Intellectual Property
Improvements Needed to Better Manage Patent Office Automation and Address Workforce Challenges Gao ID: GAO-05-1008T September 8, 2005The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is responsible for issuing patents that protect new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity. However, the volume and complexity of patent applications to the agency have increased significantly in recent years, lengthening the time needed to process patents and raising concerns about the validity of the patents that are issued. Annual applications have grown from about 185,000 to over 350,000 in the last 10 years and are projected to exceed 450,000 by 2009. Coupled with this growth is a backlog of about 750,000 applications. Further complicating matters, the agency has faced difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified staff to process patent applications. USPTO has long recognized the need to automate its patent processing and, over the past two decades, has been engaged in various automation projects. More recently, in its strategic plan, the agency articulated its approach for accelerating the use of automation and improving workforce quality. In two reports issued in June 2005, GAO discussed progress and problems that the agency faces as it develops its electronic patent process, its actions to attain a highly qualified patent examination workforce, and the progress of the agency's strategic plan initiatives. At Congress's request, this testimony summarizes the results of these GAO reports.
As part of its strategy to achieve an electronic patent process, USPTO had planned to deliver an operational patent system by October 2004. It has delivered important capabilities, for example, allowing patent applicants to electronically file and view the status of their applications and the public to search published patents. Nonetheless, after spending over $1 billion on its efforts from 1983 through 2004, the agency has not yet developed the fully integrated, electronic patent process articulated in its automation plans, and when and how it will achieve this process is uncertain. Key systems that the agency is relying on to help reach this goal--an electronic application filing system and a document imaging system--have not provided capabilities that are essential to operating in a fully electronic environment. Contributing to this situation is the agency's ineffective planning for and management of its patent automation initiatives, due in large measure to enterprise-level, systemic weaknesses in its information technology investment management processes. Although the agency has begun instituting essential investment management mechanisms, such as its enterprise architecture framework, it has not yet finalized its capital planning and investment control process, or established necessary linkages between the process and its architecture to guide the development and implementation of its information technology. The Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and the agency's chief information officer have acknowledged the need for improvement. USPTO has taken steps to attract and retain a highly qualified patent examination workforce by, for example, enhancing its recruiting efforts and using many of the human capital benefits available under federal personnel regulations. However, it is too soon to determine the long-term success of the agency's efforts because they have been in place only a short time and have not been consistently sustained because of budgetary constraints. Long-term uncertainty about the agency's hiring and retention success is also due to the unknown impact of the economy. In the past, the agency had more difficulty recruiting and retaining staff when the economy was doing well. Further, USPTO faces three long-standing challenges that could undermine its efforts: the lack of an effective strategy to communicate and collaborate with examiners, outdated assumptions in production quotas that it uses to reward examiners, and the lack of required ongoing technical training for examiners. Patent examiners said the lack of a collaborative work environment has lowered morale and created an atmosphere of distrust between management and patent examiners. Overall, USPTO has made more progress in implementing its strategic plan initiatives aimed at increasing its patent processing capability through workforce and process improvements than in its initiatives to decrease patent pendency and improve electronic processing. It has fully or partially implemented all 23 capability initiatives, but only 8 of 15 initiatives to reduce patent pendency and improve electronic processing. The agency cited a lack of funding as the primary reason for not implementing all initiatives.
GAO-05-1008T, Intellectual Property: Improvements Needed to Better Manage Patent Office Automation and Address Workforce Challenges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-1008T
entitled 'Intellectual Property: Improvements Needed to Better Manage
Patent Office Automation and Address Workforce Challenges' which was
released on September 8, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual
Property, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 1:00 p.m. EDT:
Thursday, September 8, 2005:
Intellectual Property:
Improvements Needed to Better Manage Patent Office Automation and
Address Workforce Challenges:
Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director, Science and Technology Issues and
Linda D. Koontz, Director, Information Management Issues:
GAO-05-1008T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-1008T, testimony before the Subcommittee on
Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, Committee on the
Judiciary, House of Representatives:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is responsible
for issuing patents that protect new ideas and investments in
innovation and creativity. However, the volume and complexity of patent
applications to the agency have increased significantly in recent
years, lengthening the time needed to process patents and raising
concerns about the validity of the patents that are issued. Annual
applications have grown from about 185,000 to over 350,000 in the last
10 years and are projected to exceed 450,000 by 2009. Coupled with this
growth is a backlog of about 750,000 applications. Further complicating
matters, the agency has faced difficulty in attracting and retaining
qualified staff to process patent applications.
USPTO has long recognized the need to automate its patent processing
and, over the past two decades, has been engaged in various automation
projects. More recently, in its strategic plan, the agency articulated
its approach for accelerating the use of automation and improving
workforce quality. In two reports issued in June 2005, GAO discussed
progress and problems that the agency faces as it develops its
electronic patent process, its actions to attain a highly qualified
patent examination workforce, and the progress of the agency‘s
strategic plan initiatives.
At the Committee‘s request, this testimony summarizes the results of
these GAO reports.
What GAO Found:
As part of its strategy to achieve an electronic patent process, USPTO
had planned to deliver an operational patent system by October 2004. It
has delivered important capabilities, for example, allowing patent
applicants to electronically file and view the status of their
applications and the public to search published patents. Nonetheless,
after spending over $1 billion on its efforts from 1983 through 2004,
the agency has not yet developed the fully integrated, electronic
patent process articulated in its automation plans, and when and how it
will achieve this process is uncertain. Key systems that the agency is
relying on to help reach this goal”an electronic application filing
system and a document imaging system”have not provided capabilities
that are essential to operating in a fully electronic environment.
Contributing to this situation is the agency‘s ineffective planning for
and management of its patent automation initiatives, due in large
measure to enterprise-level, systemic weaknesses in its information
technology investment management processes. Although the agency has
begun instituting essential investment management mechanisms, such as
its enterprise architecture framework, it has not yet finalized its
capital planning and investment control process, or established
necessary linkages between the process and its architecture to guide
the development and implementation of its information technology. The
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and the agency‘s
chief information officer have acknowledged the need for improvement.
USPTO has taken steps to attract and retain a highly qualified patent
examination workforce by, for example, enhancing its recruiting efforts
and using many of the human capital benefits available under federal
personnel regulations. However, it is too soon to determine the long-
term success of the agency‘s efforts because they have been in place
only a short time and have not been consistently sustained because of
budgetary constraints. Long-term uncertainty about the agency‘s hiring
and retention success is also due to the unknown impact of the economy.
