| You said, "Very impressed with the application online. However it would be useful for the on screen questions to reference the sections of paper form 1 so it is easier to tell where you are reading from the Application guide. The general site navigation could be a little friendlier." |
We responded thanking you for your feedback. We assured you that we will take your detailed comments into account when we next look at changing the service. |
| You stated that you "Had a problem with the 'sans serif' font when using patent forms." |
We emailed you back to explain you can change the fonts yourself to get around the issue on the unlocked versions of the form. |
| You stated, "We filed a patent as a company. When we went to put in the persons contact details for the company it accepted the phone number but not the person's name the field was there but it was not possible to put anything in it. It has not affected us adversely but I thought you
would like to know if part of the website is not working as it is supposed to be." |
We advised, "Our technical support team has tested Step 3 of the process which is where you appear to have had the problem entering or adding personal details and they have not been able to replicate the problem you described. They tested entering personal data after the main details were automatically filled by selecting "No" on the previous Step 3 screen and they
also tested filling in all of the details on the main Step 3 screen after selecting "Yes"
on the previous screen and both processes worked as expected. As you can imagine this is a critical
step in the web filing process as it provides us with important contact details and we have not had
other customers telling us they are having similar problems, so I hope your experience was just a 'glitch'.
However, if the above description of what we tested does not reflect what you were trying to do please
provide us with more details and we will investigate further." |
| A Patent examiner explained that the abstract uploaded onto PROSE was not the abstract in PECS. |
We replaced the incorrect abstract on PROSE. We confirmed this should be actioned through the IT helpdesk for future occurrences. |
| You explained, "The postal strike forced me to use the online service. Thank you for making it possible. I shall use it from now on. Could I ask if it would also be possible to scan a word document instead of having to convert it to pdf? I was trying to submit a patent application and it was tricky to find a word/pdf conversion program. I wondered why I couldn't simply scan the description and send that scan as an attachment." |
We rang you to give further information and you were content with the advice. |
| You advised, "When you complete the first form with inventors name on it, you are then told to press 'cancel' which on all other systems in the world would cancel what one has just done. Please add a button to take one on to the next page. Similarly it is not clear that one does not have
to fill in the contact data if one has already checked the earlier option. Further, where is my form
stored so that I do not have to complete it each time? Further, on the internet there is no obvious
quick link to find the form. Further once one has dropped ones pants to disclose the secrets behind
ones invention, how do you stop companies stealing the idea? Only good inventions get stolen as I have
found many times to my cost. What is being done about this?" |
We responded, "I have been asked to answer your questions which I will do in the same sequence as you raised them. 1. Cancel button on Step 4 of applying for a patent - in addition to the cancel button there is also an add button which enables you to repeat the screen so you can enter details about all inventors associated with that particular patent application. On the same screen there is also a Previous and a Next button which follows the standard we have used throughout this service and should be used to move to the next or previous screen when you have finished Step 4. 2. Storage of completed web filing form - our web filing software does not store a copy of the form you have filed for later retrieval, but it does prompt you to consider saving the forms eg Step 12 of filing a Form 1, the Declaration screen text says,
"if you want a copy of these forms for your own records, please save them now" and the acknowledgement
that you receive back after electronically filing a form provides you with a copy of the form as filed
which you can save. 3. Quick link on website to find the form - you can get to the form you want to
file electronically in 4 clicks from the IPO Home page or you can save it as a favourite on your browser.
