.

(A2) Measures are not being implemented now, but are planned to be implemented in the near future.

ĺ (planned to be implemented from )

Ɣ Please write a specific year and month in which measures will start if you check this box.

(A3) Measures were implemented in the past, but are not being implemented now.

ĺ (implemented from to )

Ɣ Please write a specific period in which measures were implemented if you check this box.

(B) Measures are neither being implemented now nor are planned to be implemented in the near future.

ĺ If you put a checkmark in the box (A1), please answer Question 2 below. (no need to answer Question 3)

ĺ If you put a checkmark in the box (A2), please answer Question 2 below in regard to your planning measures to the extent possible.

ĺ If you put a checkmark in the box (A3) or (B), please answer Question 3 below (no need to answer Question 2).

Question 2. Concerning the details of measures for understanding user evaluation of the “quality of patent examination”

i) Outline of the method of understanding user evaluation of the “quality of patent examination”

Not available for disclosure

Please write your answer referring to the following viewpoints to the extent possible.

You do not need to answer respective viewpoints if you provide us with materials that show an outline.

(1) In what form is the evaluation understood (e.g. by interview, telephone hearing, questionnaire, and acceptance of complaints)?

(2) Is the evaluation conducted on a particular application? Or, is it conducted covering examination on the whole?

(3) Does the method of understanding the evaluation cover all technical fields? Or, does it cover examination in a particular technical field?

(4) Persons who evaluate the quality of examination and method of electing those persons and applications. (e.g. applicants and patent attorneys(representatives), only patent attorneys(representatives), randomly selected persons, or top 1,000 most frequent applicants, etc.), and the proportion of persons who evaluate to the total number of applications, etc.

(5) Frequency of the evaluation (e.g. about once a year)

(6) Which does the method of understanding the evaluation cover, domestic applications or PCT applications, or both of these applications?

Answer Column

1. User Satisfaction Surveys (USS)

The EPO has commissioned from an external market research company a survey for assessing the satisfaction with EPO's search and examination services in both the EPC and PCT procedures. The survey is conducted by telephone interviewing and aims to cover all 14 technical areas of the EPO (the so-called joint clusters or JC). The survey for each JC is repeated on a regular basis, possibly every two years. Respondents are both applicants and independent representatives working in the selected JC and are chosen at random basing on the files processed within the selected JC during a convenient period (e.g. the last year). The questionnaire covers aspects of quality pertaining to both the search and examination

procedures. Some questions relating to the search including the written opinion are asked concerning a specific application the selected respondent has filed during the reference period within the target JC. Particular care is demanded to avoid multiple contacts when possible respondents are working in multiple technical areas, which may give rise to the so-called "respondents' fatigue".

The results are analysed statistically and presented to the management of each technical area concerned. Results from the USS are merged with other internal and external quality control outcomes (e.g. Quality Audit, Operational Quality Control, Complaints, etc.) for e.g. deciding changes to work procedures.

2. External Complaints

The EPO has centralised the handling of complaints pertaining DG1 and DG2 activities. Complaints may be posted by normal mail as well as by e-mail. The centralised complaints management allows running specific complaints' statistics and to liaising with other EPO complaints handling departments, so as to provide an up to date picture of the number and types of external complaints and expression of user dissatisfaction.

3. Quality Audit

This is a purely internal quality control (QC) function. A specialised department comprising experienced examiners performs a quality audit on a sample of searches and substantive examinations.

4. Operational Quality Control (OQC)

This is also a purely internal QC function. It is an in-process check performed by the quality nominee within the same directorate providing comments to the examiner which help the examiner to ensure the quality of the product. The nature and frequency of the deficiencies raised are recorded at a statistical level and provide useful feedback in relation to work procedures, training, etc.

5. Discussions with Applicants/Representatives

Oral proceedings and/or personal Interviews allow the exchange of ideas between our customers and Examiners. This enhances the open and constructive communication with our customers.

6. Conferences

This is were an open exchange of ideas can take place. The EPO organises from time to time workshops on specific topics at the end of the conference.

7. IP Professional Bodies

The Quality Management is in frequent contact with representatives of relevant IP organisations such as EPI, Business Europe, AIPLA, etc. During regular

meetings, practical concerns of a general nature (not file-specific) are put on the table for open discussion between parties.

ii) Please answer the following questions if you investigate the evaluation by applicants, etc. through posing questions (including sending questionnaires and posing questions to applicants, etc. on the telephone.

You do not need to fill in the answer column if you present the questionnaire (content of questions) used by your office.

Not available for disclosure

(1) Do you pose different questions depending on the respondent, for example the industry, technical field, a national/ domestic company, a foreigner/foreign company, an applicant or an attorney(a representative), the company size or an individual, etc. ? Or, do you pose different questions depending on whether the relevant examiner’s communication is a refusal or a registration? If questioned, on a particular file, how are the questions different? Specifically, in what case and how are the questions changed?

Answer column

User Satisfaction Surveys (USS)

The respondent target is in the ratio 60%:40% Applicants vs. independent Representatives. For this analysis, in-house (corporate) attorneys are considered to be applicants.