In the past, the agency had more difficulty recruiting and retaining
staff when the economy was doing well. Further, USPTO faces three long-
standing challenges that could undermine its efforts: the lack of an
effective strategy to communicate and collaborate with examiners,
outdated assumptions in production quotas that it uses to reward
examiners, and the lack of required ongoing technical training for
examiners. Patent examiners said the lack of a collaborative work
environment has lowered morale and created an atmosphere of distrust
between management and patent examiners.
Overall, USPTO has made more progress in implementing its strategic
plan initiatives aimed at increasing its patent processing capability
through workforce and process improvements than in its initiatives to
decrease patent pendency and improve electronic processing. It has
fully or partially implemented all 23 capability initiatives, but only
8 of 15 initiatives to reduce patent pendency and improve electronic
processing. The agency cited a lack of funding as the primary reason
for not implementing all initiatives.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-1008T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above.For more information, contact Anu Mittal at (202) 512-
3841 or mittala@gao.gov or Linda Koontz at (202) 512-6240 or
koontzl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We are pleased to be here today to participate in your oversight
hearing of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO)
efforts to modernize its patent application processing capability. Our
testimony focuses on several critical aspects of the agency's overall
goal: (1) its ongoing initiative to achieve a paperless, electronic
patent process, (2) its actions to attract and retain a highly
qualified patent examiner workforce and address human capital
challenges, and (3) the implementation of critical initiatives outlined
in its 21st Century Strategic Plan--issued in 2002 in response to a
congressional requirement that the agency improve patent quality,
implement electronic government, and reduce the number of pending
patent claims.[Footnote 1]
Rapid growth in both the volume and complexity of patent applications
to USPTO has lengthened the time needed to process patents and has
raised concerns among intellectual property organizations, patent
holders, and others about the quality of the patents that are issued.
Over the last 10 years, the number of patent applications filed
annually has increased 91 percent, from about 185,000 in 1994 to over
350,000 in 2004. Along with this growing workload is a 28-month backlog
of approximately 750,000 applications. Further complicating this
picture, is that USPTO's resources have not kept pace with the
increases in its patent workload. Agency officials acknowledge that, at
times, they have had difficulty competing with the private sector to
attract and retain staff with the high degree of scientific, technical,
and legal knowledge required to be patent examiners.
Recognizing the need to improve its patent processing capability, over
the past 2 decades, USPTO has undertaken various efforts to automate
its patent process. In addition, as part of an aggressive 5-year
modernization effort outlined in its strategic plan, the agency has
articulated its approach to creating a more productive and responsive
patent organization through accelerating its use of automation and
enhancing the quality of its patent examination workforce. At the
request of the Committee, our testimony today summarizes the work
presented in two reports that we issued in June 2005--one addressing
the agency's progress, and problems faced, in developing and using
electronic information and systems to achieve its automated patent
processing capability[Footnote 2] and the other addressing its steps to
attract and retain a workforce of qualified patent examiners, three
long-standing human capital challenges that could undermine recent
efforts, and the overall status in implementing its strategic
plan.[Footnote 3]
In summary, we found the following:
USPTO is pursuing a long-standing strategy to implement a paperless,
electronic patent process, with the goal of replacing the manual
processing of applications with an electronic process for researching
patent information and viewing and manipulating application text
throughout all processing phases. While the agency has achieved
important electronic capabilities through information systems that it
has implemented, such as electronic filing and patent application
classification and search, collectively these functions have not
provided the fully integrated electronic patent processing capability
articulated in its automation plans. Two of the primary systems that
the agency is relying on to enhance its capabilities--its electronic
filing system and a document imaging system that it acquired from the
European Patent Office--have not yielded processing improvements that
the agency considers essential to operate successfully in an electronic
environment. Contributing to this situation are ineffective planning
and management of its patent automation projects--due in large measure
to enterprise-level, systemic weaknesses in its information technology
investment management processes.[Footnote 4] Although the agency had
begun instituting certain essential investment management mechanisms,
it had not yet finalized its capital planning and investment control
process and had not established the necessary linkages between the
process and its enterprise architecture to ensure that projects will
comply with the architecture.[Footnote 5] As a result, the agency had
not rigorously assessed its patent systems' compliance with the
enterprise architecture and it lacked reliable experience-based data to
consistently demonstrate the costs and benefits of its systems.
In addition, to help attract and retain a qualified patent examination
workforce, USPTO has taken steps such as enhancing its recruiting
efforts and using many of the human capital benefits available under
federal personnel regulations. However, it is too soon to determine the
long-term success of the agency's recruiting efforts because they have
been in place only a short time and have not been consistently
sustained because of budgetary constraints. Long-term uncertainty about
USPTO's hiring and retention success is also due to the unknown impact
of the economy. In the past, when the economy was doing well, the
agency had more difficulty recruiting and retaining the staff it
needed. Further, USPTO faces three long-standing challenges that could
undermine its efforts to retain a qualified workforce: (1) the lack of
an effective strategy to communicate and collaborate with examiners,
(2) outdated assumptions in the application processing quotas it uses
to reward examiners, and (3) the lack of required ongoing technical
training for examiners. According to patent examiners, the lack of
communication and a collaborative work environment has resulted in low
morale and an atmosphere of distrust that is exacerbated by the
contentious relationship between management and union officials.
Overall, USPTO has made more progress in implementing its strategic
plan initiatives to increase the agency's capability than it has in
implementing the initiatives to decrease patent pendency[Footnote 6]
and improve electronic processing. The agency has fully or partially
implemented all 23 capability initiatives that focus on improving the
skills of employees, enhancing quality assurance, and altering the
patent system through changes in existing laws or regulations. In
contrast, the agency has partially or fully implemented only 8 of the
15 initiatives aimed at reducing patent pendency and improving
electronic processing. A lack of funding was cited as the primary
reason for not implementing these initiatives. With the passage of
legislation in December 2004 to increase fees available to USPTO for
the next 2 years, the agency is reevaluating the feasibility of
implementing some of these initiatives.
In our reports, we made recommendations aimed at improving the agency's
management of its patent automation strategy and related information
technology investments and at enhancing communication and collaboration
between management and patent examiners, and between management and
union officials. USPTO generally agreed with the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations in both reports, although it only partially agreed
with several material aspects of our assessment of its patent
automation strategy, including our recommendation that it reassess its
approach to automating its patent process.
