Transcript BCP_060413_WALKER

TC1600-Quality Assurance
Bennett Celsa QAS
Joseph Woitach SPE
June 4, 2013
1
Overview
Two Parts:
i.
New Corps Wide Quality Metrics (effective FY 2012) ;
ii.
TC 1600 Implementation: Quality Plan (FY 2012-2013).
2
Corps Wide Quality Metrics
•
•
•
USPTO and Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC)
2011 Initiative.
Sources: current practices, key USPTO statistics, blogs,
PPAC outreach, applicant and practitioner surveys, foreign
offices, past USPTO studies, non-USPTO studies, and public
comments (e.g. roundtables).
• new Composite Quality Metric : effective FY 2012.
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/patentquality.jsp (main web site);
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/qual_comp_metric.pdf.
3
Seven Corps Wide Quality Metrics
•
These metrics, combine to present a balanced view of quality issues at the
USPTO:
4
1st Four Corps-Wide Quality Metrics
•
First Four Metrics :
• Final Disposition Compliance Rate;
•
•
•
In-Process Compliance Rate;
First Action on the Merits Search Review;
Complete First Action on the Merits Review;
are based upon data from reviews of specific
applications; and are measured by the Office of Patent
Quality Assurance (OPQA) at the USPTO.
5
6th/7th Metrics (Surveys)
•
The last two metrics (External/Internal Surveys)
• External Quality Survey (applicant/practitioner experiences); and
• Internal Quality Survey (examiner experiences)
are formed from surveys performed by an independent
party.
 supplemented by TC specific information obtained from
Ombudsman program, Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical
Customer Partnership (BCP) Meetings, Art Unit meetings etc.
6
5th Corps Wide Metric (QIR)
•
•
The fifth metric (QIR) relies upon objective statistical data taken
from the USPTO PALM (Palm Application Locating and Monitoring
system) database.
The QIR averages five factors, which are based on:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Actions per Disposal
RCEs of Total Disposals
Re-openings After-final
Non-FAOM Non-final Actions
Restrictions After-first Action
Analysis of PALM data for these five factors can reveal the
presence of statistical trends arising during examination where:
•
•
training is needed; and
the presence of outstanding quality procedures identified and
encouraged.
7
Goal of QIR Initiatives
•
USPTO’s on-going efforts toward
• compact prosecution and
• pendency reduction.
8
QIR#2 RCE-Pilot Initiatives (Corps)
• Decrease RCEs of Total Disposals:
i. After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0): authorizes nonproduction time for examiners to consider responses filed after a final rejection;
 until September 30, 2013.
•
•
http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/patents/afcp/
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf.
ii. Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS): eliminates the
requirement for processing of a request for continued examination (RCE) with an
information disclosure statement (IDS) filed after payment of the issue fee in order
for the IDS to be considered by the examiner;
•
if the examiner determines that no item of information in the IDS necessitates
reopening prosecution, the USPTO will issue a corrected notice of allowability;
 until September 30, 2013.
•
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/qpids.jsp
9
QIR#2 RCE Initiatives (USPTO/Public)
•
RCE Outreach Program:
http://ptoweb.uspto.gov/ptointranet/index.htm
• USPTO/Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC)
collaboration;
• Purpose:
i. to learn more about the root causes for RCE filings
and related pressure points experienced by our
stakeholder community; and
ii. enable applicants to use RCE practice when needed
and avoid it when equal or better options may be
available.
10
TC 1600: FY 2012 Quality Plan
(Strategy)
•
FY 2012 Quality Plan Strategy: addressed 5 QIR factors, based
on:
1.
Actions per Disposal;
RCEs of Total Disposals;
Re-openings After-final;
Non-FAOM Non-final Actions; and
Restrictions After-first Action
2.
3.
4.
5.
•
1.
2.

Course of Action: formed Teams (SPE’s and QAS’s):
“Communication Team”; and
“QIR Factor Teams”.
