| You advised, "I have an idea, a musical notation that will revolutionise guitar tuition across the world. Have spent weeks building up the courage to ring and submit my idea. The lady who answered the phone had crossed the fine line from being business-like, to being rude. She was impatient and curt
and sharp and sounded like she just wanted me to get off the line. "We get hundreds of calls like
this every day" she said. "None of them are eligible, goodbye". What a way to dash someone
who might have a million pound idea! My idea is not a concept, it is printed on paper, and it is physical.
I don't mind hearing the truth; just say it in a more polite way please." |
We replied, "Thank you for your feedback concerning a call you made to the IPO on the 27 August 2010. Firstly I would like to apologise for the service you have received. I have listened to the call and can fully understand the comments that you have made. I have held a meeting with the advisor concerned, who has listened back to the call and accepts that the way she handled this call was not acceptable. I am also arranging some training for the advisor on how she should handle this type of call in the future. We strongly value our Customer Service Standards and I hope this has not deterred you from applying for Intellectual Property if needed. Intellectual Property can be confusing and unfortunately, ideas themselves
are not protectable. There are different areas of Intellectual Property that can cover different aspects
of your business, such as Trade Mark protection for your brand name, Design protection for the look
of a product and Copyright for any written material. If you would like me to contact you to go through
which area of Intellectual Property would best fit you, please provide me with a date and time which
would be convenient for you. Please accept my sincere apologies and if you have any more queries, please
do not hesitate to contact me." |
| You phoned the information centre twice asking questions on the TM register of a licence form which is a TM50. Each time you phoned, you said quickly at the beginning of the call "a TM24, to register a licence, what is ............." Unfortunately, both information centre advisors did not correct him. |
We agreed to waive the fee for the licence as requested by the attorney. |
| You told us, "Your website is not very easy to navigate, some of the very basics such as 'search patents’ are very difficult to navigate. And how about a 'Contact us' tab. " |
We replied, "I am sorry that the navigation in relation to the Patent search area was difficult to navigate. We do monitor all customer feedback and will look to address this problem if we continue to get comments suggesting it is causing customers difficulties. Thanks too for your suggestion for a contact us type tab, we are currently working
on changing the home page slightly and a more prominent contact us/feedback type is actively being considered." |
| You told us, "Some advisors very useful but others are plainly obstructive in some cases. I had one response to a patent application that was clearly a veiled attempt to persuade me that this application was not acceptable, it included a full search report - which I hadn't requested or paid for!!!? On occasion I have been promised information/forms to be acknowledged and been promised it would be in the post. After chasing and then requesting
info by fax - promised within 5 minutes - eventually received fax two hours later and copy of fax and
original info in post the following day." |
We responded, "I note that you feel that we attempted to persuade you that your application was not acceptable and also that we provided you with a full search report which you had neither paid for nor requested. I am sorry that you were disappointed with our level of service provided however I should explain the role of the Patents Private Applicant Unit (PAU). All privately filed patent applications are initially looked at by the PAU examiners; occasionally they identify applications which they believe may have little prospect of success. The examiner who initially assessed your application thought that it did not show
any technical features to enable a patent to be granted. Our letter aims to assist private applicants with regard to their application. It gave advice, such
as the possibility of withdrawing the application and re-filing with additional information, however
please let me assure you that the letter was only intended as advice and the decision whether to continue
with the application or not is entirely yours. We also provided some patent documents which were similar
to your application, this was not a full search report but an extra free service that we provide on
applications such as yours. The full search report would only be issued when the search fee and claims
have been filed. Once again I apologise if you believe our service has fallen below expected standards but if you wish
to discuss the matter further please do not hesitate to call me on the above telephone number." |
| You telephoned on 03 September 2010 in response to an estimate that we had prepared for SAS earlier that day. We provided a detailed estimate for a freedom to operate (FTO) search, an estimate for a patentability search and a combined estimate for both searches if done together. The estimate for the FTO search was £11850 plus VAT including status information on any documents cited in the report and £11100 plus VAT not including status information on any documents cited in the report. The estimate also indicated that we will aim to issue the result of the search before 31 October 2010 if the estimate is accepted promptly. The estimate for patentability search was £1500 plus VAT. The estimate also indicated that we will aim to issue the result of the search within 10 working days of receiving confirmation to proceed. A combined estimate for a patentability and FTO search done together was £12750 plus VAT including status information on any documents cited in the FTO search report and £12000 plus VAT not including status information on any documents cited in the FTO search report. You were unhappy with the cost of the estimate for the FTO search and the timescale in which such a search could be completed. In particular, you referred to the section on FTO searches on the external website, which you argued was misleading because the relevant section states that costs are around £1,500 to £3,000 plus VAT for most technologies with only certain areas of technology having higher costs (an organic chemistry structural search