Background:
USPTO helps promote industrial and technological progress in the United
States and strengthen the national economy by administering the laws
relating to patents and trademarks. A critical part of its mission is
examining patent applications and issuing patents. A patent is a
property right granted by the U.S. government to an inventor who
secures, generally for 20 years from the date of initial application in
the United States, his or her exclusive right to make, use, offer for
sale, or sell the invention in exchange for disclosing it.[Footnote 7]
The number of patent filings to USPTO continues to grow and, by 2009,
the agency is projecting receipt of over 450,000 patent applications
annually.
Patent processing essentially involves three phases: pre-examination,
examination, and post-examination. The process begins when an applicant
files a patent application and pays a filing fee. During the pre-
examination phase, patent office staff document receipt of the
application and process the application fee, scan and convert the paper
documents to electronic format, and conduct an initial review of the
application and classify it by subject matter. During the subsequent
examination phase, the application is assigned to a patent examiner
with expertise in the subject area[Footnote 8] who searches existing
U.S. and foreign patents, journals, and other literature and, as
necessary, contacts the applicant to resolve questions and obtain
additional information to determine whether the proposed invention can
be patented.[Footnote 9] Examiners document their determinations on the
applications in formal correspondence, referred to as office actions.
Applicants may abandon their applications at any time during this
process. If the examiner determines that a patent is warranted, a
supervisor reviews and approves it and the applicant is informed of the
outcome. The application then enters the post-examination phase and,
upon payment of an "issue fee," a patent is granted and
published.[Footnote 10] Historically, the time from the date that a
patent application is filed to the date that the patent is either
granted or the application is abandoned has been called "patent
pendency."
Because of long-standing concerns about the increasing volume and
complexity of patent applications, USPTO has been undertaking projects
to automate its patent process for about the past two decades. In 1983,
the agency began one of its most substantial projects--the Automated
Patent System (APS)--with the intent of automating all aspects of the
patent process. APS was to be deployed in 1990 and, when completed,
consist of five integrated subsystems that would (1) fully automate
incoming patent applications; (2) allow examiners to electronically
search the text of granted U.S. patents and access selected abstracts
of foreign patents; (3) scan and allow examiners to retrieve, display,
and print images of U.S. patents; (4) help examiners classify patents;
and (5) support on-demand printing of copies of patents.
In reporting on APS more than 10 years following its inception, we
noted that USPTO had deployed and was operating and maintaining certain
parts of the system, supporting text search, limited document imaging,
order-entry and patent printing, and classification
activities.[Footnote 11] However, our report raised concerns about the
agency's ability to adequately plan and manage this major project,
pointing out that its processes for exercising effective management
control over APS were weak. Ultimately, USPTO never fully developed and
deployed APS to achieve the integrated, end-to-end patent processing
system that it envisioned. The agency reported spending approximately
$1 billion on this initiative from 1983 through 2002.[Footnote 12]
In addition, in 1998, the agency implemented an Internet-based
electronic filing system at a reported cost of $10 million, enabling
applicants to submit their applications online. Further, through 2002,
the agency continued to enhance its capabilities that enabled examiners
to search patent images and text, and upgraded its patent application
classification and tracking systems.[Footnote 13]
To help the agency address the challenges of reviewing an increased
volume of more complex patent applications and of reducing the length
of time it takes to process them, Congress passed a law requiring USPTO
to improve patent quality, implement electronic government, and reduce
pendency.[Footnote 14] In response to the law, in June 2002, the agency
embarked on an aggressive 5-year modernization plan outlined in its
21st Century Strategic Plan, which was updated to include stakeholder
input and re-released in February 2003. The strategic plan outlines 38
initiatives related to the patent organization that focus on three
crosscutting strategic themes: capability, productivity, and agility.
The capability theme focuses on efforts to enhance patent quality
through workforce and process improvements; the productivity theme
focuses on efforts to decrease the pendency of patent applications; and
the agility theme focuses on initiatives to electronically process
patent applications. To fully fund the initiatives in its strategic
plan, the agency requested authority from Congress to increase the user
fees it collects from applicants and to spend all of these fees on
patent processing.[Footnote 15] Legislation enacted in December 2004
increased the fees available to USPTO; [Footnote 16] however, the
increases are only effective for fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
USPTO Continues to Pursue a Fully Automated Patent Process, but Has Not
Effectively Managed its Strategy for Achieving This Capability:
As was its intent with APS, USPTO has continued to pursue a paperless,
end-to-end, automated patent process. In 2001, the agency initiated its
Tools for Electronic Application Management (TEAM) automation project,
aiming to deliver an end-to-end capability to process patent
applications electronically by fiscal year 2006. Under the TEAM
concept, the agency had planned to integrate its existing electronic
filing system and the classification and search capabilities from the
earlier APS project with new document management and workflow
capabilities, and with image-and text-based processing[Footnote 17] of
patent applications to achieve a sophisticated means of handling
documents and tracking patent applications throughout the examination
process. By implementing image-and text-based capabilities, the agency
had anticipated that patent examiners would be able to view and process
applications online, as well as manipulate and annotate text within a
patent application, thus eliminating manual functions and improving
processing accuracy, reliability, and productivity, as well as the
quality of the patents that are granted.
With the issuance of its 21st Century Strategic Plan, however, USPTO
altered its approach to accomplishing patent automation. The strategic
plan, among other things, identified the agency's high-level
information technology goals for fully automating the patent process as
part of the 5-year modernization effort. It incorporated automation
concepts from the TEAM project, but announced an accelerated goal of
delivering an operational system to electronically process patent
applications by October 1, 2004, earlier than had been scheduled under
TEAM.
In carrying out its patent automation plans, USPTO has delivered a
number of important processing capabilities through the various
information systems that it has implemented. For example, an automated
search capability, available since 1986, has eliminated the need for
patent examiners to manually search for prior art in paper files, and
the classification and fee accounting capabilities have facilitated
assigning applications to the correct subject areas and managing
collections of applicable fees. In addition, the electronic filing
system that has existed since 1998 has enabled applicants to file their
applications with the agency via the Internet. Using the Internet,
patent applicants also can review the status of their applications
online and the public can electronically access and search existing
published patents. Further, an imaging system implemented in August
2004, called the Image File Wrapper, has given USPTO the capability to
scan patent applications and related documents, which can then be
stored in a database and retrieved and reviewed online. The agency's
progress in implementing its automated patent functions is illustrated
in figure 1.
