FR 2025-07524

The document outlines an initiative by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to gather public comments on the extension and revision of its "Patents External Quality Survey." This survey serves to measure customer satisfaction regarding the quality of patent examinations conducted by the USPTO. As part of meeting the requirements set forth by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the USPTO invites comments from the public before submitting the survey for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The aim is to collect feedback by June 30, 2025, using an electronic or paper-based method.

Summary of the Document

The document is a call for public engagement to evaluate an existing survey tool that the USPTO uses to gather feedback about patent examination services. Conducted twice a year, this survey targets patent agents, attorneys, and other stakeholders involved in the patent process. Its purpose is to continually improve examination quality by soliciting feedback from process participants. Part of the survey's method involves drawing a random sample from firms that have filed more than five patent applications within a year.

Significant Issues or Concerns

One concern arising from this document is the lack of concrete examples of how past survey results have influenced changes or improvements within the agency. Without clear outcomes or follow-up actions, the survey's utility may seem limited.

Additionally, the time estimate for survey completion is set at 10 minutes per respondent. While this appears concise, it may underestimate the time needed for participants to gather necessary information, potentially requiring consultation with colleagues or review of company records.

Although the document insists there are no non-hourly costs for survey respondents, it fails to consider indirect costs like organizational meetings or internal processes required to compile the appropriate responses.

The sampling term "top filing firms" might be unclear, particularly for those not immersed in USPTO procedures. A more precise definition may help in comprehending the selection criteria for survey participants.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, the document indicates transparency and openness to feedback in the USPTO's processes. However, the collection of detailed information and the publication of all comments could deter some individuals or organizations from providing honest feedback due to confidentiality concerns.

Impact on Stakeholders

The document prominently affects stakeholders involved in intellectual property, such as law firms, independent inventors, and universities. A transparent, improved quality review system could lead to more reliable and efficient patent examinations, benefiting these groups significantly.

However, inconsistencies in the survey design or unclear expectations might dilute its effectiveness, especially if changes are not systematically implemented based on feedback. Also, while allowing return submissions in paper format seems inclusive, it could complicate administration and incur additional costs without substantial benefits if most prefer digital methods.

In conclusion, while the USPTO's intention to gather feedback for quality improvement is commendable, addressing these issues and communicating clear action links from past surveys could enhance the efficacy and relevance of this initiative.

The document provides insight into several financial aspects related to the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Patents External Quality Survey. This analysis will focus on the estimated total annual respondent hourly cost burden, references to billing rates, and discuss any related issues.

Financial References and Allocations

The document estimates the total annual respondent hourly cost burden to be $76,437. This figure represents the expected cost for respondents participating in the survey, calculated based on the time taken to complete the survey. The USPTO estimates that each response requires approximately 10 minutes, which equates to 0.17 hours per response. Given this time estimation, the total hours required by respondents amount to 171 hours annually.

Furthermore, the document references a billing rate of $447 per hour for intellectual property work. This rate is derived from the average billing rates reported in the 2023 Economic Survey published by the American Intellectual Property Law Association. By applying this rate, the hourly cost burden was calculated to compensate for the time respondents spend completing the survey.

Issues Related to Financial References

One of the identified issues is that the 10-minute time estimate may underestimate the time required for some respondents, particularly those who need to consult within their organization before responding. If the survey actually requires more time, the financial burden could be higher than calculated. This discrepancy potentially affects the accuracy of the $76,437 estimate.

The document also states there are no non-hourly costs associated with the survey, implying that respondents incur no additional expenses such as capital start-up costs or postage. However, the document does not account for potential indirect costs, like internal discussions regarding survey responses, which can impact organizations' operational capacities.

Lastly, while there are provisions for electronically submitting the survey, the inclusion of a postal mail option might entail unnecessary financial and logistical burdens. Given that electronic submission is often preferred for efficiency, maintaining a postal option could result in redundant administrative complexity and cost, which may not be justifiable if the majority of respondents utilize digital means.

Conclusion

In summary, the document outlines a structured financial approach to assessing the cost burden on respondents for participating in the USPTO's Patents External Quality Survey. While the $76,437 total hourly cost burden is systematically derived, potential underrating of required time and oversight of indirect costs might mean these figures underestimate the true financial implications for respondents. The inclusion of a postal option further contributes to potential inefficiencies and additional expenses, hinting at areas where the financial structure could be optimized.