2000 Patent Customer Satisfaction Survey

1. 2000PatentCustomer Satisfaction Survey Executive Summary Prepared by: Westat 1650 Research Blvd. Rockville, MD 20850 USPTO Center for Quality Services Crystal Park 1, Suite 812

2. 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.

3. Most and Least Satisfied Questions P-3

4. What Respondents Are Most Satisfied With Survey Item # Satisfied 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)

5. What Respondents Are Most Satisfied With (cont.) Survey Item # Satisfied 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.

6. What Respondents Are Least Satisfied With Survey Item # Satisfied 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

7. What Respondents Are Least Satisfied With (cont.) Survey Item # Satisfied 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 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).

8. Comparison with1999 Results P-8

9. Major Improvements from 1999 (6 percentage points or more) Ranked by % Change Survey Item # Change in% Satisfiedfrom 1999 +10* +7* +7* +6* +6* B6. Widely disseminate informationon changes in practices beforeeffective date C7. Overall satisfaction with patentprocess C1OP1. Outcome met your objectives B2. Direct you promptly to theproper office or person B7. Deliver faxes to examiners markedinformal/draft within 1 business day __________________ * 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.

10. Trends 1998 to 1999 (29 comparable items - differences in % satisfied) 6 - 10 1 - 5 6 - 10 >10 >10 1 - 5 0 Declined Improved Percentage-Point Change 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.

11. Trends 1999 to 2000 (27 comparable items - differences in % satisfied) Improved Declined Percentage-Point Change Responses to 21 of the 27 comparable items improved from 1999 to 2000.

12. Problem Resolution P-12

13. Problem Resolution Change in % 20001999 from 1999 C2. Have you experienced any problems with USPTO 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 ________________ * The change in percent from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant. 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.

14. Questions Pertaining to the Overall Patent Process (Overall Questions) P-14

15. Overall Questions C7 Overall satisfaction C1P1 USPTO fees for patent application C1P2 Good value for USPTO fees paid Survey Item #

16. Overall Question - Overall Satisfaction C7. Considering all of your experiences with the USPTO patent process, how satisfied are you OVERALL? Change in %from 1999to 2000 +7* -3 -4* ________________ * Change in percent from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant. Overall satisfaction increased significantly compared to 1999. Only 13% of the respondents are dissatisfied, down significantly from 1999.

17. Overall Questions - Fees and Value C1P1. USPTO fees for patent application** Change in % from1999 to 2000 +2 +3 -5* C1P2. Good value for the amount of USPTO fees paid** Change in % from1999 to 2000 +3 +3* -6* ________________ * 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. 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.

18. Key Drivers: Questions That Have the Strongest Relationship with Overall Satisfaction P-18

19. Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction – By Service Standards and Patent Process*(Excluding Problem Handling Item) Patent ProcessSatisfied 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 possible service C1SR2. Prompt and helpful service 59% C1SR3. Flexibility in trying to 53% address your needs Service StandardsSatisfied 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 examination process B16. Provide patent grant within 36 months** 58% ________________ * 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. Search quality, telephone service, filing receipts, outcome of the process, and commitment to customer service represent areas strongly related to customer satisfaction.

20. Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction – By Service Standards and Patent Process/Problem Resolution* Patent Process Sat. C1AP4. Consistency of examinations 44% C1OP1. Outcome met your objectives 74% C1OP3. Efficiency of the examination process 53% C1SC2. Genuinely committed to best possible service 53% C1SR1. Assistance at time convenient to you 65% C1SR2. Prompt and helpful service 59% Problem Resolution Sat. C4a. Handling of delays 21% C4d. The way your problem/ difficulty was handled 32% Service Standards Sat. B2. Direct you promptly to the proper office/ person 69% B3. Return phone calls within 1 business day 61% B4. Clearly written position of examiner 63% B11. Conduct a thorough search 61% B12. Respond within 30 days to papers filed after application allowed 55% B15. Provide patent grant within 4 months of issue fee payment 58% __________________ * 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.

21. Moving Customers From Neutral to Satisfied in Overall Satisfaction P-21

22. Comparing Neutral and Satisfied Groups (% Difference)* % Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Overall Overall Difference inQuestion(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 address your 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 ________________ * Shows largest differences. • Examination quality, efficiency, and responsive customer service are key areas to increasing overall satisfaction.

23. Experiencing Problems by Overall Satisfaction C2 C4d Experienced Satisfied with way a problemproblem 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.

24. Results by Technology Area P-24

25. Differences in Overall Satisfaction by Technology Area(Ranked by % Satisfied) C7. Considering all of your experiences with the USPTO patent process, how satisfied are you overall? Change in% Satisfiedfrom 1999 +8* +6 +6 +4 +9 +12* -1 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) * Change in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant. 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.

26. Conclusions P-26

27. 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.

28. 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

29. 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.

30. Conclusions (cont.) 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.

31. 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.