Figure 1: USPTO's Patent Automation Progress:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Nonetheless, even with the progress that has been made, collectively,
these automated functions have not provided the fully integrated,
electronic patent processing capability articulated in the agency's
automation plans. Two of the key systems that it is relying on to
further enhance its capabilities--the electronic filing system and the
Image File Wrapper--have not yielded the processing improvements that
the agency has deemed essential to successfully operate in a fully
integrated, electronic environment.
Specifically, in implementing its electronic filing system, USPTO had
projected significant increases in processing efficiencies and quality
by providing patent applicants the capability to file online, thus
alleviating the need for them to send paper applications to the agency
or for patent office staff to manually key application data into the
various processing systems. However, even after enhancements in 2002
and 2004, the system did not produce the level of usage among patent
filers that the agency had anticipated. For example, although USPTO's
preliminary justification for acquiring the electronic filing system
had projected an estimated usage rate of 30 percent in fiscal year
2004, patent officials reported that, as of April 2005, fewer than 2
percent of all patent applications were being submitted to the agency
via this system. As a result, anticipated processing efficiencies and
quality improvements through eliminating the manual re-keying of
application data have not been realized.
In September 2004, USPTO convened a forum of senior officials
representing the largest U.S. corporate and patent law firm filers to
identify causes of patent applicants' dissatisfaction with the
electronic filing system and determine how to increase the number of
patents being filed electronically. According to the report resulting
from this forum, the majority of participants viewed the system as
cumbersome, time-consuming, costly, inherently risky, and lacking a
business case to justify its usage. Among the barriers to system usage
that the participants specifically identified were (1) users' lack of a
perceived benefit from filing applications electronically, (2)
liability concerns associated with filers' unsuccessful use of the
system or unsuccessful transmission of patent applications to USPTO,
and (3) significant disruptions to filers' normal office/corporate
processes and workflow caused by factors such as difficulty in using
the automated tools and the inability to download necessary software
through firewalls.
Several concerns raised during the forum mirrored those that USPTO had
earlier identified in a 1997 analysis of a prototype for electronic
filing. However, at the time of our review, the agency had not
completed plans to show how it would address the concerns regarding use
of the electronic filing system.
The agency's Image File Wrapper also had not resulted in critical
patent processing improvements. The system includes image technology
for storage and maintenance of records associated with patent
applications and provides the capability to scan each page of a
submitted paper application and convert the pages into electronic
images. Patent examiners in a majority of the focus groups that we
conducted commented that the system had provided them with the ability
to easily access patent applications and related information. In
addition, patent officials stated that the system had enabled multiple
users to simultaneously access patent applications.
Nonetheless, patent officials acknowledged that the system had
experienced performance and usability problems. Specifically, in
speaking about the system's performance, the officials and agency
documentation stated that, after its implementation, the Image File
Wrapper had been unavailable for extended periods of time or had
experienced slow response times, resulting in decreased productivity.
To lessen the impact of this problem, patent officials said they had
developed a backup tool to store images of an examiner's most recent
applications, which can be accessed when the Image File Wrapper is not
available. Further, in commenting on this matter, the USPTO director
stated that the system's performance had begun to show improvement.
Regarding the usability of the system, patent officials and focus group
results indicated that the Image File Wrapper did not fully meet
processing needs. For example, the officials stated that, as an image-
based system, the Image File Wrapper did not fully enable patent
examiners to electronically search, manipulate, or track and log
changes to application text, which were key processing features
emphasized in the agency's automation plans. The examiners also
commented that a limited capability to convert images to text, which
was intended to assist them in copying and reusing information
contained in patent files, was error-prone, contributing to their need
to download and print the applications for review. Further, because the
office's legacy systems were not integrated with the Image File
Wrapper, examiners were required to manually print correspondence from
these systems, which then had to be scanned into the Image File Wrapper
in order to be included as part of an applicant's electronic file.
Patent and Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO) officials largely
attributed the system's performance and usability problems to the
agency's use of software that it acquired from the European Patent
Office. The officials explained that, to meet the accelerated date for
delivering an operational system as outlined in its strategic plan, the
agency had decided in 2002 to acquire and use a document-imaging system
owned by the European Patent Office, called ePhoenix, rather than
develop the integrated patent processing system that had been described
in its automation plans.[Footnote 18] According to the officials, the
director, at that time, had considered ePhoenix to be the most
appropriate solution for further implementing USPTO's electronic patent
processing capabilities given (1) pressures from Congress and from
customers and stakeholders to implement an electronic patent processing
system more quickly than originally planned and (2) the agency's
impending move to its new facility in Alexandria, Virginia, which did
not include provisions for transferring and storing paper patent
applications.[Footnote 19]
However, they indicated that the original design of the ePhoenix system
had not been compatible with USPTO's technical platform for electronic
patent processing. Specifically, they stated that the European Patent
Office had designed the system to support only the printing of files
for subsequent manual reviews, rather than for electronic review and
processing. In addition, they stated that the system had not been
designed for integration with other legacy systems or to incorporate
additional capabilities, such as text processing, with the existing
imaging capability. Further, an official of the European Patent Office
noted that ePhoenix had supported their office's much smaller volume of
patent applications.[Footnote 20] Thus, with USPTO's patent application
workload being approximately twice as large as that of its European
counterpart, the agency placed greater stress on the system than it was
originally designed to accommodate. OCIO officials told us that,
although they had tested certain aspects of the system's capability,
many of the problems encountered in using the system were not revealed
until after the system was deployed and operational.
Patent and OCIO officials acknowledged that the agency had purchased
ePhoenix although senior officials were aware that the original design
of the system had not been compatible with USPTO's technological
platform for electronic patent processing. They stated that, despite
knowing about the problems and risks associated with using the
software, the agency had nonetheless proceeded with this initiative
because senior officials, including the former USPTO director, had
stressed their preference for using ePhoenix in order to expedite the
implementation of a system. Patent and OCIO officials acknowledged that
management judgment, rather than a rigorous analysis of costs,
benefits, and alternatives, had driven the agency's decision to use
this system.
