- Email: [email protected]
Does the EPO really care about the quality of patent information?
World Patent Information 32 (2010) 233–236
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
World Patent Information journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worpatin
Does the EPO really care about the quality of patent information? Jeremy Scott European Patent Office, Patentlaan 2, 2288-EE Rijswijk, Netherlands
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords: Patent information Quality EPO Title Abstract Search report Classification Quality checks Quality audits ESOP WOISA EESR Clusters
a b s t r a c t The article addresses the issue of quality of patent information in relation to the EPO’s activities. It first points out that achievable quality is heavily dependent on the quality of the supplied original text, especially as the largely unalterable A publication is used for most retrieval purposes: the EPO has legally limited opportunities to improve quality at this stage. However, the article details the improvements that can be made to title and abstracts, and the added value supplied by classification information and by the search reports, particularly in the written opinions of the Extended European Search Report. The additional actions taken by the EPO internally to improve and maintain quality are also outlined. These include routine checks on applications, extensive training, and limited full personal responsibility until examiners are both fully trained and experienced. In addition, a more detailed quality audit on a proportion of completed applications is carried out, and also a procedure before action is completed is taken at the technical cluster level. Whilst the article comments on EPO procedure, it is the opinion of the author alone and is not an official EPO view. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction What is patent information quality? One may as well ask how long is a piece of string? How can quality be defined? In football, it could be the width of a post; the smallness of a splash in highboard diving. This is fairly clear, but what about the quality of a piece of Chippendale furniture as opposed to a piece of Ikea furniture – they both have plus points and it is for the purchaser/user to compare the relative merits, what use the furniture will be put to and then define the quality sought. Most people would not buy a Chippendale desk for children to paint, cut and glue on. Similarly what is the quality of a Jackson Pollock compared to that of a Rembrandt? The analogies above seek to show that quality means different things to different people – and patent information quality is no different – perhaps because stakeholders are interested in different aspects of it – they want to use it for different purposes. This is philosophical but can the quality of patent information be defined? Good quality patent information should be accurate data stored so as to be (easily) retrievable. However, this implies that the quality is dependent on the initial quality of the data – normally the A publication is used for search purposes as it is the publication with the broadest scope. Patent information quality is undoubtedly dependent on the quality of the initial data – i.e. the quality of the incoming application. The EPO cannot control the quality of incoming applications,
E-mail address: [email protected] 0172-2190/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2009.08.004
so this quality depends on the applicants. In this way, the EPO is just like any other (commercial) database provider in having to accept what it is given. However, once the EPO has received the patent information data, it can increase the quality by: correction, improvement, adding further data. This article will touch on the following aspects: What are the problems for quality in patent information? What can the EPO do to improve the quality of patent information? What can the EPO add to patent information to add value? What internal quality checks does the EPO have in place? Where will the future lead?
2. What are the problems for quality in patent information? Applicants draft the original application, so they are responsible for the initial data. Whilst this will not be covered in detail, the following appear pre-requisites for a well drafted application – which will be a quality piece of patent information: – – – – – –
title which indicates what the invention is about; abstract from which the invention is recognisable; clear and concise; all essential features in the claims; citing the best prior art available; proper key words (terms used consistently in the technical area).
