Customer feedback - July to September 2009

Compilation of general feedback received from customers during the period of June to September 2009. The feedback received is listed in the first column. Read across the row to find out our response and any additional measures taken.
General feedback Response and additional measures taken
You were having problems inputting address details onto the electronic form 1/77. The postcode ends up in the middle of the address. When we next have an opportunity to consider improvements to the web filing software we will consider making this change along with other suggestions for change that we receive from customers.
You wanted the Form 23 emailed to him, which he could then send in with a cheque. The website insisted that he do it all online and set up new login and password for future transactions. The form was not easy to find on the website. We explained our web site does have the facility to both fill in forms online as well as the facility to download the forms to fill in and send in with a cheque. The facility to download a form was also explained. The set up of logins and passwords when using a credit/debit card online was also covered, explaining it's an extra check to make sure that the person making the transaction is the cardholder.
You advised of an Austrian company that are issuing unsolicited mail for registration service. We thanked you and advised of the steps we had taken to put customers on guard.
You said in the electronic filing receipt for responses to examination reports, it would be reassuring to see the number of pages received for each pdf attachment. We replied letting the customer know that they would need to change the software in order to supply the additional information on the receipt. We thanked the customer for writing to us and let him know that the next time we are enhancing our service; his suggestion will be taken into account.
You filed an application and one set of drawings was replaced by another when the intention was that the separate sets of drawings should be added to the preceding ones. You had to file a new application because of it. A preview button would have saved this because you would have known that not all of their documents had been loaded and would have saved themselves £200. We explained that there are facilities to preview any forms that the system creates as well as any document a customer adds. We attached a document showing a summary screen of this. We are in this instance prepared to issue a refund for the fees made in the earlier application.
You cracked how to beat the system into accepting a filing with a single document. A careful examination of this will show the lengths to which you had to go. You do not think the system should require braining out workarounds. The changes that are needed are simple & you trust can be implemented soon. We rang and clarified with the customer what he means by single document - he means description, claims abstract and drawings all in one PDF. We said that we will investigate the possibility of adding a single document option to webF. If there are showstoppers we may need to contact the customer again before updating the Patents Practice Working Group.
You recommended that the office adds a facility where a customer can enter details onto the form 1 then save the details and pick up the form and add further details at another time. We answered with apologies and noted that there are long session times for these applications & you can leave a session open while you gather additional data as long as your system will allow this. To save a partially completed form & return to it later has been considered but cannot be implemented yet for security reasons.
You filed a Patent application online & thought the covering letter was attached but on the last page it did not appear. Did you make an error or does it not appear along with the forms? We replied by confirming that the covering letter was included and that the customer did not make an error. We will consider your comments in the next update of the Patent web forms.
You found a form confusing to fill in. We apologised and investigated the issue and have been unable to replicate the problem.
You asked us to reduce pendency for Patent applications, make online file inspection available, use email more, telephone when it's easily sorted that way, read material (or have it read externally by someone who understands it) before putting it up on the site, printing it as a form. We prioritise searches and accelerated examinations in line with what customers generally tell us are most important to them and our agency targets reflect these priorities. In addition to this we are working hard to use our resources to minimise patent application pendency times. If you are interested in requesting accelerated examination then details may be found on our website. We are working hard to resolve legal issues relating to providing online file inspection. We are also continuing to investigate how we can improve electronic processing and communication relevant to patent applications and are investigating a number of possible solutions to allow more use of e-mail. In the meantime we encourage examiners to resolve examination matters as efficiently as possible, as is set out in the Manual of Patent Practice sections 18.73-18.78 We will continue to remind examiners that the telephone is often the most efficient way of resolving examination matters and your comments will be fed back to those who plan examiner training and development.
You asked us to search better and more deeply, and by clarifying in some cases just what the interpretation of claim 1 was that gave rise to the citation; better identification of why a "Y" categorisation has been applied. We explained that our examiners have access to a large number of databases covering Patent and non-patent literature from across the world e.g. those available through the European Patent Office’s (EPO) EPOQUENet system. We conduct continuous quality reviews of random selections of searches and the results are used to judge quality levels and to direct examiner training. We also compare search results with EPO searches and in those cases where this is possible we have found that IPO searches 'are at least as good as' the EPO searches. We also regularly remind examiners to provide clear information to the applicant on the scope of the search and if not immediately apparent, on the relevance of the documents cited, particularly when citing "Y" category documents. We will continue to remind examiners of such matters and will continue to provide regular training on searching Patent applications.