To a significant extent, USPTO's difficulty in realizing intended
improvements through its electronic filing system and Image File
Wrapper can be attributed to the fact that the agency took an ad hoc
approach to planning and managing its implementation of these systems,
driven in part by its accelerated schedule for implementing an
automated patent processing capability. The Clinger-Cohen Act of
1996,[Footnote 21] as well as information technology best practices and
our prior reviews, emphasize the need for agencies to undertake
information technology projects based on well-established business
cases that articulate agreed-upon business and technical requirements;
effectively analyze project alternatives, costs, and benefits; include
measures for tracking projects through their life cycle against cost,
schedule, benefit, and performance targets; and ultimately, provide the
basis for credible and informed decision making and project management.
Yet, patent officials did not rely on established business cases to
guide their implementation of these key automation initiatives.
The absence of sound project planning and management for these
initiatives has left the agency without critical capabilities, such as
text processing, and consequently, has impeded its successful
transition to an integrated and paperless patent processing
environment. The Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property,
who serves as the director of USPTO, stated at the conclusion of our
review that he recognized and intended to implement measures to address
the weaknesses in the agency's planning and management of its automated
patent systems.
USPTO Lacks Essential Information Technology Investment Management
Processes to Support Its Patent Automation:
USPTO's ineffective planning for and management of its patent
automation projects, in large measure, can be attributed to enterprise-
level, systemic weaknesses in the agency's information technology
investment management processes. A key requirement of the Clinger-Cohen
Act is that agencies have established processes, such as capital
planning and investment control, to help ensure that information
technology projects are implemented at acceptable costs and within
reasonable and expected time frames, and contribute to tangible,
observable improvements in mission performance. Such processes guide
the selection, management, and evaluation of information technology
investments by aiding management in considering whether to undertake a
particular investment in information systems and providing a means to
obtain necessary information regarding the progress of an investment in
terms of cost, capability of the system to meet specified requirements,
timeliness, and quality.
Further, our Enterprise Architecture Framework[Footnote 22] emphasizes
that information technology projects should show evidence of compliance
with the organization's enterprise architecture, which serves as a
blueprint for systematically and completely defining an organization's
current (baseline) operational and technology environment and as a
roadmap toward the desired (target) state. Effective implementation of
an enterprise architecture can facilitate an agency by informing,
guiding, and constraining the decisions being made for the agency, and
subsequently decrease the risk of buying and building systems that are
duplicative, incompatible, and unnecessarily costly to maintain and
interface.
At the time of our study, USPTO had begun instituting certain essential
information technology investment management mechanisms, such as a
framework for its enterprise architecture and components of a capital
planning and investment control process. However, it had not yet
established the necessary linkages between its enterprise architecture
and its capital planning and investment control process to ensure that
its automation projects would comply with the architecture or fully
instituted enforcement mechanisms for investment management. For
example, USPTO drafted a capital planning and investment control guide
in June 2004 and issued an agency administrative order on its
integrated investment decision practices in February 2005. However,
according to senior officials, many of the processes and procedures in
the guide had not been completed and fully implemented and it was
unclear how the agency administrative order was being applied to
investments.
In addition, while the agency had completed the framework for its
enterprise architecture, it had not aligned its business processes and
information technology in accordance with the architecture. According
to OCIO officials, the architecture review board responsible for
enforcing compliance with the architecture was not yet in place; thus,
current architecture reviews were of an advisory nature and were not
required for system implementation. Our analysis of architecture review
documents that system officials provided for the electronic filing
system and the Image File Wrapper confirmed that the agency had not
rigorously assessed either of these systems' compliance with the
enterprise architecture. Adding to these conditions, a study
commissioned by the agency in 2004 found that its Office of Chief
Information Officer was not organized to help the agency accomplish the
goals in its automation strategy and that its investment management
processes did not ensure appropriate reviews of automation initiatives.
USPTO has an explicit responsibility to ensure that the automation
initiatives that it is counting on to enhance its overall patent
process are consistent with the agency's priorities and needs and are
supported by the necessary planning and management to successfully
accomplish this. At the conclusion of our review, the agency's director
and its chief information officer acknowledged the need to strengthen
the agency's investment management processes and practices and to
effectively apply them to USPTO's patent automation initiatives.
USPTO Has Taken Steps to Help Attract and Retain a Qualified Patent
Examiner Workforce, but Long-Term Success Is Uncertain:
Since 2000, USPTO has also taken steps intended to help attract and
retain a qualified patent examination workforce. The agency has
enhanced its recruiting efforts and has used many human capital
flexibilities to attract and retain qualified patent examiners.
However, during the past 5 years, its recruiting efforts and use of
benefits have not been consistently sustained, and officials and
examiners at all levels in the agency told us that the economy has more
of an impact on their ability to attract and retain examiners than any
actions taken by the agency. Consequently, how USPTO's actions will
affect its long-term ability to maintain a highly qualified workforce
is unclear. While the agency has been able to meet its hiring goals,
attrition has recently increased.
USPTO's recent recruiting efforts have incorporated several measures
that we and others identified as necessary to attract a qualified
workforce.[Footnote 23] First, in 2003, to help select qualified
applicants, the agency identified the knowledge, skills, and abilities
that examiners need to effectively fulfill their responsibilities.
Second, in 2004, its permanent recruiting team, composed of senior and
line managers,[Footnote 24] participated in various recruiting events,
such as job fairs, conferences sponsored by professional societies, and
visits to the 10 schools that the agency targeted based on the
diversity of their student population and the strength of their
engineering and science programs.[Footnote 25] Finally, for 2005, USPTO
developed a formal recruiting plan that, among other things, identified
hiring goals for each technology center and described the agency's
efforts to establish ongoing partnerships with the 10 target schools.
In addition, the agency trained its recruiters in effective
interviewing techniques to help them better describe the production
system and incorporated references to the production-oriented work
environment in its recruitment literature.
USPTO has also used many of the human capital benefits available under
federal personnel regulations to attract and retain qualified patent
examiners. Among other benefits, it has offered:
* recruitment bonuses ranging from $600 to over $10,000;
* a special pay rate for patent examiners that is 10 percent above
federal salaries for comparable jobs;
* non-competitive promotion to the full performance level; and:
* flexible working schedules, including the ability to schedule hours
off during midday.
According to many of the supervisors and examiners who participated in
our focus groups, these benefits were a key reason they were attracted
to the agency and are a reason they continue to stay. The benefits that
examiners most frequently cited as important were the flexible working
schedules and competitive salaries.