The quickest route is to select the "Online services" tab on the IPO Home Page, and then select
Online Patent Services on the next page, then on the next page select the form(s) you want to file from
within the "Apply online" option, then select "Fill in form". Finally, you ask about
how to stop companies stealing your ideas. We do provide some advice on this subject on our managing
your patents pages of our website" |
| You said, "It would be useful if the list of attachment types could be expanded, of if we could have a free text field. It would also be great if we could pay renewal fees (Form 12) electronically! Otherwise the service is fantastic." |
We replied, "We are always pleased to receive such positive feedback about the service and we have noted your suggestions for improving it. Like you, we are keen to expand the contents of the service and we have started to plan for the addition of the Form 12, but it is unlikely to happen in the short term as the resources we need to carry out the work are currently involved with other IT development projects." |
| You stated, "I understand that it is not possible to request an electronic copy of the UK Patent Office file for a European patent using the online Form 23. This causes great inconvenience and places additional burdens on users of the UK patent system. Copies of the UK Patent Office file for European patents are important so that, for example, English translations of pre-London Agreement European patents which have been validated in the UK and which did not have English as the official language, can be easily obtained by members of the public - against whom the patent may be enforced. It would be appreciated if you could investigate updating the online Form 23 to include the ability to request a copy of the UK Patent Office file for European patents which are in force in the UK." |
We responded, "We are sorry that you find it inconvenient not to have access to EP (UK) files through this service, but the Form 23 electronic service is dependent on the availability of electronic case files which were introduced in the IPO primarily to improve the processing of GB applications. We have considered extending the coverage of electronic case files, but there are insufficient benefits to justify the costs of scanning. Also, we do not generally create case files for granted EP(UK) patents (the one exception, in the past, being cases which required a translation), so I hope you will understand why we do not plan to extend the Form 23 electronic service to cover granted EP(UK)patents." |
| You explained, “"Whilst trying to Download a (zipped PDF) copy of a B specification from your web site, I kept getting a message saying 'The Compressed (zipped) Folder is invalid or corrupted'. I imagine that you will wish to correct this." |
We advised, "This is a known issue with IE6, either view the PDF or select Save on the dialogue box - advised use is for 56k modems which are no longer in use." |
| You stated, "An excellent service, very stable and secure. I have a couple of points. While I was submitting the patent, my colleague was setting up the email address, but hadn't done so by the time I submitted. Is there a way to ensure we haven't lost any emails? Or can we resend any emails? Its set up now So, is it possible to add cc email addresses? It would have been useful in this situation, and would be generally useful for organizations like our - virtual. When I was adding inventors, I added two humans. Then I added the company. Obviously it's not an inventor; however it's been added to the list of inventors. I couldn't change the step that said I had not entered all the inventors (it's a radio button but was not enabled). I was not able to put in a name at the company page. This came up as a warning at the end. The web site went to the screen but the fields were not enabled. I was also warned about the lack of a phone number and that field was enabled. Finally in the warnings, the field names were different from the web forms - surname instead of last name. As I said, all in all, extremely good. The only other suggestion would be to have a complete dummy run section - a sandbox to allow people to try out filings. Sadly it would need more people at your end to act as mentor. Perhaps not, it could be done as crowd sourcing - a wiki for self help." |
We advised that it is not possible to add another e mail address (either retrospectively or at the time of filling in the 'form') to this service as it is used only for the purpose of sending back the acknowledgement of filing. As far as we can tell from having looked at your filing most of the other points they raise seem to be as a result of your unfamiliarity with the service. As you suggest, this could be improved for all customers if we provided some sort of sandbox. We are seriously considering this idea, but are currently constrained by lack of resources. Finally, the point raised about inconsistent use of field names between the 'form' and the warnings is being addressed and will be corrected as soon as we can. |
| You advised, "I note that you state that my application does not comply with the rules, and you gave a summary of objections which were; 1. The search fee was not enclosed, as opposed to the application fee of £30 which was enclosed. I note that this is a formality and you are merely advising me that I must file this by 5 November 2010 if I wish to continue the application, for which I thank you. 2. Query in relation to the questioning in section 7 of the Patents Form 1/77." |
We replied by advising that this suggestion will be considered at the next review stage. Legal Section will consider these comments when forms are next updated. |
| You said, "I wished to file search forms 9, 9A and 9A for three independent claims but the electronic application system would not allow me to do this. I would still like to do this in order not to lose time. Please could you call me to help me? I fully understand that this will add £200 to the fee". |
We spoke to you and this resulted in the further form 9's being filed correctly as required. |
| You explained, "Just like to say that I was very impressed with the service I received from your department. You took the time and trouble to explain the finer mechanism of the patenting process. The information and searched items were also invaluable. Armed with this information I was able to make a more informed decision as whether to proceed or