234
J. Scott / World Patent Information 32 (2009) 233–236
Once an application is received, in reality, the EPO has little scope (or legal recourse) for improving the quality of this information, especially for the A publication. An interesting trend is the size of applications. It is fair to say that the advent of word processors has led to more voluminous applications [1]. Companies and attorneys often use similar or even identical preamble in several applications. This creates problems for database searchers and providers alike – basically it generates ‘‘noise” in search results. Thus a key aspect of maintaining high quality patent information is to attach limiting identifiers to documents (e.g. classification, good quality titles and abstracts). On the other hand, companies tend to use very consistent terminology and this does allow searchers to easily find the most relevant documents from the same applicant. 3. What can the EPO do to improve the quality of patent information by amendment? As John Ruskin once said: ‘‘Quality is never an accident: it is always the result of intelligent action” The same holds true for improving the quality of patent information – it requires an intellectual investment. There is a basic principle in searching – today’s application is tomorrow’s prior art and should be treated with the necessary intellectual investment to ensure it will be found back again. At the EPO, an examiner may improve quality of patent information by amending what has come in: (i) Title (ii) Abstract (iii) Add a figure to the abstract 3.1. Amending the title It may be said that some titles are not too elucidating – e.g.: ‘‘compounds”. If an examiner saw the title ‘‘compounds” they would probably change it into something more worthwhile e.g.: ‘‘antiviral 30 -azidothymidine (AZT)”. However, title amendment is very much technical area dependent e.g.: ‘‘Liquid Crystal Display (LCD)” or ‘‘Plasma Screen”. The examiner may well modify such titles, but on the other hand the titles are, at least, clear and exact, and enable the examiner to generate an initial working answer set (which may be combined with other means e.g. full text or classification terms to reduce the size of the answer set to more manageable proportions later on). So, the examiner might decide not to modify the title. On the other hand, it could still be worthwhile modifying into: e.g. ‘‘plasma screen with increased brightness and contrast” or ‘‘LCD with increased energy efficiency”.Since all searchers are substantive examiners too and technical effects have added importance in the procedure up to grant – especially with respect to inventive step. The key criterion for modifying a title is – can it be made better for facilitating retrieval at some time in the future. 3.2. Amending the abstract The EPO examiner may amend the abstract should he so wish. In doing so, he should bear in mind the wishes of the various external protagonists. The quality of patent information is certainly something that is considered. Searchers outside the EPO, may need to find documents by using key words in abstracts, so a patent
should generally be retrievable by the key words in the abstract. When examiners amend abstracts it is usually to correct clarity issues; to create searchable entries; to add Markush formulae or reference signs. 3.3. Modifying the figure for publication with the abstract The EPO may change the figure suggested by the applicant to accompany publication of the abstract or indeed add a figure when the applicant does not select one. The value of these should not be underestimated – they generally are complementary to and add value over the wording of the abstract.
4. What can the EPO add to improve patent information quality? As well as amending the application, the examiner may also add information: (i) Classification symbols (ii) Search report 4.1. Classification symbols When publishing the application, with or without the search report, the EPO adds IPC classification. The aim of this is to let people know to which technical area the application pertains. Also, when the document has classified ECLA classes – available in Esp@cenetÒ – this is to aid the retrieval of the patent. The aim of the EPO is to provide as complete a classification as possible – the technical field of the invention and the essential features of the invention at least are classified. Within the EPO, there are also extra codes: ICOs (In Computer Only) codes and KWs (Key Words). These allow transversal classification and/or highlight specific aspects within an ECLA group. EPO assigned ICO codes are now available from certain commercial database providers. These codes provide in-depth retrieval possibilities. 4.2. Search report Search quality is compliance with Rule 61 EPC and the level of quality of the search per se is the degree to which Rule 61(1) EPC is complied with. The quality of patent information is somewhat different, and there the EPO adds value by attaching the Extended European Search Report (EESR) – a combination of the search report and European Search Opinion (ESOP). In the PCT, the search report and Written Opinion of the International Search Authority (WOISA) are added. It also contains information about which documents are cited, and which parts are relevant. There is furthermore a category (X, Y, A, P, etc.) associated with each citation designating its relevance. The report will also contain classification information and details if the application displays non-unity or is designated as a complex application [2–4]. The documents that are cited on the search report are increasingly important since they may be obscure documents found on the internet; Ph.D Theses or Company websites; or may be patent documents in other languages (the EPO invests considerable effort in retrieving, for example, Japanese, Chinese and Korean documentation). These are documents which may be difficult to find for searchers without tools similar to those of the EPO. Once found and cited on a search report, they are effectively flagged to other database providers (who may not have been aware of them before) who may choose to add them to their collections.