The questionnaire covers aspects of the search procedure in general, as well as specific aspects of the search procedure including written opinion on some individual files (randomly selected from the production of the JC), aspects of the examination procedure under the EPC and PCT before the EPO.

The questionnaire is the same for the two types of respondents but may vary slightly between different technical areas (e.g. biotechnology has different problems than computers).

The current USS do not cover aspects of oral proceedings during examination or opposition. A separate ad-hoc survey will be started in the near future.

(2) Please explain what are asked by questions (for example, degree of satisfaction, easiness of understanding statements of examiner’s action, and timeliness of examination). (Presentation of specific questions would be very helpful.)

Answer column Example of question:

Please give your rating for overall satisfaction with EPO search services in the last 12 months? Would you rate them as ... (very good/good/satisfactory/poor/very poor).

The arguments covered by the questions for both procedures are:

- general aspects, such as overall satisfaction, comparison with 5 years before (trend), skills of staff, etc.

- specific aspects, such as timeliness, thoroughness, clarity, validity, etc.

- particular non-standard aspects of the procedure (e.g. non unity, exclusion from patentability, etc.)

- improvements (respondents may propose something).

iii) Please explain the background of introduction of the current method of quality management and problems with the current method, if any.

Not available for disclosure

Please write your answer while including the following viewpoints to the extent possible.

*Background

(1) What is the background of introduction of the current method?

(2) How long has the current method been implemented?

(3) If any other methods were adopted in the past, please explain to us differences between them and the current method and the reasons for shifting to the current method.

(4) Has the method of examination quality management (or the entire quality

management system including the method) been certified by ISO9000 or 9001, or other standards? (Please describe the implementation of internal and external audit, irrespective of obtainment of such certifications.)

*Results and Problems

(5) What were the results of introduction of the current method of quality management?

(Example: The number or percentage, etc. of claims from users is decreased.) (6) Do you think that the current method has problems? What are some specific

problems? (Example: the response rate is low so improvements, such as reducing the number of questions, are necessary.)

(7) Are there any plans for changing the current method? If any, when and why will the method be changed? How about will the method be after the changes?

Answer column

These answers refer to the EPO User Satisfaction Surveys

1) It is important to measure and monitor the level of satisfaction of our customers on a regular basis.

2) The EPO started with USS in 1997 on search services in a specific technical area. Now, USS are carried out on two-yearly basis to monitor trends of quality indicators.

3) The EPO tested the conduct of surveys via the internet instead of telephone interviewing. The response rate was too low to pursue this option.

4) The conduct of regular USS is one requirement of ISO9001. The EPO has not yet sought ISO certification but its procedures are being reviewed to confirm that they align with ISO requirements.

5) A big change in the procedure was the introduction of BEST (Bring Examination and Search together)

6) The current survey method is expensive (telephonic interviews). Users tend to avoid multiple contacts meaning that they are often not happy to be contacted several times even if they submit many files covering several technical fields (users' fatigue). Very important is as well to adopt strict data protection rules.

7) Depending on the results (e.g. stability of answers), the questionnaire may be shortened (some questions asked less often) or even run at office-wide level (i.e. not at JC level).

Other options consider the use of panel surveys.

iv) Concerning analysis and handling of evaluations

Not available for disclosure

Please write your answer referring to the following viewpoints to the extent possible.

You do not need to fill in the answer column if you present the results of analysis by your office.

(1) Who (what organization) analyzes evaluation results? (It is effective if the flow from user evaluation to analysis, feedback, etc. is explained.)

(2) Are results of analysis made available to the public? (Please tell us the name of the document (annual report, etc.), or URL (http://XXXXX), etc. in the case of a website.)

(3) Please explain how evaluation results are utilized for quality management (for example, results are fed directly back to the examiner in charge or his/her superior, or are compiled and utilized for improving the system and educating the examiners).

(4) To what points is attention paid in analyzing customer evaluation?

Answer column

1) an external market research company is appointed for running the surveys.

The exchange of information is the following:

- EPO provides the list of respondents and individual file reference for a specific JC

- the consultant selects (at random) a subset of respondents to be interviewed (according to different criteria such as country stratification, respondent type, etc.)

- the contractor performs the survey and the statistical evaluation of the results - the results are presented to the EPO management (Directors of the technical areas, Quality management and President).

2) We did not yet present the results to the public

3) The results are statistically relevant. We do not feed back results to individuals. All data management follows strict data protection guidelines and an individual link to specific data is not allowed. This is not only valid concerning our examiners but as well for the opinion expressed by an individual respondent.

4) The EPO has identified a restricted set of quality criteria to be monitored, e.g. Timeliness, Thoroughness, Clarity, Validity, etc.

Please answer Question 3 below if you put a checkmark in the box (A3) or (B) on page 2.

Question 3. Could you tell us reasons why your office presently or in future does not take any measures for understanding user evaluation of the “quality of patent examination,” if any? In addition, if the user evaluation was conducted in the past but was ceased or discontinued, please tell us the reasons thereof.