withdraw the application before publication. There is one suggestion I would like to make and that is
making it clearer about the pros and cons of requesting an accelerated patent application. Unknown to
myself I made such a request only to be told after the application was made that there is a strong possibility
I would not be able to withdraw the application. This would have been disastrous as it would have hindered
any copyrighting - my second course of action after failing to patent an innovation." |
We referred the enquiry to CEU to issue relevant information booklets as you seemed confused about the various aspects of IP. |
| You advised, "I sent you yesterday a complaint about problems with filing documents in this application using the Web. Apparently I am to blame for it - I used an older Explorer. v. 5. Per your instructions, I today used Explorer 8 and it went just fine." |
We did not need to reply to you as you had resolved this issue yourself. |
| You stated, "It would be good to be able to withdraw an application online and also to have a withdraw and immediately refile option (with a new priority date)." |
We stated that, "It is currently possible to withdraw your patent application electronically via an e mail service which can be accessed from our web site. I hope this facility helps you to more easily manage your patent applications in the future even though it is not as comprehensive
as the service you suggested. Although we are not currently planning to change this service, we will
take your suggestions into account when we next have an opportunity to consider making improvements." |
| You advised, "I hope I was correct in entering my ADP number on the online Form 1 of the application. There is no confirmation that the number entered is right or wrong and there seems to be no advantage
in entering a number here since it is still necessary to enter all address details." |
Our IT technical staff spoke to you about this and you are content. No further action required. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "Were you satisfied with the quality of the Patent examination report?" the survey respondent stated, "The examiners need to pay closer attention to the wording of the claims, rather than what they consider the invention to be based on a reading of the description. For a
claim to lack novelty each claim element must be present in a single prior art document. Often novelty
objections are made with no reference to the elements of the claim at all. There could also be more
attention paid to dependent claims, rather than blanket objections to all claims being made, without
reference to specific portions of the prior art. I have also had several "clarity" objections
to claims which are not clarity objections at all, but objections raised because the examiner considers
a claim overly broad. The breadth of a claim does not affect its clarity. Perhaps what the examiners
intended was an objection to lack of support, but they don't appear to make that distinction." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you requested us not to reply. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "Were you satisfied with the quality of the Patent examination report?" the survey respondent stated, "Patent examination reports appear to be slow in issuing, regularly meaning the applicant is left with only 12 months to get the application in order - this is often not enough time, resulting is very rushed correspondence and short deadlines being set close to the end of an application's prosecution." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you requested us not to reply. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "Were you satisfied with the quality of the Patent search report?" the survey respondent stated, "By referring to specific passages of the prior art for each claim, rather than simply reciting "the whole document" in most cases." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you requested us not to reply. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "Were you satisfied with the quality of the Patent search report?" the survey respondent stated, "Find more relevant documents." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you requested us not to reply. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "Were you satisfied with the quality of the Patent electronic services we offer?" the survey respondent stated "Provide prosecution of applications online (like EPO/USPTO)." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you requested us not to reply. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "Were you satisfied with the quality of the Patent electronic services we offer?" the survey respondent stated, "Provide electronic copies of documents from examination files online like the EPO." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you requested us not to reply. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "Were you satisfied with the experience of contacting one of our Patent examiners by telephone?" the survey respondent stated, "In general patent examiners have been very helpful. However, often there is no facility on the examiner's line to leave a message should they be away from
their desk." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you did not leave contact details to respond. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "How can we improve our Patent services?" the survey respondent stated, "Clear the backlog? Get prosecution history online?" |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you requested us not to reply. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "How can we improve our Patent services?" the survey respondent stated, "Provide online access to electronic copies of documents from examination files, like the EPO." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you requested us not to reply. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "How can we improve our Patent services?" the survey respondent stated, "Speed up the issuing of examination reports, or abolish the Rule 30 period!" |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you did not leave contact details to respond. |
| You confirmed, "Web filing service is very good. There was one confusion though on the payment page. We ask for an account number, this could be confused with the bank account number. The IPO should clarify that we mean an IPO account number." |