You asked us to engage with potential users and implementing improvements based on actual feedback from them. We confirmed the IPO is working to improve our engagement with users and potential users and we are currently gathering feedback from customers by a website based ‘2009 Customer satisfaction survey’ with specific questions relating to the quality of the patent electronic services we offer and any suggested improvements that can be made. In addition, in the Patents Directorate Customer Research project 2008 comments were received about the Patent electronic services we offer. We receive feedback, comments and suggestions from these surveys and also by customers phoning or writing to the IPO, by completing the website feedback form, through customer visits and through the focus and policy interests groups. We consider all suggestions and we use our customer feedback to set targets and provide a basis for new services. Previous feedback and our responses are published on a quarterly basis on the website.
You asked for direct online access to all open files and an alerting service to let people know when opinions are requested with a one click to view the file. We stated we do hope to provide online file inspection in the future. We publish opinion requests and completed opinions and provide contact details to request more information about a particular request. Your comments regarding an alerting service for opinions have been passed to the deputy director who deals with opinions.
You advised that generally speaking, comments can be improved by focus, style, and excellent grammar and syntax. Much the same goes for questions..... We responded that Patent examiners attend training seminars to improve the standard of the comments made in examination reports and the reports are checked for errors before they are sent to applicants. As stated previously the IPO endeavours to make sure that letters and reports are written to a high standard. If you are aware of an instance where this is not the case then please let us know so we can make appropriate correction and provide appropriate training.
You would like to know if there is an auto calendar list of when the fees should be paid, when the application should be extended, all auto populated from the date of submitting the original online application. Perhaps auto email reminders prompting an applicant for when things/fees/documents need doing. We confirmed that although there are no current plans to introduce the sort of tool suggested, we do publish a number of information booklets about applying for a Patent.
You were trying to complete a form 1 unsuccessfully. It seems that the Epoline and UK IPO web filing are not compatible on your Vista machine. We investigated the problem and found a technical issue with our website software Livelink which we were not previously aware of. The problem resulted in the system error page requiring a log-in to access it; this error has now been corrected. It seems that there was an error with the data entry for the first filing and you should have been re-directed to the system error page, instead due to the error at our end, you were asked for log-in credentials in order to access this page. Please be assured that this issue was not connected with eOLF and there is no reason why you can't continue to use both systems on the same PC
You advised that the expiry year on credit card needs to be extended. We raised an IT helpdesk call regarding this to get it corrected.
You advised of an issue re-entering national stage from PCT: the system accepts UK & PCT priorities ok but not a PCT doc as the disclosure of the present filing - when filing from published PCT app there is no need to file PCT app, but the system doesn't indicate this. The only option is national prior patents. We emailed you asking you to call or email with further details regarding this.
You stated that the separate filing of drawings when single document filing in PDF format is difficult to understand. Help desk were unhelpful in this. We have received a number of requests to provide an option in our web filing service which allows applicants to file a single document containing description, abstract, claims and drawings, so we will be changing the software in due course. We sent a further email asking the customer to let him know details on the dealings with the helpdesk in order to investigate further.
You said that it was impossible to search for Patents, search tools are not clear, you entered the EP No & the response is not clear or explains why the search failed. We replied explaining that it is not clear which of our databases you were using to search for the EP number, however if you were using the Patent Status Enquiry (The Patents Register) there are many reasons why an EP number might not be found on that database, for example if it has not yet been granted or if it does not designate the UK. We offered to help you find it if you forwarded the information onto us. After further correspondence we recommended an alternative route for you.
Various issues raised regarding the online filing service. We replied by apologising that the service was confusing and agreed that it’s not obvious that 'Subsequently filed documents' include specific patent forms & aim to improve this as soon as we can. Currently the service restricts electronic filing forms etc relating to one patent at a time. In the future it may be possible to enhance the service but we do not have any plans to do so at the moment. We are currently not able to make use of ADP number in these electronic services but it is certainly something we will be considering when we look at future enhancements. It can be annoying having to enter your email address in duplicate but we have to provide customers with the opportunity to provide an email as part of their contact details.