J. Scott / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 233–236
By maintaining search quality, the EPO is making sure that forward and back referencing techniques are as effective as possible since document chains are formed. We can ensure that these chains are optimal and that the most relevant documents are cited due to our automated cited and citing documents search possibilities. This is normally done when finalising a search report, and all documents proposed for citation on the search report can have either cited or citing checks, or both, run on them. E.g., if this article was to be cited on a search report, then running the ‘‘cited” check would retrieve the five references [1–6] found at the bottom. If the ‘‘citing” check was run in a few years time, then hopefully, several other articles would have referenced this article and would thus be retrieved. This generally gives lists of related documents which are then checked against the application to see if they are more or less relevant than the proposed citation. If the application lacks unity, then information is given on the searched and non-searched subjects on the supplemental sheets. There are details of the separate inventions. The citations on the partial search report are only applicable for the first invention. If the applicant pays some or all the further search fees the final search report will state for which other inventions the search can be considered valid [2–4]. 5. What internal quality checks does the EPO have in place? All the steps in Sections 3 and 4 cost the examiner time, but they are all aspects which are taken very seriously, and coached extensively. Having seen what the EPO can do to affect patent information quality, it may also be interesting to know what other investments the EPO makes in Quality. 5.1. Day to day A director (who manages 25–30 examiners on average) signs out all files and checks their quality, often returning with the file to discuss it with the examiner concerned. By this mechanism, the director can check if the examiner has read the proper scope into the claims; devised an appropriate search strategy to cover the whole of the claimed scope; looked in the right places; classified the document in the correct places; used the retrieved documents to the best effect. As Mahatma Gandhi said: ‘‘It is the Quality of our work which will please God not the Quantity” A three person examining division checks all final actions (grants or refusals), with the chairman having many years experience in examination. Increasingly, other members of the division are becoming involved at the search stage – especially on potentially difficult cases. Now that BEST (Bringing Examination and Search Together) has bedded down, the office is now working with the concept of Areas of Competence. This means, as and when needed, bringing a complete technical field to one site and closing it down in others. This is not suitable for all fields office wide, but where it is possible, it creates centres of knowledge so that when examiners consult colleagues they can be sure that they receive the required specialised knowledge. The office invests huge amounts of both money and time to ensure that their examiners are properly trained: Each new recruit receives over 50 days classroom training in their first two years and, for their first three years in the office, they have a coach who sees their files and signs them out. Examiners normally only start classifying when they have spent considerable time in a technical field. Before they start classifying,
235
examiners get training on classification rules and philosophy and are also required to have several hundred documents checked by the gérant (person who controls the classification scheme in a certain technical area) before beginning to work autonomously. In all cases of doubt, classifiers consult the gérant. 5.2. DQA DQA (the Directorate Quality Audit) perform a quality audit on search and examination which covers only a small percentage of files, but which leads to an in-depth discussion between the directors and examiners on one hand and DQA on the other. This is performed after a search or grant is issued. This data is collated on DG1 (around 10 directorates from similar technical fields) level and is presented back to the cluster annually to see if any corrective action on a cluster (a cluster is a collection of directorates with similar technical background, managed by a Principal Director, with 9– 10 directorates – 250 examiners, on average) level is required. 5.3. CL-OQC This nice acronym, CL-OQC, stands for Cluster Level Operational Quality Control. It has been implemented across the whole of DG Operations (15 Joint Clusters) in the past couple of years, after extensive piloting in a restricted number of Joint Clusters to iron out any potential issues. Between 6% and 8% of all searches and final actions are checked by quality nominees (expert examiners) selected for their knowledge of search, examination and classification, but also for their interpersonal skills and ability to give feedback with sensitivity. This represents approximately 14,000 files and provides statistically relevant results to the Clusters. The main difference between these checks and the DQA quality audits is that they are performed before files are sent out, and before the examining division becomes involved, so can be corrected if required. Accumulating data over time provides data that is still statistically relevant on a directorate level and thus the results of CL-OQC checks can be useful in flagging skills gaps in certain directorates. Whilst CL-OQC is relatively new, it has received a huge amount of acceptance within the EPO. This is probably down to the facts that: – there was extensive piloting; – examiners care about quality and are always looking to improve; – there is face to face personal feedback between the examiner and quality nominee; – it is not used for reporting purposes; – it was honed by having the examiner and quality nominee in the same site - but is now expanded to cross site checks too; – it is used to spot skills gaps and subsequently bridge them by either on-the-job training or specifically designed training.