is around £3,000 to £6,000 plus VAT). You further argued that the website was misleading in that it
states that we will typically issue the FTO search report within 10 working days of us agreeing the
costs with the customer. Further to the above points, you informed us that you had discussed the search
with someone at SAS (although you could not recall the person’s name) on the telephone at least three
months ago. You alleged that in this telephone conversation, the person had told you that the search
estimate would probably fall within the lower (i.e. £1,500 to £3,000 plus VAT range), rather than in
the higher range (£3,000 to £6,000 plus VAT) indicated on the external website because the search would
involve a known drug and thus a chemical substructure search would probably not be necessary. You were
therefore unhappy to receive an estimate that is approximately double the highest figure indicated on
the external website and that a FTO search report would not be available until 31 October 2010. You
told us that you had factored in the costs and turnaround time indicated on the external website into
your own estimates for your client, who is a pharmaceutical company and that the current estimate would
cause problems between you and your client. We told you that we are sorry that you thought that you
had received misleading advice from SAS and that you thought that the costs and turnaround time indicated
on the external website were misleading, although we did indicate that the external website indicates
that search fees and turnaround times may be higher than the typical figures shown. We informed you
that we would pass on your concerns to the relevant section. With regard to the estimated cost of the
FTO search, we explained that the need or otherwise for a chemical substructure search was not really
the issue here, although we think that such a search is preferable, if not essential to the FTO search.
We explained that the main factor affecting the size of a FTO estimate is how many documents are expected
to be retrieved by the FTO search and how much document analysis of those documents is required. We
told you that our preliminary search had retrieved over two thousand documents to be analysed and that
on this basis, a full FTO search was neither practicable within the cost ranges indicated on the external
website nor within the timescale indicated on the same. We told you that FTO estimates over £10000 and
with an 8 week turnaround time are not uncommon for pharmaceutical and/or organic chemistry searches
conducted here at the IPO. You informed us that you would probably proceed with the patentability search,
but would consult your client about the FTO search estimate. |
We apologised for the inconvenience that this may have caused but explained that such FTO searches for pharmaceuticals can be costly and take more time than those advertised on our external website. We agreed to review our external web page to make it more implicit regarding FTO search costs especially in relation to pharmaceuticals. |
| You "Applied for a patent via an agent a few years ago. The search report cited a 1920's patent which he felt was unrelated. You said you spoke to the examiner who said that he was responsible for making the final decision and
there was no "appeal" process or other route to take the matter forward." |
We investigated and found that the case had proceeded normally, up to the point where no response was received to the examination report. A senior member of the examination team contacted you to discuss your concerns. You explained that following conversations with your agent you were under the impression that there was no point continuing
with the application. You didn't speak to the office yourself but said that your agent dealt with the
office. We have no record of any correspondence with you or your agent on this issue and can't comment
on any conversation between you and you agent. We went through the examination process for you as this
case has not yet passed its compliance period so potentially could be rescued. You have a new agent
so you were going to take advice from them. |
| You confirmed that, "No acknowledgement received for a change of address for service filed in July. You complained this is a regular occurrence lately and you have had to contact the office a few times in the last month regarding different address for service changes as you have had no acknowledgement for these either." |
You spoke with our register administration manager who clarified this position for you. |
| You "Filed your request for substantive examination (Form 10) on 29 April 2009. You then say you were informed by someone in the Office that you would receive your examination report
by May 2010. We don't know who gave you that estimate but it was wildly incorrect. You telephoned at
the start of May 2010 to ask when your exam report would issue and we told you summer 2011, which you
accepted, and we asked if there was any reason to accelerate the case, which there was not; however,
you subsequently phoned back on 28 July to confirm that date and to express your dissatisfaction at
having been given the wrong date at the time of making your request. This time when we asked you if
there was any reason why the examination should be accelerated you said that you are seeking financial
backing, so we agreed to accelerate the case." |
We confirmed that the examination was accelerated because you are actively seeking financial backing for your invention. The exam report will issue no later than 28 September 2010. You were cheered up by this outcome. |
| You said, "I can’t find where to request initial form 1 to apply for a patent, or advice by post on how to apply." Also stating, "I have an invention that I believe is new and innovative, never seen anything remotely similar, I want to start the application process, web
site does not show how to request these forms by post. Please send all initial forms and fees for an