However, it is too soon to determine the long-term effect of the
agency's efforts, in part because neither its recruiting efforts nor
the human capital benefits have been consistently sustained due to
budgetary constraints. For example, in 2002 the agency suspended
reimbursements to examiners for law school tuition because of funding
limitations, although it resumed the reimbursements in 2004 when
funding became available. Examiners in our focus groups expressed
dissatisfaction with the inconsistent availability of these benefits,
in some cases saying that the suspension of benefits, such as law
school tuition reimbursement, provided them an incentive to leave the
agency. More recently, in March 2005, USPTO proposed to eliminate or
modify other benefits, such as the ability of examiners to earn credit
hours and to set their own work schedules.
Another, and possibly the most important, factor adding to the
uncertainty of USPTO's recruiting efforts is the unknown potential
impact of the economy, which, according to agency officials and
examiners, has a greater effect on recruitment and retention than any
actions the agency may take. Both agency officials and examiners told
us that when the economy picks up, more examiners tend to leave the
agency and fewer qualified candidates are attracted to it. On the other
hand, when there is a downturn in the economy, the agency's ability to
attract and retain qualified examiners increases because of perceived
job security and competitive pay. When discussing their reasons for
joining USPTO, many examiners in our focus groups cited job security
and the lack of other employment opportunities, making comments such
as, "I had been laid off from my prior job, and this was the only job
offer I got at the time." This relationship between the economy and
USPTO's hiring and retention success is part of the reason why the
agency has met its hiring goals for the last several years. However,
the agency has recently experienced a rise in attrition rates. In
particular, a high level of attrition among younger, less experienced
examiners could affect its efforts to maintain a highly qualified
patent examination workforce. Attrition of examiners with 3 years or
less experience is a significant loss for the agency because
considerable time and dollar resources are invested to help new
examiners become proficient during their first few years.
USPTO Faces Long-Standing Human Capital Challenges that Could Undermine
Its Recruiting and Retention Efforts:
While USPTO has undertaken a number of important and necessary actions
to attract and retain qualified patent examiners, it continues to face
three long-standing human capital challenges which, if not addressed,
could also undermine its recent efforts. First, although organizations
with effective human capital models have strategies to communicate with
employees and involve them in decision making, the lack of good
communication and collaboration has been a long-standing problem at
USPTO. We found that the agency does not have a formal communication
strategy and does not actively seek input from examiners on key
management decisions. Most of the emphasis is on enhanced communication
among managers but not between managers and other levels of the
organization, such as patent examiners. Patent examiners and
supervisory patent examiners in our focus groups frequently stated that
communication with agency management was poor and that managers
provided them with inadequate or no information, creating an atmosphere
of distrust of management. The examiners also said that management was
out of touch with them and their concerns and that communication with
the managers tended to be one way and hierarchical, with little
opportunity for feedback. Management officials told us that informal
feedback can always be provided by anyone in the organization--for
example, through an e-mail to anyone in management.
The lack of communication between management and examiners is
exacerbated by the contentious working relationship between management
and union officials and by the complexity of the rules about what level
of communication can occur between managers and examiners without
involving the union.[Footnote 26] Some managers alluded to this
contentious relationship as one of the reasons why they had limited
communication with patent examiners, who are represented by the union
even if they decide not to join it. Specifically, they believed they
could not solicit the input of employees directly without engaging the
union. Another official, however, told us that nothing prevents the
agency from having "town hall" type meetings to discuss potential
changes in policies and procedures, as long as the agency does not
promise examiners a benefit that impacts their working conditions.
Union officials agreed that USPTO can invite comments from examiners on
a plan or proposal; however, if the proposal concerns a negotiating
issue, the agency must consult the examiners' union, which is their
exclusive representative with regard to working conditions.
Second, human capital models suggest that agencies should periodically
assess their monetary awards systems to ensure that they help attract
and retain qualified staff. However, patent examiners' awards are based
largely on the number of applications they process, and the assumptions
on which application processing quotas are based have not been updated
since 1976. Patent examiners and management have differing opinions on
whether these assumptions need to be updated. Examiners in our focus
groups told us that, in the last several decades, the tasks associated
with and the complexity of processing applications have greatly
increased while the time allowed has not. As a result, many of the
examiners and supervisory patent examiners in our focus groups and
respondents to previous agency surveys reported that examiners do not
have enough time to conduct high-quality reviews of patent
applications. The examiners noted that these inadequate time frames
create a stressful work environment and are cited in the agency's exit
surveys as a primary reason that examiners leave the agency. In
contrast, USPTO managers had a different perspective on the production
model and its impact on examiners. They stated that the time estimates
used in establishing production quotas do not need to be adjusted
because the efficiencies gained through actions such as the greater use
of technology have offset the time needed to address the greater
complexity of the applications and the increase in the number of
claims. Moreover, they said that for an individual examiner, reviews of
applications that take more time than the estimated average are
generally offset by other reviews that take less time.
Finally, counter to current workforce models, USPTO does not require
ongoing technical education for patent examiners, which could
negatively affect the quality of its patent examination workforce.
Instead, the agency requires newly hired examiners to take extensive
training only during their first year of employment; all subsequent
required training is focused on developing legal expertise. Almost all
patent examiners are required to take a range of ongoing training in
legal matters, including patent law. In contrast, patent examiners are
not required to undertake any ongoing training to maintain expertise in
their area of technology, even though the agency acknowledges that such
training is important, especially for electrical and electronic
engineers. In 2001 the agency stated, "Engineers who fail to keep up
with the rapid changes in technology, regardless of degree, risk
technological obsolescence." However, agency officials told us that
examiners automatically maintain currency with their technical fields
by just doing their job. Patent examiners and supervisory patent
examiners disagreed, stating that the literature they review in
applications is outdated, particularly in rapidly evolving
technologies. The agency does offer some voluntary in-house training,
such as technology fairs and industry days at which scientists and
others are invited to present lectures to patent examiners that will
help keep them current on the technical aspects of their work. In
addition, the agency offers voluntary external training and, for a
small number of examiners, pays conference or workshop registration
fees. Agency officials could provide no data on the extent to which
examiners have taken advantage of such training opportunities.