5.4. User satisfaction survey The EPO also carries out satisfaction surveys with applicants and attorneys to gather their opinions on the EPO. These surveys include items such as the quality of the search work done by the EPO. These results are well-publicised and duly noted within the EPO. 6. Future developments In conclusion, it is fair to say that quality has long been an important concern at the EPO – see for example [5] and the earlier survey referred to therein – and that the quality controls at the EPO
236
J. Scott / World Patent Information 32 (2009) 233–236
are continuously evaluated and updated. Examiners are made aware of the needs of external searchers and database providers, enabling them to amend data accordingly. The scenarios project enables us to evaluate ideas in the light of possible future developments in the world at large [6]. Our internal strategic renewal programme has a mandate for further improvement in quality (see for example ‘‘Raising the Bar”). Finally, a renewed fee structure may enhance the quality of the incoming applications and hence the quality of patent information coming out of the EPO. Acknowledgement This article has been developed from a presentation made by the author at the European Patent Office Patent Information Conference in Stockholm, Sweden in October 2008. References [1] Philipp M. Patent filing and searching: is deflation in quality the inevitable consequence of hyperinflation in quantity? World Patent Inform 2006;28(2):117–21. [2] Scott J, de Jonge S. When is a search not a search? Part 3 – the worst of the worst: when complex applications also lack unity. World Patent Inform 2009;31(3):190–2. [3] Scott J. When is a search not a search? The EPO approach. World Patent Inform 2007;29(2):108–16. [4] Scott J, de Jonge S. When is a search not a search? Part 2 – non-unity, the EPO approach. World Patent Inform 2008;30(3):199–205.
[5] Schryvers H, Kuhn E. Second survey on EPO – DG1 search quality. World Patent Inform 1996;18(3):155–63. [6] European Patent Office, Scenarios for the Future; 2007. Available from http:// www.epo.org/topics/patent-system/scenarios-for-the-future.html.
Jeremy Scott was born in the Lake District in England in 1967, and went to Stirling University where we studied Chemistry and French. In 1989, he joined the EPO in organic chemistry – more specifically sugars – a field with many unity and complex application problems. He was an instructor for newcomers and examiners migrating from search to examination for almost 10 years, as well as being a personal coach to many examiners. He has been heavily involved in change processes in the EPO such as the Broad Consultation Process and the Mission Implementation Team. He is also part of the Future Scenarios working group. He was designated as an expert in complex applications and was on the intra-DG working group for this topic. He conceived the idea for a seminar for applicants on complex applications and non-unity, and along with fellow examiner Sytse de Jonge, they devised and wrote the training materials, as well as giving the courses to around 25 major chemical applicants. They have also given presentations to several different groups on the topic. In 2003 he transferred to the field of biotechnology. In February 2005 he was nominated director in Audio, Video Media. He gave a workshop to the 2002 EPIDOS conference, and speeches to the conferences in 2004, 2005 and 2006. In 2008, he was co-responsible in setting up an Asian Expertise Examiner Group. He also was involved in organising the Search and Examination Matters Seminars, held at the EPO, and also the European Patent Forum to be held in Prague in April 2009. In 2009, he began duties as Director, Assistant to Vice-President 1, Operations.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
World Patent Information journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/worpatin
Does the EPO really care about the quality of patent information? Jeremy Scott European Patent Office, Patentlaan 2, 2288-EE Rijswijk, Netherlands
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords: Patent information Quality EPO Title Abstract Search report Classification Quality checks Quality audits ESOP WOISA EESR Clusters