You queried why the UK Patent database does not allow copy correspondence to be seen which concerns the particular Patents progress. The customer pointed out that such information can be seen on the EPO's Register plus search and wondered if we will ever have this system or will share the EPO's software on this? We are currently unable to provide on-line access to Patent application files because UK copyright law prevents us from doing so. However, we are actively seeking ways in which we can amend Patent legislation to allow existing copyright exceptions to have effect. Such an amendment would enable us to provide this service and we are optimistic about the outcome, but it is unlikely to happen before 2011.
You asked if it would be good if instead of entering the details each time you could enter the Patent ADP number. We thanked you and explained that currently we do not have any plans to make the change you suggested, but we will take the suggestion into account when we next have an opportunity to consider changes to the system.
You would like the IPO to put editable TM forms online. We thanked you for your suggestion. You were assured that the next time we get an opportunity to consider extending the system; your suggestion will be taken into account.
You said that you had filed patents in the UK using the online service, experience shows that the site is user friendly but you obtained a smart card from the epo and has not been asked for it when filing online. We explained that there was a difference between eOLF and online filing, the smart card was for eOLF but you had elected to use online filing - hence no need for the smart card to be used.
You would like to suggest the system to allow the applicant to edit their file, add new pages, or correct any fault before the patent is granted. Also, the applicant should be able to pay the rest of the fees later for example the search fees. We confirmed that it is possible to use this service to file documents and forms in relation to a pending patent application as well new applications. If you follow the link to our web site you will see more details about filing "subsequently filed documents". You will see from the web page that you can file a search request (Form 9A) after you have filed a patent application, but the search fee must be paid whenever you file the Form 9A; payment of the fee cannot be deferred.
You noticed that your TM has been spelt incorrectly. We passed your enquiry onto the examiner who is dealing with you.
You were concerned about the amount of post you had been receiving separately that could have been sent in one envelope. It is a waste of paper and postage. We asked you for further details to enable us to answer your enquiry.
You notified us that in the reports of previous decions for Trade Mark cases the POPPINS case is saved as a Patent decision instead of a Trade Mark decision. We thanked you for pointing out the error and assured you that the error will be corrected and we gave you a copy of the case in question.
You tried using the eTM3 and became unstuck. It does not appear to allow two joint applications at different addresses so you used the paper filing. We are aware that there is a problem with not being able to use the electronic form for joint applications and forms part of our plans for improvement.
You advised that the first web page suggests that TMs are advertised for 3months opposition instead of 2. The web page could also do with mentioning that if an opposition period expires at the weekend or on a bank holiday, the opposition deadline will carry on until the next working day. We asked the web team to update the relevant part of the website accordingly and thanked you for your notification of the error.
You confirmed that we should allow people to renew TM's online. Suggestion is to choose user name & password when logging in for first time and then click onto a tab for renew & it takes them to a payment section to renew. If a person opposes a TM & wins they should have to pay their own costs rather than the unsuccessful applicant paying costs. A person should not need a UK, EU, EEA address to register a TM instead just an email address. 1. We advised the customer that on-line renewal is likely to form part of our plans in the future.
2. Costs have to be fair to everybody.
3. We need an address for an application because it is in the trade Mark Act so we would need primary legislation to make this change. We are however, going to communicate electronically with applicants who have e-filed with us since 1 October 2009.
You received a letter from CTMFS who send misleading pro-forma invoices to registered IP holders charging them for services they have not requested. Thank you for your mail about invoices from CTMFS. The place to report this type of invoice is Trading standards External Link and includes an on-line reporting form. Unfortunately receipt of this and other types of invoice are common - advice can also be found on the Warning: Unsolicited mail pages of our website
You were unable to find the exchange rate used for international Trade Mark applications. We suggested that you use the 'what's new' section of our website.
You received a request from MPLC to buy an umbrella license to cover the showing of film & TV DVD. How do you find out whether this is a legitimate organisation? We responded to you providing the relevant copyright information.
You asked us to deal with the numerous problems with the website. We responded by saying if you have identified specific problems with the website then please let us know by contacting the IPO webteam at the following e-mail address: webmaster@ipo.gov.uk. We endeavour to make sure that information placed on the website is correct and is written to a high standard. If you are aware of instances where this is not the case then please let us know so we can make appropriate corrections.
