PTO/2535
OMB Control Number: 0651-0057
Expiration Date: XX/XX/XXXX
External Quality Survey
Q1.
|
What is your affiliation? |
Law Firm or Sole Practitioner
Corporation
Independent Inventor
Other (University, Federal Government, etc.)
Q2.
Which one technology field
listed below best describes the majority of patent applications you
have filed over the past 3 months?
(SELECT ONLY ONE)
Pharmaceuticals
Other (e.g., biotechnology, chemical engineering, environmental technology, or materials/metallurgy)
Audio-visual technology
Computer technology
Digital communication
Electrical machinery, apparatus, or energy
IT methods for management
Semiconductors
Other (e.g., basic communication processes or telecommunications)
Medical technology
Optics
Other (e.g., measurement, control, or analysis of biological materials)
Engines, pumps, or turbines
Transport
Other (e.g., machine tools, mechanical elements, textile or paper machines)
Civil engineering
Design
Other (e.g., furniture, games, or other consumer goods)
Did not file a patent application in the past 3 months
Q3.
Approximately how many Office
Actions have you
received during the past 3 months?
1 to 10
11 to 20
21 to 30
31 to 50
51 or more
Have not received an Office Action in the past 3 months
Q4. 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
b. Treating all claims |
|
|
|
|
|
c. Providing enough information to advance prosecution |
|
|
|
|
|
d. Substantively addressing your responses to Office Actions |
|
|
|
|
|
e. Following appropriate restriction practice |
|
|
|
|
|
This
section is about Title 35 U.S.C. rejections. The questions ask about
correctness, clarity, and consistency of rejections using the
following definitions:
Correctness:
Compliance with all requirements of Title 35 U.S.C. as well as the
relevant case law at the time of issuance. Decisions to reject were
proper and contained sufficient evidence to support a conclusion of
unpatentability.
Clarity:
Sufficiently allows anyone reviewing a rejection to readily
understand the position taken.
Consistency:
A similar manner of
treatment and examination standards between applications and
examiners.
Title 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections
Q5. Over the past 3 months, how often were the rejections you received under 35 U.S.C. 101 reasonable in terms of...
|
Rarely |
Some of the time |
Most of the time |
All of the time |
Don’t Know/Not Applicable |
a. Correctness |
|
|
|
|
|
b. Clarity |
|
|
|
|
|
c. Consistency |
|
|
|
|
|
Title 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections
Q6. Over the past 3 months, how often were the rejections you received under 35 U.S.C. 102 reasonable in terms of...
|
Rarely |
Some of the time |
Most of the time |
All of the time |
Don’t Know/Not Applicable |
a. Correctness |
|
|
|
|
|
b. Clarity |
|
|
|
|
|
c. Consistency |
|
|
|
|
|
Title 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
7. Over the past 3 months, how often were the rejections you received under 35 U.S.C. 103 reasonable in terms of...
|
Rarely |
Some of the time |
Most of the time |
All of the time |
Don’t Know/Not Applicable |
a. Correctness |
|
|
|
|
|
b. Clarity |
|
|
|
|
|
c. Consistency |
|
|
|
|
|
Title 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejections
Q8. Over the past 3 months, how often were the rejections you received under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) reasonable in terms of...
|
Rarely |
Some of the time |
Most of the time |
All of the time |
Don’t Know/Not Applicable |
a. Correctness |
|
|
|
|
|
b. Clarity |
|
|
|
|
|
c. Consistency |
|
|
|
|
|
Title 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
Q9. Over the past 3 months, how often were the rejections you received under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) reasonable in terms of...
|
Rarely |
Some of the time |
Most of the time |
All of the time |
Don’t Know/Not Applicable |
a. Correctness |
|
|
|
|
|
b. Clarity |
|
|
|
|
|
c. Consistency |
|
|
|
|
Q10. For examinations in the past 3 months, would you rate the overall quality of the prior art found by patent examiners as...
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Q11. In the past 3 months, would you rate the overall examination quality as...
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Q12. In the past 3 months, overall examination quality has...
Significantly Declined
Slightly Declined
Stayed the Same
Slightly Improved
Significantly Improved
Q13: Over the past 3 months, how would you rate the following in terms of timeliness?
Very Poor Fair Good Excellent NA
Poor
Written actions in response to Non-final amendments
Written actions in response to After-final amendments
Written actions in response to RCEs
Responses to telephone inquiries
Responses to email inquiries
Q14. What, if anything, would you like to see incorporated as part of the application filing process to facilitate patent examination quality?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Most Recent Office Action
Q15. Considering only your most recent office action, how would you rate the following?
Very Poor Fair Good Excellent
Poor
The examiner’s understanding of the technology claimed
The legal position taken by the examiner
Q16. Considering only your most recent office action, was the amount of information….
-Not enough -just right -Too much
Q17. Considering only your most recent office action, to what extent did the examiner meet your expectations with regard to how well each of the following were addressed?
Not Small Moderate Large DK/
At all extent extent extent NA
35 U.S.C. 102 Anticipation
35 U.S.C. 103 Obviousness
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Enablement
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Written Description
35 U.S.C. 101 Subject Matter Eligibility
Restriction Practice
Non-statutory Double Patenting
Q18. Considering only your most recent office action, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly DK
Disagree agree Agree /NA
Or disagree
The office action increased my confidence in the USPTO.
The examiner I interacted with was helpful.
I was treated fairly.
Q19. Considering only your most recent office action, if there is anything you would like to bring to our attention please comment below.
To maintain your anonymity and protect the confidentiality of your responses, do not include application numbers or names in your comments. For issues requiring immediate attention please use the instructions and contact information provided in the office action itself.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q20. 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
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with an information collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, unless the information collection has a valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 0651-0057. Public burden for this form is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 or email InformationCollection@uspto.gov.
File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
Author | Hall, Drew |
File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
File Created | 2022-05-26 |