Mined QIR data for each of the above Factors to determine trends useful for
developing training on enhanced efficiencies (quality) and best practices.
11
TC 1600: FY 2012 Quality Plan
(Course of Action)
TC1600 Quality Plan- Course of Action:
i.
Communication Team: Educational:
• formed first to introduce QIR factors to TC1600;
ii.
QIR Teams: Practical:
• addressed the individual QIR components;
• identified three main areas needing improvement:
• actions/disposal (QIR 1),
• disposals not RCE (QIR 2),
restrictions after first action (QIR 5): FY12 focus
12
TC 1600: FY 2012 Quality Plan
(Implementation)
TC 1600: FY 2012 Quality Plan: Implementation:
• Communication team (4 SPE’s): TC 1600 Awareness:
• May FY12: SPE introduction
• QIR introduction and restriction strategy to SPE’s via
management meeting;
• June FY12: Examiner introduction:
• SPE’s communicate QIR information and restriction strategy
to examiners at Art Unit meetings.
13
TC 1600: FY 2012-13 Quality Plan:
Implementation: Restriction (QIR #5)
•
Restriction Team- FY12 Focused Targeted Metric:
• identified examiners with excessive numbers of such
restrictions, and reviewed selected cases;
• training and quality plans were formulated for
examiners including emphasis on telephonic election.
% of Total Restrictions Not Made on 2nd or Subsequent Action:
 Improved: 94.8% (EOY11) to 96.1%(EOY12) to 97.7% (FY13
midyr). --(This continued a positive trend that was realized
following earlier compact prosecution efforts).
14
TC 1600: FY 2013 Quality Plan:
Implementation
•
Established the basis for our FY 13 main focus:
QIR #1: actions/disposal and
QIR #2: RCEs of total disposals.
15
TC 1600: FY 2013 Quality Plan:
QIR#1(actions/disposal)
QIR #1 (actions/disposal):
• Examiners with above average actions/disposal were
identified and information communicated to SPEs;
• Workgroup Manager/Examiner informational and training
sessions have been held;
% Employees Averaging <3 Actions per Disposal:
 Improved from 70.6% (EOY12) to 75.4% (FY 13 midyr).
16
TC 1600: FY 2013 Quality Plan:
QIR#2 (RCEs)
QIR #2: RCE filings
• Interviews after final and during prosecution have been
encouraged;
• Patterns in repeated filings of RCEs are being investigated;
• Examiners with a disproportionate number of disposals for
RCE are being identified and docket management issues
addressed.
% Disposals Not RCE:
 Decreased slightly:76.8% (EOY12) to 76.5% (FY13 midyr).
17
TC 1600: FY 2013 Quality Plan:
QIR#3 (AF Re-openings)
QIR #3: AF Re-Openings;
•
Art Unit Meetings: QIR awareness and Mentoring;
•
After-Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP)
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/afcp.jsp ;
• part of the USPTO’s on-going efforts towards compact prosecution
and increased collaboration between examiners and stakeholders;
• AFCP authorizes extra time for examiners to consider responses
filed after a final rejection.
% Finals Not Reopened:
 Improved: 97.5%(EOY12) to 98.2% (FY13 midyr).
18
TC 1600: FY 2013 Quality Plan:
QIR#4 (multiple non-finals)
QIR #4: Non-FAOM Non-final Actions:
•
Art Unit Meetings: QIR awareness and Mentoring;
• Compact Prosecution Training:
i. Workshops:
• Applicant’s Reply Workshop (FY 12);
• Enhancing Efficiency in Examination (FY13)
ii. Refresher Training.
% Total Actions: Not 2nd+ Non-Finals
 Improved:97.1% (EOY12) to 97.6%(FY13 midyr).
19
Questions
•
•
Bennett Celsa (Quality Assurance Specialist)
[email protected]
(571) 272-0807
Joseph Woitach (Supervisory Patent Examiner)
[email protected]
(571) 272-0739
Technology Center 1600 USPTO
20