application for patent/patents asap." On 1 September 2010 you replied, "I couldn't file on
line as I don't have drawings held on line. I have read the details sent but they are very confusing,
the form AF1 asks for a Patent application number, which I don't have, it does not say in brackets (if
you have it) as it does for Patents ADP number, so it looks like I should have a Patent application
number! But I don't? There is nowhere to state a description of what it is that I am applying for a
patent. All the books don't give a step by step instruction with examples of the forms and what forms
I need to apply, so I will just send the form AF1 with the £30 fee and a separate description and hand
drawing, and wait to see what happens. I would have thought that by now the IPO would have a simplified
set of forms and instructions that the layman can understand. You sent 8 booklets with 2 letters, yet
there is not one of them that tells you exactly the process, government gibberish speak!, all that is
needed is one booklet with clear unambiguous explanations, telephoning only got me instructions of which
page to look at on the web site but that still did not give clear directions. Very strange, many would
just give up before they start. I will send the fee and AF1 and a sketch of my idea with typed explanation
of its construction and its use, and wait to see what happens." On 2 September 2010 you advised,
"Please send paper copy of form 1 a fact sheet on filling out form 1 or what documents to file
were never included in the parcel of un-coordinated material that would take a professor in gibberish to fathom. Please just send me stage
1 with clear completion details, then after receipt send me the next stage in the same manner." |
On 23 August 2010 our information centre advised you, "I have arranged for the Patents application form and information booklets to be sent out in the post for you. Our Customer Relationship Team are currently dealing with your feedback, and you will receive a response in due course." On 1 September 2010 we also advised, "Thank you for your feedback submitted on 19 August 2010 regarding the availability of patents forms and information about how to apply for a patent. As you may have already noticed, a lot of information about how to apply for a patent is available directly from our website. For example, Apply for a patent contains basic information about what needs to be filed to start the application process, and includes links to our patent application guides. It also includes a link to Patents Form 1, the first form which needs to be filed when applying for a patent. All other patents forms are available in Microsoft Word and PDF format, along with the fees which apply to each form. Information in paper format about how to apply, along with the relevant forms, can be obtained by contacting
our Information Centre on 0300 300 2000. However, I understand that these documents have now been
sent to you and I hope that they have reached you by now. You may also be interested to know that patent
applications can be filed online. If filing online the relevant forms are generated
automatically by the online filing system so there is no need to obtain them in advance. Furthermore,
some fees are reduced if you file online, as detailed on the forms and fees page mentioned above. I
hope that you find this information helpful." On 1 September 2010 we further replied, "I appreciate
that applying for a patent can be a complicated process, and I'm sorry that you have not found the information
supplied to you particularly helpful. Please be advised that Form AF1 is used when paying the application
fee on an existing patent application. If you are filing a fresh application then you should file Form
1, which should have been supplied to you. If you pay the application fee at the same time as filing
Form 1 then you do not need to file Form AF1. A factsheet on how to fill out Form 1 and what documents
to file with it should also have been supplied to you. If not then I apologise - The Form
1 factsheet  (30Kb) is available on our website or I can arrange for a paper copy to be sent to you. Alternatively, if you contact our Information Centre on 0300 300 2000 then I can assure you that one
of my colleagues will be more than happy to talk you through the process of filling out Form 1, and
will advise what documents need to be filed with Form 1 to start the application process." On 02
September 2010 we issued the pack as required. |
| You wrote to complain that we had not identified the correct subject matter to be searched in this grant application. The grant outlined an extraction method for extracting alginates from seaweed, and the examiner only searched for the principle of extracting alginates from seaweed, which is well known. |
After discussion with the examiner, we agreed that we had not correctly identified the right subject matter to be searched and said that we would carry out a new search to remedy this mistake. |
| You contacted SAS initially on Friday 17 September by telephone to raise your concerns that the results from the commercial search done in May 2009 differed substantially from the results of the subsequent statutory search done in September 2010. We spoke with you on Tuesday 21 September. You indicated that you were unhappy that the results of the statutory search that you had just recently received were so different to the results of the SAS search that you had commissioned in May 2009. You said that this was not the first time that two searches done by us produced significantly different results. You felt that the examiners did not treat commercial searches with the same respect as a statutory search request. |
We responded to the points raised as follows: "I agreed that it was unfortunate that the search results were so different. It appears that the two different search examiners took different approaches to their searches, at least
partially because the draft claim in the earlier commercial search request differed in its emphasis
(but not substance) from the later claims filed with the statutory application. The later statutory
search placed more emphasis on the fact that the sensor was being used in a wind turbine, and the results
of that search therefore appeared to be better focused towards the actual invention under consideration.