We responded, "We are always pleased to hear from our customers and I am grateful to you for taking the time to contact us. We ask our customers to provide their customer account details so that our Finance Department can issue 'statements' which cover all transactions (including credit card payments) that each customer has had with us. That being said I agree that it is not as clear as it might, so we are looking into ways of making it clearer,
eg by adding "IPO" at the beginning. Unfortunately, although changes like this are relatively
easy to make I cannot say when we will be able to do it as our limited resources are currently committed
to making other changes." |
| Whilst filling in the form for a patent, you could not attach your documents without downloading a pdf writer. |
We explained, "We are always pleased to receive feedback about our services, particularly when it is so positive. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to accept attached documents in formats other than PDF as it would have major and costly implications for our internal systems. We chose PDF because, as you have said, it is possible to find free PDF writer software and because it is, for example, possible to save Word documents as PDFs." |
| You advised, "The online form will not let the thing be submitted without providing page refs for claims. This is incorrect as claims not submitted in my provisional application. Sorry, tried to call, no reply, so had to put a page range which is incorrect to get it to allow the submission." |
Comprehensive advice by way of MS Word document with screen shots were sent to you by us to get around this issue. |
| You advised that, "E-filing allocated Mondays date and should have been Saturday." |
We confirmed that, "Due to section 120 of the Patents Act which deems that filings after 13:00 on a Saturday shall be accorded the next working days date i.e. Monday." |
| You explained, "Since you ask for suggestions, I thought I'd mention that it's always useful if a website helps users through a multi-screen process by providing a kind of flowchart along the top, so that you can see immediately which stage you are at, and how many more stages there are to go. This also ensures that people actually finish the process. I actually got slightly confused partway through when it went back to the "Forms and documents menu" screen again. I was about to close the browser, thinking I'd finished, when fortunately I spotted the Finish button at the bottom. A flowchart would have shown me that I had several steps still to go." |
We responded, "Thank you for your e mail concerning the patents web filing service, it is always good to receive feedback from our customers, particularly when it so positive. Your suggestion about including a flowchart across the top is an excellent idea which we will keep in mind when we next get the opportunity to consider how best to improve the service. Thank you again for taking the trouble to write to us, your comments and suggestions are much appreciated and provide us with valuable insight into how the service is used and perceived by our customers." |
| You asked, "Is there a way to remove my credit card details from this website?" |
We confirmed, "Please be advised that the Intellectual Property Office does not develop or maintain the payment card processing facilities integrated into the Offices' online services. All IPO online services, utilising the payment card processing function, use the standard Government Gateway payment service. This is a shared government service supporting joined up government services enabling people to communicate and make transactions with government from a single point of entry. For optimum security the IPO and Government Gateway services are integrated using high security technologies to ensure encryption and data integrity of your information. Neither the IPO nor the Government Gateway sites store or retain any of your payment card details. Further
information regarding the handling of your data is available on the Government Gateway
services website  . If you would like to discuss the handling of your data by Government Gateway
services please contact the Engage Helpdesk, or by telephone on +44(0) 870 3891563.
Your credit card details, therefore, are not retained by ourselves and so there is no action to remove
the data from our records." |
| In response to the online survey question, "How can we improve our patent services?" the survey respondent stated, "Make them cheaper for individuals." |
We replied, "Regarding your suggestion to make our fees cheaper for individuals, I regret to say that this is currently not possible. Her Majesty's Treasury publishes guidelines on fees and charges for public bodies and recommends that standard fees should be charged for standard services and that fees should not be differentiated by customer type. We set our fees at levels which are designed to help us match our fees with the costs we incur for proving
our services. We operate under a long-standing principle of the patent system that the initial fees
for applying for and obtaining patent protection are kept low, while the renewal fees paid annually
over a patents' lifetime then allow us to recover our costs for providing and administering the system
in the UK. This helps ensure that patent rights are accessible to innovative UK businesses of all types
from individuals to large companies. The services we provide do not differ depending on the nature of
the applicant and therefore, we operate with a set of standard fees for all our customers. Our fees have not been increased since 1992 and have recently been reviewed and we are introducing fee
increases in April 2010. However, we have maintained our policy of keeping initial application fees
low whilst increasing patent renewal fees. Further information on these increases can be found on our
website." |
| You said, "TM number is removed from documents." |
We advised, "We are currently undergoing a major refresh of our IT systems. A number of our customers have asked for this facility and I have passed your suggestion for inclusion in this project." |
| You stated, "I have been trying to search the designs database to find out whether a particular proprietor owns design rights in any Locarno classification. However, it does not seem to be possible to do this without searching each classification individually?