a b s t r a c t The article addresses the issue of quality of patent information in relation to the EPO’s activities. It first points out that achievable quality is heavily dependent on the quality of the supplied original text, especially as the largely unalterable A publication is used for most retrieval purposes: the EPO has legally limited opportunities to improve quality at this stage. However, the article details the improvements that can be made to title and abstracts, and the added value supplied by classification information and by the search reports, particularly in the written opinions of the Extended European Search Report. The additional actions taken by the EPO internally to improve and maintain quality are also outlined. These include routine checks on applications, extensive training, and limited full personal responsibility until examiners are both fully trained and experienced. In addition, a more detailed quality audit on a proportion of completed applications is carried out, and also a procedure before action is completed is taken at the technical cluster level. Whilst the article comments on EPO procedure, it is the opinion of the author alone and is not an official EPO view. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction What is patent information quality? One may as well ask how long is a piece of string? How can quality be defined? In football, it could be the width of a post; the smallness of a splash in highboard diving. This is fairly clear, but what about the quality of a piece of Chippendale furniture as opposed to a piece of Ikea furniture – they both have plus points and it is for the purchaser/user to compare the relative merits, what use the furniture will be put to and then define the quality sought. Most people would not buy a Chippendale desk for children to paint, cut and glue on. Similarly what is the quality of a Jackson Pollock compared to that of a Rembrandt? The analogies above seek to show that quality means different things to different people – and patent information quality is no different – perhaps because stakeholders are interested in different aspects of it – they want to use it for different purposes. This is philosophical but can the quality of patent information be defined? Good quality patent information should be accurate data stored so as to be (easily) retrievable. However, this implies that the quality is dependent on the initial quality of the data – normally the A publication is used for search purposes as it is the publication with the broadest scope. Patent information quality is undoubtedly dependent on the quality of the initial data – i.e. the quality of the incoming application. The EPO cannot control the quality of incoming applications,
E-mail address: [email protected] 0172-2190/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.wpi.2009.08.004
so this quality depends on the applicants. In this way, the EPO is just like any other (commercial) database provider in having to accept what it is given. However, once the EPO has received the patent information data, it can increase the quality by: correction, improvement, adding further data. This article will touch on the following aspects: What are the problems for quality in patent information? What can the EPO do to improve the quality of patent information? What can the EPO add to patent information to add value? What internal quality checks does the EPO have in place? Where will the future lead?
2. What are the problems for quality in patent information? Applicants draft the original application, so they are responsible for the initial data. Whilst this will not be covered in detail, the following appear pre-requisites for a well drafted application – which will be a quality piece of patent information: – – – – – –
title which indicates what the invention is about; abstract from which the invention is recognisable; clear and concise; all essential features in the claims; citing the best prior art available; proper key words (terms used consistently in the technical area).