While you conceded that different search results from two separate searches could be expected to yield
different documents (which is why you do not tend to mention an earlier SAS search when filing a patent
application), you do not expect the results to be as different as they were in this case. I noted that
examiners are expected to place at least equal importance on a commercial search as a statutory search,
and it is my feeling that they do this. The lack of consistency between search results in the past may
be because the examiner does not understand the invention as fully with the commercial search, often
because less information is provided. I explained that some steps to improve the quality of SAS patent
searches had already been taken since this SAS search had been done in May last year, which were intended
to mitigate against problems such as this one. I have delivered training in SAS work, in which the standards
required for SAS searches and expectations of customers, was reinforced to examiners. In this training,
it was also emphasised to examiners that they should always consider contacting the customer to clarify
what should be searched for. I also indicated that we had changed our wording of acknowledgement emails
when searches are commissioned to encourage customers to contact examiners about the search strategy
if they wished. You indicated that these measures were helpful, and could have helped to avoid problems
he has had in the past. Internally, we have also noted your complaint, and ensured that instructions
for any future cases of his are updated to note that the examiner should, as a matter of course, contact
him to discuss the search strategy. You seemed to be satisfied by the measures already taken by SAS
to improve the quality and service of SAS searches. Although you had originally said that he was considering not using us again, he indicated that he was
happy to hear that things had changed since this search had been done. You indicated that you would
really like to continue to use our services, as we are particularly convenient for you, and you would
consider the content of our conversation when making any future decisions." |
| You told us, "Files acceptable to submit (pdf) should be explained at point of entry i.e. when trying to enter several pdf files it should make it clear how to convert from other types - include an auto-convert link." On 29 September 2010 you responded, "OK, Does it make clear on the uploading pages that by clicking on next it takes you to a facility for uploading another PDF that may need to link to another earlier PDF I refer specifically to the Drawings Uploading. I spent a lot of time looking for how to submit 3 PDFs all of which were parts of the Drawings pages. If it had said 'click next to upload more pages' it would've been far less troublesome. Please remember that many of us are computer literate - but only just! A point often found difficult to comprehend properly by IT professionals." |
We advised, "Thank you for your e mail about the Patents web filing service. I am sorry that you do not think we clearly explain that only PDF type files may be submitted as attachments. We do try to indicate the requirements of the service as early as possible. For example, there is a list of "Dos and Don'ts" on the web filing 'landing page' which explains that PDF is the required format of attachments and there is further detailed advice about PDFs in the Guidance Notes which we recommend customers read before they start to use the service. We are unable to provide links to, or advice about, which software to use when converting your documents to PDF; this is because their effectiveness may depend on the type of document you are trying to convert and because we cannot appear to endorse one product over another. However, some modern word processing packages provide the option of saving documents as PDFs and I understand that there is a range of other software freely available on the internet." On 11 October 2010 we further replied, "Thank you for your further e mail about the patents web filing service. I will ask our IT department to take your comments about uploading PDF drawings into account when we next have an opportunity to review the operation of the service and how it may be improved." |
| You advised, "Complaint - I was expecting an answer from the UK Patent Office of my application status. I have been informed that it has been "ceased" this info is my invention to benefit the UK public. I now feel that it has been taken away from me... which I may never know. Not being represented by legal counsel was due to my retirement financial status. If there is anything you can do to help me I would appreciate it." On the 5 October 2010 you replied, "Thank you for your quick response." |
We replied, "Thank you for your e-mail dated 30 September 2010. It appears that your application is in order and all the requirements have been met. The status of your application is waiting to be examined by a patent examiner so it has not ceased as you were previously advised. You should receive your examination report between April 2011 and September 2011. Please accept my sincere
apologies for any distress or inconvenience this may have caused you." |
| You said that TM "World Tarot Day May 25" should not be allowed. |
We advised you that the applicant has now withdrawn this case. |