It would be really helpful if this problem could be resolved." |
We referred to the team who deal with this application and got back to you to advise accordingly once the problem had been resolved. |
| You advised, "When filing TM's online, can a facility be added to the current process to allow a copy of the fee sheet to be downloaded along with the copy of the TM3? This is currently the case for the online patent applications and would make it easier to keep a track
of things. The reason I ask is that I recently must have ticked the grace period box by mistake and
so the fees were not paid on filing and we have lost the discount. Had there been a copy of the fee sheet available I would have known this right away. It is also helpful to have a record for our deposit account book. I hope this matter will be considered
and possibly introduced as it would be most helpful." |
We explained that our IT systems are currently undergoing a major refresh and passed the suggestion through for inclusion in the project. |
| You told us, "I have a concern regarding the Trade Mark for the word "Wicca" which was coined by Gerald Gardner and is the name of a religion. As the customer did not coin the term and it is the name of a religion, why has a Trade Mark been issued
to him?" |
We confirmed, "Although we apply a rigorous trade mark examination process it is inevitable that with the thousands of applications we receive each year, parties sometimes consider a mark has been accepted and registered incorrectly. If you believe that a trade mark should not have achieved registration you can apply to have it removed from the register. This
is known as an application for 'invalidity'. Invalidation is part of the legal balance that the Registry
strikes between rights holders, consumers and applicants. Without it there would be no redress for those
who can show, for whatever reason, marks on the register should not stay there, and whose interests
may be adversely affected as a result. A comprehensive guide to invalidation  (111Kb) can
be accessed on the Intellectual Property Office website. I hope you will understand that because we
have a role in adjudicating trade mark disputes, I am unable to comment on the merits of individual
cases." |
| A variety of you rang to advise you, "Had received an "invoice" from CTM Filing Support and asked if it was a genuine request for payment from us." |
We informed all of you that it was unsolicited mail and advised to disregard it. All were then advised to contact Consumer Direct and referred to our website for further guidance. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "Are there any other comments about our trade mark services where you think we either do well, or where you think we could improve?" the survey respondent stated, "There is a need to take action against CTMFS et al (not just providing beware notifications)." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you requested for us not to reply. |
| A variety of had received an "invoice" from CTM Filing Support and asked if it was a genuine request for payment from us. |
You were informed 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. |
| General feedback collated was, "Rather surprisingly, some customers felt that paying in two stages was too much of a hassle for them. With regards to ight Start." |
No response required as recorded via event at Olympia Business Startup Event. |
| You commented, "Your Right Start reply email had gone straight to your ‘Junk Mail’ box and that you had missed the 14 day period for registration. You intended contacting the office to apply for her application to be reinsated." |
No response required as recorded via event at Olympia Business Startup Event. |
| We determined that, "There was much confusion around Trade Marks being too descriptive - we were able to explain with actual examples and literature." |
No response required as recorded via event at Olympia Business Startup Event. |
| As suspected, "Classification was as usual one of the most confusing and problematic areas. This was helped by giving out details of class headings in the leaflet packs we provided. We will include a contact name for classification queries with packs for the next event." |
No response required as recorded via event at Olympia Business Startup Event. |
| It was determined that, "There were still negative comments expressed regarding the quality of examination reports. One customer stated that he was unable to understand the reasons for refusal of his mark - the report he received was so difficult to understand due to the way it was written. Another customer actually mentioned the ‘Cut and Paste’ nature of the report. Unfortunately neither customer had these reports available so that we could attempt to explain. They were invited to send copies of these reports in to the office so that we can investigate further." |
No response required as recorded via event at Olympia Business Startup Event. |
| You told us that, "You were told by a Corporate Finance Lawyer not to register your Trade Mark as domain name registration gives much better protection!" |
No response required as recorded via event at Olympia Business Startup Event. |
| We received a fair number of queries relating to designs, "Several attendees queried the point of design registration given that designs could easily be changed in a minor way by third parties to avoid being regarded as infringements. Further guidance was requested on ‘Overall Appearance’ - what does this actually mean?" |