234
J. Scott / World Patent Information 32 (2009) 233–236
Once an application is received, in reality, the EPO has little scope (or legal recourse) for improving the quality of this information, especially for the A publication. An interesting trend is the size of applications. It is fair to say that the advent of word processors has led to more voluminous applications [1]. Companies and attorneys often use similar or even identical preamble in several applications. This creates problems for database searchers and providers alike – basically it generates ‘‘noise” in search results. Thus a key aspect of maintaining high quality patent information is to attach limiting identifiers to documents (e.g. classification, good quality titles and abstracts). On the other hand, companies tend to use very consistent terminology and this does allow searchers to easily find the most relevant documents from the same applicant. 3. What can the EPO do to improve the quality of patent information by amendment? As John Ruskin once said: ‘‘Quality is never an accident: it is always the result of intelligent action” The same holds true for improving the quality of patent information – it requires an intellectual investment. There is a basic principle in searching – today’s application is tomorrow’s prior art and should be treated with the necessary intellectual investment to ensure it will be found back again. At the EPO, an examiner may improve quality of patent information by amending what has come in: (i) Title (ii) Abstract (iii) Add a figure to the abstract 3.1. Amending the title It may be said that some titles are not too elucidating – e.g.: ‘‘compounds”. If an examiner saw the title ‘‘compounds” they would probably change it into something more worthwhile e.g.: ‘‘antiviral 30 -azidothymidine (AZT)”. However, title amendment is very much technical area dependent e.g.: ‘‘Liquid Crystal Display (LCD)” or ‘‘Plasma Screen”. The examiner may well modify such titles, but on the other hand the titles are, at least, clear and exact, and enable the examiner to generate an initial working answer set (which may be combined with other means e.g. full text or classification terms to reduce the size of the answer set to more manageable proportions later on). So, the examiner might decide not to modify the title. On the other hand, it could still be worthwhile modifying into: e.g. ‘‘plasma screen with increased brightness and contrast” or ‘‘LCD with increased energy efficiency”.Since all searchers are substantive examiners too and technical effects have added importance in the procedure up to grant – especially with respect to inventive step. The key criterion for modifying a title is – can it be made better for facilitating retrieval at some time in the future. 3.2. Amending the abstract The EPO examiner may amend the abstract should he so wish. In doing so, he should bear in mind the wishes of the various external protagonists. The quality of patent information is certainly something that is considered. Searchers outside the EPO, may need to find documents by using key words in abstracts, so a patent
should generally be retrievable by the key words in the abstract. When examiners amend abstracts it is usually to correct clarity issues; to create searchable entries; to add Markush formulae or reference signs. 3.3. Modifying the figure for publication with the abstract The EPO may change the figure suggested by the applicant to accompany publication of the abstract or indeed add a figure when the applicant does not select one. The value of these should not be underestimated – they generally are complementary to and add value over the wording of the abstract.
4. What can the EPO add to improve patent information quality? As well as amending the application, the examiner may also add information: (i) Classification symbols (ii) Search report 4.1. Classification symbols When publishing the application, with or without the search report, the EPO adds IPC classification. The aim of this is to let people know to which technical area the application pertains. Also, when the document has classified ECLA classes – available in Esp@cenetÒ – this is to aid the retrieval of the patent. The aim of the EPO is to provide as complete a classification as possible – the technical field of the invention and the essential features of the invention at least are classified. Within the EPO, there are also extra codes: ICOs (In Computer Only) codes and KWs (Key Words). These allow transversal classification and/or highlight specific aspects within an ECLA group. EPO assigned ICO codes are now available from certain commercial database providers. These codes provide in-depth retrieval possibilities. 4.2. Search report Search quality is compliance with Rule 61 EPC and the level of quality of the search per se is the degree to which Rule 61(1) EPC is complied with. The quality of patent information is somewhat different, and there the EPO adds value by attaching the Extended European Search Report (EESR) – a combination of the search report and European Search Opinion (ESOP). In the PCT, the search report and Written Opinion of the International Search Authority (WOISA) are added. It also contains information about which documents are cited, and which parts are relevant. There is furthermore a category (X, Y, A, P, etc.) associated with each citation designating its relevance. The report will also contain classification information and details if the application displays non-unity or is designated as a complex application [2–4]. The documents that are cited on the search report are increasingly important since they may be obscure documents found on the internet; Ph.D Theses or Company websites; or may be patent documents in other languages (the EPO invests considerable effort in retrieving, for example, Japanese, Chinese and Korean documentation). These are documents which may be difficult to find for searchers without tools similar to those of the EPO. Once found and cited on a search report, they are effectively flagged to other database providers (who may not have been aware of them before) who may choose to add them to their collections.