USPTO Has Made Greater Progress on Strategic Plan Initiatives that
Enhance the Agency's Capability Rather than Productivity and Agility:
In carrying out its strategic plan to become a more productive and
responsive organization, our work found that USPTO has made greater
progress in implementing its initiatives to make the patent
organization more capable by improving the quality of examiners' skills
and work processes than it has in implementing its productivity and
agility initiatives aimed at decreasing the length of time to process a
patent application and improving electronic processing. Specifically,
of the activities planned for completion by December 2004, the agency
has fully or partially implemented all 23 of the initiatives related to
its capability theme to improve the skills of employees, enhance
quality assurance, and alter the patent process through legislative and
rule changes. In contrast, it has partially implemented only 1 of the 4
initiatives related to the productivity theme to restructure fees and
expand examination options for patent applicants and has fully or
partially implemented 7 of the 11 initiatives related to the agility
theme to increase electronic processing of patent applications and to
reduce examiners' responsibilities for literature searches. Table 1
provides our assessment of each of the strategic plan initiatives.
Table 1: Status of Strategic Plan Initiatives to Improve Workforce
Skills:
Capability initiatives to improve workforce skills:
Increase the pool of qualified management candidates by adding awards
to total compensation: Implemented.
Explore alternate organizational structures for the workplace:
Implemented.
Develop interim pre-employment measures to assess English language
skills: Implemented.
Recertify the skills of examiners with authority to issue patents
(primary examiners) through examinations and expanded work product
reviews: Implemented.
Certify that examiners possess the requisite knowledge, skills, and
abilities prior to promotion to a position with authority to negotiate
on behalf of USPTO: Implemented.
Improve the selection and training of supervisory patent examiners:
Partially implemented.
Use examinations and other means to ensure that new patent examiners
possess the requisite skills prior to promotion: Partially implemented.
Implement a pre-employment test to assess English language skills:
Partially implemented.
Create an Enterprise Training Division: Partially implemented.
Capability initiatives to enhance quality assurance:
Expand current quality assurance program to include works in progress
(in-process reviews): Implemented.
Establish ’second pair of eyes“ reviews in each technology center:
Implemented.
Survey customer regarding transactions with USPTO on specific
applications to supplement comprehensive customer surveys: Implemented.
Evaluate the quality of examiners‘ literature searches: Partially
implemented.
Enhance the reviewable record for each patent application with
additional information from the applicant and examiner: Partially
implemented.
Capability initiatives to change legislation and rules:
Delete the requirement for physical surrender of the original patent
papers: Implemented.
Certify the legal knowledge of patent attorneys and agents who wish to
practice before USPTO and periodically recertify the skills of
practicing attorneys and agents: Partially implemented.
Evaluate whether to adopt a unity of invention standard: Partially
implemented.
Simplify adjustments to the patent term: Partially implemented.
Permit individuals who have been assigned patent rights to sign an oath
declaring that the inventor is the original and first inventor:
Partially implemented.
Permit individuals who have been assigned patent rights to broaden the
claims in an application: Partially implemented.
Correct an inconsistency regarding unintentionally delayed submission
of certain claims: Partially implemented.
Eliminate certain exemptions from the requirement to publish most
patent applications within 18 months of when they were first filed:
Partially implemented.
Amend current legislation regarding certain limitations on an
inventor‘s right to obtain a patent: Partially implemented.
Productivity initiatives:
Restructure fees and provide for refunds: Partially implemented.
Offer patent applicants a choice of up to 5 examination options based
in part on the ability to rely on searches conducted by others: Not
implemented.
Offer patent applicants the option of an accelerated examination: Not
implemented.
Revise postgrant review procedures to allow greater public input: Not
implemented.
Agility initiatives:
Establish an information security program: Implemented.
Transition to electronic patent processing: Partially implemented.
Transition to electronic processing for postgrant reviews: Partially
implemented.
Ensure availability of critical data in the event of a catastrophic
systems failure: Partially implemented.
Promote international harmonization and pursue goals to strengthen
international intellectual property rights of U.S. inventors: Partially
implemented.
Pursue international agreements to share patent search results:
Partially implemented.
Accelerate Patent Cooperation Treaty reforms: Partially implemented.
Rely on other sources to classify patent documents: Not implemented.
Rely on other sources to support domestic and international literature
searches: Not implemented.
Rely on other sources to transition to a new global patent
classification system: Not implemented.
Develop stringent conflict of interest clauses for search firms: Not
implemented.
Source: GAO analysis of USPTO data.
[End of table]
Agency officials primarily cited the need for additional funding as the
main reason that some initiatives have not been implemented. With
passage of the legislation in December 2004 to restructure and increase
the fees available to USPTO, the agency is reevaluating the feasibility
of many initiatives that it had deferred or suspended.
In summary, through its attempts to implement an integrated, paperless
patent process over the past two decades, USPTO has delivered a number
of important automated capabilities. Nonetheless, after spending over a
billion dollars on its efforts, the agency is still not yet effectively
positioned to process patent applications in a fully automated
environment. Moreover, when and how it will actually achieve this
capability is uncertain. Largely as a result of ineffective planning
and management of its automated capabilities, system performance and
usability problems have limited the effectiveness of key systems that
the agency has implemented to support critical patent processes.
Although USPTO's director and its chief information officer have
recognized the need to improve the agency's planning and management of
its automation initiatives, weaknesses in key information technology
management processes needed to guide the agency's investments in patent
automation, such as incomplete capital planning and investment
controls, could preclude their ability to successfully accomplish this.
Thus, the agency risks further implementing information technology that
does not support its needs and that threatens its overall goal of
achieving a fully electronic capability to process its growing patent
application workload.
Further, to improve its ability to attract and retain the highly
educated and qualified patent examiners it needs, USPTO has taken steps
recognized by experts as characteristic of highly effective
organizations. However, without an effective communication strategy and
a collaborative culture that includes all layers of the organization,
the agency's efforts could be undermined. The absence of effective
communication and collaboration has created distrust and a significant
divide between management and examiners on important issues such as the
appropriateness of the production model and the need for technical
training. Unless the agency begins to develop an open, transparent, and
collaborative work environment, its efforts to hire and retain
examiners may be adversely affected in the long run. Overall, while
USPTO has progressed in implementing strategic plan initiatives aimed
at improving its organizational capability, the agency attributes its
limited implementation of other initiatives intended to reduce pendency
and improve electronic patent application processing primarily to the
need for additional funding.