Not available for disclosure

Answer column

Not available for disclosure

Free Field (Please write freely anything about this questionnaire.)

⾗ᢱΤ ⾗ᢱ㧟㧙㧝

Concerning Measures for Understanding Evaluation of the “Quality of Patent Examination” by Customers

(Applicants / Patent Attorneys (Representatives))

Questionnaire

Name of your organization UK Intellectual Property Office Respondent’s

Information (person in charge)

Name XXXXXXXX

Position Title XXXXXXXX

Department Patents Directorate Address Concept House

Cardiff Road Newport NP10 8QQ e-mail

address

XXXXXXXX

Telephone number

XXXXXXXX

Facsimile number

XXXXXXXX

*Definition of “examination”

In this questionnaire, “examination” refers to examination conducted from the filing of a patent application to a decision to registration (or to refusal). Specifically, it refers to

“determinations conducted by the examiners” (Note 1) in the “examination practice” (Note 2), and “examination procedures” (Note 3).

Note 1: Determinations made by the examiners, mainly on novelty, inventive step, description requirements, unity of invention, etc. (including determinations made on any one of these matters)

Note 2: Prior art document search (search report), sending of a notice of reasons for refusal (official communications by the examiners), a decision to refuse or register (grant),

dismissal of procedures taken by applicants (for example, refusal of amendments), and preparation of international search and examination reports in accordance with PCT Articles 17 and 18, written opinions in accordance with PCT Article 34 and Rule 43bis, international preliminary examination reports in accordance with PCT Article 35, etc.

(including the cases of any one of these)

*Please check the appropriate box below (put an ‘X’ in the appropriate box).

A. Available for disclosure

B. Available for disclosure without disclosure of country name (name of the patent office) C. Not available for disclosure

D. Partially not available for disclosure (please designate specific parts)

We know that complaints and opinions received by the Quality Champion and examiners through the patent directorate customer visit program, telephone, e-mail are summarized and the summaries are available to the public on the UKIPO website

㧔http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/about-ourorg/about-contact/about-contact-feedback/about-contact-feedbac k-previous.htm㧕 as Previous Feedback. In addition, we also know that, in the Customer Satisfaction Survey in 2005, respondents evaluated the performance as both “Excellent” and “Poor” in response to the following question: “Q5 Of the services you have used, please say how satisfied you are with our

performance? (Patents).” Please tell us about other procedures for hearing directly the opinions of applicants, etc. about patent examination, if any. Also, if more detailed user surveys on patent examination using questionnaires were conducted in the past but are not conducted now, please explain to us the reasons for not conducting the surveys and tell us if such surveys are planned to be conducted again. Such information will be helpful.

Please incorporate the above points in your answers to the following questions.

Not available for disclosure

Please check the appropriate box below (put an ‘X’ in the appropriate box).

(A1) Measures are now being implemented.

(A2) Measures are not being implemented now, but are planned to be implemented in the near future.

ĺ (planned to be implemented from )

Ɣ Please write a specific year and month in which measures will start if you check this box.

(A3) Measures were implemented in the past, but are not being implemented now.

ĺ (implemented from to )

Ɣ Please write a specific period in which measures were implemented if you check this box.

(B) Measures are neither being implemented now nor are planned to be implemented in the near future.

ĺ If you put a checkmark in the box (A1), please answer Question 2 below. (no need to answer Question 3)

ĺ If you put a checkmark in the box (A2), please answer Question 2 below in regard to your planning measures to the extent possible.

ĺ If you put a checkmark in the box (A3) or (B), please answer Question 3 below (no need to answer Question 2).

Question 2. Concerning the details of measures for understanding user evaluation of the “quality of patent examination”

i) Outline of the method of understanding user evaluation of the “quality of patent examination”

Not available for disclosure

Please write your answer referring to the following viewpoints to the extent possible.

You do not need to answer respective viewpoints if you provide us with materials that show an outline.

(1) In what form is the evaluation understood (e.g. by interview, telephone hearing, questionnaire, and acceptance of complaints)?

(2) Is the evaluation conducted on a particular application? Or, is it conducted covering examination on the whole?

(3) Does the method of understanding the evaluation cover all technical fields? Or, does it cover examination in a particular technical field?

(5) Frequency of the evaluation (e.g. about once a year)

(6) Which does the method of understanding the evaluation cover, domestic applications or PCT applications, or both of these applications?

Answer Column

Historically, we have sent a postal questionnaire to a random selection of customers who have contacted us or used our services in the previous year. The survey covers all aspects of our IP services: we do not ask questions about the handling of specific patent applications. This year, to try to boost the survey response rate and improve the quality of the feedback, we will also contact customers by telephone, carry out face to face interviews and conduct an online survey via our website. We will also alert customers to the survey through email, through the professional bodies represented on our practice working groups and through our online IP newsletter. We intend to contact a random selection of 2000 fee-paying customers who have used our services (including patent renewals) in

ドキュメント内特許審査の出願人等による評価を踏まえた品質監理手法に関する調査研究 (ページ 140-164)