J. Scott / World Patent Information 32 (2010) 233–236
By maintaining search quality, the EPO is making sure that forward and back referencing techniques are as effective as possible since document chains are formed. We can ensure that these chains are optimal and that the most relevant documents are cited due to our automated cited and citing documents search possibilities. This is normally done when finalising a search report, and all documents proposed for citation on the search report can have either cited or citing checks, or both, run on them. E.g., if this article was to be cited on a search report, then running the ‘‘cited” check would retrieve the five references [1–6] found at the bottom. If the ‘‘citing” check was run in a few years time, then hopefully, several other articles would have referenced this article and would thus be retrieved. This generally gives lists of related documents which are then checked against the application to see if they are more or less relevant than the proposed citation. If the application lacks unity, then information is given on the searched and non-searched subjects on the supplemental sheets. There are details of the separate inventions. The citations on the partial search report are only applicable for the first invention. If the applicant pays some or all the further search fees the final search report will state for which other inventions the search can be considered valid [2–4]. 5. What internal quality checks does the EPO have in place? All the steps in Sections 3 and 4 cost the examiner time, but they are all aspects which are taken very seriously, and coached extensively. Having seen what the EPO can do to affect patent information quality, it may also be interesting to know what other investments the EPO makes in Quality. 5.1. Day to day A director (who manages 25–30 examiners on average) signs out all files and checks their quality, often returning with the file to discuss it with the examiner concerned. By this mechanism, the director can check if the examiner has read the proper scope into the claims; devised an appropriate search strategy to cover the whole of the claimed scope; looked in the right places; classified the document in the correct places; used the retrieved documents to the best effect. As Mahatma Gandhi said: ‘‘It is the Quality of our work which will please God not the Quantity” A three person examining division checks all final actions (grants or refusals), with the chairman having many years experience in examination. Increasingly, other members of the division are becoming involved at the search stage – especially on potentially difficult cases. Now that BEST (Bringing Examination and Search Together) has bedded down, the office is now working with the concept of Areas of Competence. This means, as and when needed, bringing a complete technical field to one site and closing it down in others. This is not suitable for all fields office wide, but where it is possible, it creates centres of knowledge so that when examiners consult colleagues they can be sure that they receive the required specialised knowledge. The office invests huge amounts of both money and time to ensure that their examiners are properly trained: Each new recruit receives over 50 days classroom training in their first two years and, for their first three years in the office, they have a coach who sees their files and signs them out. Examiners normally only start classifying when they have spent considerable time in a technical field. Before they start classifying,
235
examiners get training on classification rules and philosophy and are also required to have several hundred documents checked by the gérant (person who controls the classification scheme in a certain technical area) before beginning to work autonomously. In all cases of doubt, classifiers consult the gérant. 5.2. DQA DQA (the Directorate Quality Audit) perform a quality audit on search and examination which covers only a small percentage of files, but which leads to an in-depth discussion between the directors and examiners on one hand and DQA on the other. This is performed after a search or grant is issued. This data is collated on DG1 (around 10 directorates from similar technical fields) level and is presented back to the cluster annually to see if any corrective action on a cluster (a cluster is a collection of directorates with similar technical background, managed by a Principal Director, with 9– 10 directorates – 250 examiners, on average) level is required. 5.3. CL-OQC This nice acronym, CL-OQC, stands for Cluster Level Operational Quality Control. It has been implemented across the whole of DG Operations (15 Joint Clusters) in the past couple of years, after extensive piloting in a restricted number of Joint Clusters to iron out any potential issues. Between 6% and 8% of all searches and final actions are checked by quality nominees (expert examiners) selected for their knowledge of search, examination and classification, but also for their interpersonal skills and ability to give feedback with sensitivity. This represents approximately 14,000 files and provides statistically relevant results to the Clusters. The main difference between these checks and the DQA quality audits is that they are performed before files are sent out, and before the examining division becomes involved, so can be corrected if required. Accumulating data over time provides data that is still statistically relevant on a directorate level and thus the results of CL-OQC checks can be useful in flagging skills gaps in certain directorates. Whilst CL-OQC is relatively new, it has received a huge amount of acceptance within the EPO. This is probably down to the facts that: – there was extensive piloting; – examiners care about quality and are always looking to improve; – there is face to face personal feedback between the examiner and quality nominee; – it is not used for reporting purposes; – it was honed by having the examiner and quality nominee in the same site - but is now expanded to cross site checks too; – it is used to spot skills gaps and subsequently bridge them by either on-the-job training or specifically designed training.