| You advised, "I am a first time user. There was not enough guidance for first time users. In particular, a dedicated telephone number should be provided and that first time users should be encouraged to phone for guidance before completing the application form." |
We confirmed, "Many thanks for your feedback regarding a dedicated telephone line for first time users. Our Information Centre is manned by staff with the knowledge to assist first time applicants; they can guide you through the application form. Also we are currently working on a project to update our website, to make it more user friendly. I will forward your comments to the project team." |
| You advised, "A computer generated letter which is issued prior to publication of Trade Marks to advice of the forthcoming publication date and journal number contains a telephone number which is out of date." You had a query and when you rang the number you got through to somebody who had no dealings with trademarks. The number on the letter is 01633 811414. We believe also that the internet address and the fax number
may also need to be updated. |
We responded, "I am emailing in response to your feedback sent to us on 14 September 2010. Many thanks for drawing our attention to the incorrect telephone number on the automated prior to publication letter that we send. I have now taken steps to have this amended, along with the fax number. From next week, we hope to have all details on the prior to publication letters correct." |
| You rang asking to be transferred to new applications about an email you had received from us. We tried to transfer but unfortunately no-one answered the phones even though it was diverting to many different extensions. |
No response possible (no contact details recorded) |
| You were trying to get hold of TM Classification. You rang every day from 1 - 16 August and received voicemail. You rang back last week and still voicemail everytime and today you had rung 3 times and got voicemail. |
We confirmed that there was a technical error with our telephone system and apologised for this. |
| You rang asking to speak to classification section. We tried to transfer you but the phones were going through to voicemail. We came back to you and you said you were not happy because you had been trying to get hold of classification section since 1pm and couldn't get through. |
We tried a Trademark examiner and explained the problem and asked him whether he could help with classification or knew anyone that could; unfortunately all the examiners that knew about classification had gone home. We then tried another examiner and we explained the problem to him and he said he would take the call and help you with the query. |
| You couldn't get through to Classification for some reason, the answer phone did not cut in and you got an unobtainable sound. You needed assistance before 16:00 today (15 September 2010). |
"We rang you to explain that classification section experienced a technical glitch on the 15 September. This resulted in calls not automatically diverting to the answer phone when other officers in classification were engaged in other calls. This problem has now been rectified. We apologised for the lack of service provided." |
| You rang to say that you, "Can't get through to classification, been trying all day. Urgently needs the advice today." |
We replied, "I am very sorry that you could not get through to our TM Classification section for advice on this day. I contacted the Head of Classification to investigate; she tells me that on that particular day there were visitors to the section. As Classification is a very small section this left only one person taking calls. You should have been redirected to our shadow team but obviously this did not happen. We can only apologise for the inconvenience, I have made our Information Centre aware of this issue and asked them
to ensure that the shadow team is used." |
| You were unhappy that you could not get through to the classification section. We offered the e-mail link to classification but you did not take up this option. You said that when you phoned the phone just went dead and no answer message cut in. You wanted to know if they would ring back today was quite sharp. |
We rang you to explain that classification section experienced a technical glitch on the 15 September. This resulted in calls not automatically diverting to the answer phone when other officers in classification were engaged in other calls. This problem has now been rectified. We apologised for the lack of service provided. |
| You told us, "When I applied to secure some trademarks, I mis read the unclear information on your webpage that resulted in my losing £400. I was informed by the IPO that I cannot claim this money back, which is grossly unfair, as this money was intended to be used to secure some trademarks to help boost the local economy of an economically disadvantaged region of the United Kingdom. I suggest that I should be allowed to recoup this money that will then be spent on two new 'Trademark' names. This would be the ethical response that would improve my damaged perception of the IPO." |
We replied, "Many thanks for the feedback sent in to us via IP health check. Can I ask you to please let us have more information about the trade marks that you mention in the feedback, do you have application numbers or any references of any kind so that we can investigate further. Could you also give us more information about what part of our website you found misleading as we are currently running a website project and this issue could be included?" |