Given the weaknesses in USPTO's information technology investment
management processes, we recommended that the agency, before proceeding
with any new patent automation initiatives, (1) reassess and, where
necessary, revise its approach for implementing and achieving effective
use of information systems supporting a fully automated patent process;
(2) establish disciplined processes for planning and managing the
development of patent systems based on well-established business cases;
and (3) fully institute and enforce information technology investment
management processes and practices to ensure that its automation
initiatives support the agency's mission and are aligned with its
enterprise architecture. Further, in light of its need for a more
transparent and collaborative work environment, we recommended that the
agency develop formal strategies to (1) improve communication between
management and patent examiners and between management and union
officials and (2) foster greater collaboration among all levels of the
organization to resolve key issues, such as the assumptions underlying
the quota system and the need for required technical training.
USPTO generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations regarding its patent automation initiatives and
acknowledged the need for improvements in its management processes by,
for example, developing architectural linkages to the planning process
and implementing a capital planning and investment control guide.
Nonetheless, the agency stated that it only partially agreed with
several material aspects of our assessment, including our
recommendation that it reassess its approach to automating its patent
process. Further, the agency generally agreed with our findings,
conclusions, and recommendations regarding its workforce collaboration
and suggested that it would develop a communication plan and labor
management strategy, and educate and inform employees about progress on
initiatives, successes, and lessons learned. In addition, USPTO
indicated that it would develop a more formalized technical program for
patent examiners to ensure that their skills are fresh and ready to
address state-of-the-art technology.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. We would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Committee may
have at this time.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information, please contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-
3841or Linda D. Koontz at (202) 512-6240. They can also be reached by e-
mail at mittala@gao.gov and koontzl@gao.gov, respectively. Other
individuals making significant contributions to this testimony were
Valerie C. Melvin, Assistant Director; Cheryl Williams, Assistant
Director; Mary J. Dorsey, Vijay D'Souza, Nancy Glover, Vondalee R.
Hunt, and Alison D. O'Neill.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Patent and Trademark Office Authorization Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-273, § 13104, 116 Stat. 1899, 1900, required USPTO to develop a 5-
year strategic plan for meeting these three requirements. USPTO also
prepared the Strategic Plan to fulfill the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act.
[2] GAO, Intellectual Property: Key Processes for Managing Patent
Automation Strategy Need Strengthening, GAO-05-336 (Washington, D.C.:
June 17, 2005).
[3] GAO, Intellectual Property: USPTO Has Made Progress in Hiring
Examiners, but Challenges to Retention Remain, GAO-05-720 (Washington,
D.C.: June 17, 2005).
[4] A key requirement of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40
U.S.C.§11312) is that agencies have capital planning and investment
control processes. Such processes aid management by providing a means
to obtain necessary information about the progress of an investment in
terms of cost, capability of the system to meet specified requirements,
timeliness, and quality.
[5] An enterprise architecture serves as a blueprint for systematically
and completely defining an organization's current operational and
technology environment and as a roadmap toward the desired state.
[6] The time between filing for and being granted a patent historically
has been referred to as "patent pendency."
[7] According to 35 U.S.C. §154(a)(1), a patentee may also exclude
others from importing the patented invention into the United States.
[8] USPTO has eight technology centers that define its subject areas as
follows: Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry; Chemical and Materials
Engineering; Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security;
Communications; Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and
Components; Designs for Articles of Manufacture; Transportation,
Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security and
License and Review; Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and
Products.
[9] A proposed invention is patentable if it is a new or useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof.
[10] To keep the patent active, the patentee must pay maintenance fees
at 3.5 years, 7.5 years, and 11.5 years.
[11] GAO, Patent and Trademark Office: Key Processes for Managing
Automated Patent System Development Are Weak, GAO/AIMD-93-15
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 1993).
[12] The reported cost included system enhancements and maintenance
through the end of the project's life cycle in 2002.
[13] The initial deployment of USPTO's patent tracking system occurred
in 1980. This system provides workflow tracking, status reporting, and
examiner production information.
[14] Patent and Trademark Office Authorization Act of 2002, Pub. L. No.
107-273, § 13104, 116 Stat. 1899, 1900.
[15] USPTO is authorized to collect fees from the public for specific
activities related to processing applications. The spending of those
fees is subject to provisions in annual appropriations acts at the
discretion of the Congress.
[16] Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, § 801, Pub. L. No. 108-447,
118 Stat. 2809, 2924 (Dec. 8, 2004).
[17] Image-based processing uses a graphic representation of documents
produced by scanning paper documents or by converting electronic
documents into images. To transform image content into text, optical
character recognition (OCR) software is used to derive text from the
image. OCR can convert image documents to hidden text, which is
searchable. In text-based processing, the words and sentences in the
document are retained as text and can be stored, processed, and
retrieved by a document management system. Unlike image-based
processing, text-based processing allows the text to be searched and
extracted.
[18] In November 2002, patent officials entered into an agreement with
the European Patent Office, in which that office agreed to provide
USPTO with a license to use its patent processing software and to
provide technical assistance in customizing the software to meet
USPTO's needs. USPTO completed its implementation of the system in
August 2004, at a reported total cost of approximately $14 million.
[19] In December 2003, USPTO began relocating its headquarters from
Arlington (Crystal City), Virginia, to Alexandria, Virginia, with the
intent of consolidating all of its major operations in a central
facility. The agency completed this move in July 2005.
[20] Over the past 2 years, the European Patent Office reported
processing about 160,000 to 170,000 patents per year using ePhoenix.
[21] 40 U.SC. §11312.
[22] For more information, see GAO, Information Technology: A Framework
for Assessing and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version
1.1), GAO-03-584G (Washington, D.C.: April 2003).
[23] See GAO, Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency
Leaders, GAO/OCG-00-14G, version 1 (Washington, D.C.: September 2000);
and Office of Personnel Management, Human Capital Assessment
Accountability Framework, (Washington, D.C., Sept. 20, 2000).
[24] USPTO's permanent recruiting team was established in 2002.
However, the agency suspended recruiting efforts in 2002 and 2003 in
the face of budgetary uncertainty.
[25] The 10 target schools selected were Florida International
University, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University,
North Carolina State University, University of Florida, University of
Maryland, University of Pennsylvania, University of Puerto Rico-
Mayaguez, University of Virginia, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and
Virginia Polytechnic and State University.
[26] Patent examiners are represented by, but not required to join, the
Patent Office Professional Association (POPA), an independent union of
professional employees formed in 1964.