5.4. User satisfaction survey The EPO also carries out satisfaction surveys with applicants and attorneys to gather their opinions on the EPO. These surveys include items such as the quality of the search work done by the EPO. These results are well-publicised and duly noted within the EPO. 6. Future developments In conclusion, it is fair to say that quality has long been an important concern at the EPO – see for example [5] and the earlier survey referred to therein – and that the quality controls at the EPO
236
J. Scott / World Patent Information 32 (2009) 233–236
are continuously evaluated and updated. Examiners are made aware of the needs of external searchers and database providers, enabling them to amend data accordingly. The scenarios project enables us to evaluate ideas in the light of possible future developments in the world at large [6]. Our internal strategic renewal programme has a mandate for further improvement in quality (see for example ‘‘Raising the Bar”). Finally, a renewed fee structure may enhance the quality of the incoming applications and hence the quality of patent information coming out of the EPO. Acknowledgement This article has been developed from a presentation made by the author at the European Patent Office Patent Information Conference in Stockholm, Sweden in October 2008. References [1] Philipp M. Patent filing and searching: is deflation in quality the inevitable consequence of hyperinflation in quantity? World Patent Inform 2006;28(2):117–21. [2] Scott J, de Jonge S. When is a search not a search? Part 3 – the worst of the worst: when complex applications also lack unity. World Patent Inform 2009;31(3):190–2. [3] Scott J. When is a search not a search? The EPO approach. World Patent Inform 2007;29(2):108–16. [4] Scott J, de Jonge S. When is a search not a search? Part 2 – non-unity, the EPO approach. World Patent Inform 2008;30(3):199–205.
[5] Schryvers H, Kuhn E. Second survey on EPO – DG1 search quality. World Patent Inform 1996;18(3):155–63. [6] European Patent Office, Scenarios for the Future; 2007. Available from http:// www.epo.org/topics/patent-system/scenarios-for-the-future.html.
Jeremy Scott was born in the Lake District in England in 1967, and went to Stirling University where we studied Chemistry and French. In 1989, he joined the EPO in organic chemistry – more specifically sugars – a field with many unity and complex application problems. He was an instructor for newcomers and examiners migrating from search to examination for almost 10 years, as well as being a personal coach to many examiners. He has been heavily involved in change processes in the EPO such as the Broad Consultation Process and the Mission Implementation Team. He is also part of the Future Scenarios working group. He was designated as an expert in complex applications and was on the intra-DG working group for this topic. He conceived the idea for a seminar for applicants on complex applications and non-unity, and along with fellow examiner Sytse de Jonge, they devised and wrote the training materials, as well as giving the courses to around 25 major chemical applicants. They have also given presentations to several different groups on the topic. In 2003 he transferred to the field of biotechnology. In February 2005 he was nominated director in Audio, Video Media. He gave a workshop to the 2002 EPIDOS conference, and speeches to the conferences in 2004, 2005 and 2006. In 2008, he was co-responsible in setting up an Asian Expertise Examiner Group. He also was involved in organising the Search and Examination Matters Seminars, held at the EPO, and also the European Patent Forum to be held in Prague in April 2009. In 2009, he began duties as Director, Assistant to Vice-President 1, Operations.