No response required as recorded via event at Olympia Business Startup Event. |
| Some of you were unaware that you needed to register a new design if you make any change to the original stating, "There seems to be little knowledge about multiple applications for designs – we need to check our literature and website to see if we can improve on these explanations." |
No response required as recorded via event at Olympia Business Startup Event. |
| You told us, "Your blurb mentions there is a discount for filling in trade mark application forms on line. I have wasted time trying to find out what this discount is. Why the h..... don't you make it accessible? And, do I need to register the name of a new product as a Trade Mark, or just give the item a name, and would that be free..? Or come under ‘copyright’?" |
You had a reply from CEU and we advised you of the relevant link on our website for the information you required and answered the other questions. You were clearly not happy with our website. |
| You said to us, "We regularly apply online for Trade Marks. I have found on a couple of occasions that new ADP numbers have been created for us, rather than the
applications being assigned to our current ADP. I feel that asking for the ADP number as a unique identifier,
at the very start of the online process, would be far better to avoid this. Maybe this already exists on the sysem somewhere?" |
We responded, "Thank you for your feedback about our on-line trade mark service. The ability to input your ADP number is at the moment unfortunately only available for trade mark agents and representatives. We are currently looking at making a number of changes to the application form and we will pass your request to the project team for inclusion." |
| You had recently filed an Austrian Patent Application for a foreign client so that the search report from the Austrian Patent Office will not be available within the next time. Now the client had the necessity for obtaining research funding to show that there are good chances to obtain a patent. In total the search was not satisfying since you had filed a German description including an English translation of the claims (the customer had asked and on telephone
was told that this should not be a problem). However, the search report revealed that the invention
was not understood by the examiner, since an essential feature of the claims (evacuation of at least
one chamber of the profiles) was not present in ANY document cited in the search report. So the value
of the search is somewhat restricted. If documents in German language are accepted it should be made sure that the examiner has at least a
basic understanding of German language to be able to read the description. Intellectual Property Office was chosen to obtain a search opinion from an independent organisation
outside of Austria. You have already used the Swedish Patent Office and search organisations in Japan. You rated the overall services in this case as dissatisfying. A positive remark is that you were able
to discuss the problem by telephone with the examiner and to receive a slightly improved version of
the report. Negative is that the printed version of the report does not show the improvements. |
You were thanked for your feedback and informed that a member of the team will contact you to discuss your comments. A letter was also issued apologising for the fact that this search did not run as smoothly as expected and for not issuing a final paper copy. |
| You stated, "The office should have the option of contacting the Examiner before the search to fully clarify certain issues. The customer is concerned the patentability search relied too much on English language references. In our case, no novelty destroying reference was found. We usually field PCT applications selecting the EO as the ISA. You were concerned the EPO will find
non English language references more relevant to the English language references found in the UKIPO
search. You stated that you were satisfied with the overall service." |
We confirmed that the option to contact the examiner is actually already in place, but is maybe not as well advertised as it could be. Examiners cite a variety of prior art, including documents both in English and in foreign languages. There is no indication from studies done that we cite considerably fewer non-English language documents than the EPO, but it is possible that the customer has seen a difference since we are more likely to cite documents in the English language if there is a choice between citing equivalent English or non-English documents. It is not felt that any action
is required on this at this stage, but this should be revisited if any further feedback of this nature
is received or it is noticed that we are not citing as much foreign language prior art as we should
be. |
| You advised, "This case was judged unsatisfactory in one of the inter divisional quality assessment (IDQA) panels. The search was considered not to have covered all possible classification marks, and additional relevant citations were found during the quality assessment. In addition, the search statement did not accurately reflect the common subject matter of all the independent claims provided by you." |