In response to one of the questions on our online customer service survey you mentioned; "Loads of things. See comments above, but the most valuable would be a really sensible useful site search engine." We explained that the website search facilities are reviewed by checking actual searches performed by visitors to the website and also by analysing specific feedback received from the 'Tell us what you think of this facility' option on the search page. Reporting specific problems helps us to adapt the search engine to return the results needed during a search. In order to improve navigability on the website the inclusion of a site index/map is currently being considered and it is hoped that a comprehensive help for searching page will soon be included on the website.
You advised that it would be good if instead of having to fill out the representative’s address, phone numbers etc they could just type in the ADP number and all the information appears. Then only the representative’s name would be necessary. We confirmed that unfortunately this would require major re-programming of the existing software and we do not currently have the resources available to make those changes. However, when we next have an opportunity to consider making enhancements to the web filing service we will take the suggestion into account.
You were unhappy with the grammar and way in which we have phrased the information on the main page of our website. We maintained that the wording was correct for the Trade Marks portion and that the Copyright wording needs to be changed as required. We responded to you to advise accordingly and sent a request to the webmaster team to change the Copyright portion.
You described the website as a supermarket you have to go down every aisle before you find what you want. They had preferred the website 5 years ago. We responded to say we were sorry to read you are not happy with our newly redesigned website. During the redesign work we undertook a general consultation exercise with customers. For the professional area of the site we undertook consultation with the relevant practice working groups, we made site visits to dedicated agents and used a card sort exercise on the IP Kat site in order to shape the navigation of the area. That said we realise with the depth of information available and having so many user groups using the site it is very difficult to please everyone and we apologise if the site is more of an inconvenience. If you have any specific comments about the site and information / pages that are difficult to find or even missing, we would be more than happy to consider these specific issues.
You asked that we take the time to explain the complications of IP. Also, the now closed "IP Portal" has left dead links all over the web. He requested we take the time and effort to implement HTTP 301 redirects for moved content. Providing official information to the British public is our core business, so we should not to fail in this key area. We issued a reply advising "Thank you for your recent query regarding the Intellectual Property Office website, which has been passed to me the IT Helpdesk. In order that I can deal with your query appropriately, please can you provide me with details of the information you were searching for. I can then supply you with the details you require."
You stated that the Patents essential reading document does not make it clear that the prelim exam is a separate exercise to the 9a; please make it clear & paying £30 gives confirmation that the app is complete, you were under the impression you would receive paper confirmation that all was good until you phoned 3 weeks later having had no paper receipt. We confirmed that you do have a point. The 'patents-essential reading' booklet does refer to both the preliminary examination and search in step 5 on page 7 whereas they are 2 separate steps in the process. We will review this accordingly. We replied to the e-mail thanking you for your feedback and stating that their comments will be considered. We also confirmed that the preliminary examination and the search are separate steps in the process.
You suggested that we should revisit the advice given on the duration of copyright on photographs. His understanding is that the period relates to the 'author's' death, where the 'author is known, but the advice does not mention this. I.e. that for photographs taken before 1 January 1945 "copyright would have expired on 31 December 1994". You would love this to be true as you wish to use some WW1 photographs and cannot trace the owner, but you do not think that this is if the author may actually be traced you think that then the clock starts ticking from the date of his death? We explained that this is a complex issue that needs to be looked at by solicitors and sent a holding reply to the customer and will follow up with a formal response once dealt with by solicitors.
You advised that help desk were unhelpful with your query. We sent a further email asking you to let us know details on the dealings with the helpdesk in order to investigate further. We then obtained enough information from you to establish that it was the Central Enquiry Unit that you spoke to and not the IT Helpdesk. We wrote to you apologising for the Office's apparent unhelpfulness on this occasion and assured you that appropriate training on this matter will be given.
There were 53 occasions when you had received an "invoice" from CTM Filing Support, CPA Global or European Institute of Economy and Commerce (EIEC) and asked if it was a genuine request for payment from us. On each occasion we informed you that it was unsolicited mail and advised to disregard it. You were then advised to contact Consumer Direct and referred to our website for further guidance.