The search examiner was asked to revisit his original search, and to conduct further searching in light of the assessor’s comments. An updated report with new relevant citations was sent to you; no further contact from you has been received, so you are presumably content with the updated report. The examiner commented that he felt rushed, as his TAF was unrealistic for the amount of time required to do a search in this subject matter area properly. It was pointed out to him that for SAS searches he actually has more freedom to provide a realistic estimate based on how long he considers it would take to conduct the search properly, which he has now taken on board. |
| You mentioned, "On your E-blast mailed out 2 Dec you refer to Mike Barlow's new tool as being launched under the title 'Licensing your IP' yet when I click on the find the tool here link, it takes me to IP Health check. Is this the tool? And if so is there an inconsistency in how you are leading people to it. Or is there another tool that I can't find?" |
We advised, "The new tool, that Mike Barlow played a significant part in writing, is available on the IP Health check system. The Health check tool holds a number of diagnostics (patents, trade marks, copyright etc) and we've recently added Confidential Information and the more complex Licensing tool that Mike and his colleagues worked on. We've made registration optional, all you need is an email address and any six character password and
you can access any of the tools." |
| The case was judged "US" (unsatisfactory) in one of the interdivisional quality assessment (IDQA) panels. The search was considered to have missed a couple of potentially relevant citations, which were found
during the quality assessment, which could possibly be used to construct an inventive step argument
against the claims which were the subject of this validity search. Although these documents did not
appear to be much better than the documents already cited, the assessor did make the comment that examiners
should consider citing freely for validity searches. |
The search examiner was asked to revisit his original search, and to redraft his report commenting on the potential relevance of these additional citations. An updated report was sent to you; no further contact from you has been received, so they are presumably content with the updated report. The examiner commented that formal training for validity searches should be considered, and this is already in hand, with general training in SAS matters being planned for next year. The guidance notes already indicate that examiners should consider citing freely for validity searches,
but this does need to be reinforced in formal training courses. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "Is there anything further which we could add to our website to improve it further" the survey respondent stated, "The layout of the website is not very user-friendly and could be improved." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you requested for us not to reply. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "Is there anything further which we could add to our website to improve it further" the survey respondent stated, "Searching for information on website can be a bit hit-and-miss with regard to the relevance of the results - this could be improved (e.g. with an advanced search facility for selecting/excluding different subsets)." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you requested for us not to reply. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "Is there anything further which we could add to our website to improve it further" the survey respondent stated, "When searching for patent/applications by number, pressing the enter key after typing in the number should start the search." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you did not leave contact details to respond. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, “Is there anything further which we could add to our website to improve it further” the survey respondent commented that, in their view, the IPO’s association with cartoon characters was not appropriate given that IP is a serious issue. |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you requested for us not to reply and did not leave any contact details. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "Is there anything further which we could add to our website to improve it further" the survey respondent stated, "Easier navigation." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you did not leave contact details to respond. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "Is there anything further which we could add to our website to improve it further" the survey respondent stated, "Advanced search to improve relevance of results." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you requested for us not to reply. |
| In response to the question on the online survey, "Is there anything further which we could add to our website to improve it further" the survey respondent stated, "Easier to navigate." |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you requested for us not to reply. |
| A customer told us, "Provide the basic information on your home page that a visitor is obviously likely to wish to find, such as an introduction to the function of the patent office, its address, its phone number. None of this is obviously available, nor are there clear links to areas of the site that might provide these, if, indeed, there are such links at all. I can't even tell if it exists on the site at all. (I don't want a patent, I want to know how to access information on an existing patent, or historic, patent.)" |
No response required as recorded via the online survey and you did not leave contact details to respond. |
