ACTIVIDADES: ANÁLISIS E INDICADORES

Quality measurement takes into consideration adherence to registrability standards and the comprehensive

excellence of office actions, including research, writing, legal decisionmaking, and evidence. Trademark quality targets are routinely achieved, and the USPTO continues sustaining these high performance levels by improving training and feedback, promoting electronic filing and processing, making greater use of online tools and enhanced processes, and adopting more rigorous customer-centric measures.

All quality measures have been achieved. The more comprehensive exceptional office action measures have far exceeded their targets (see Tables 10 and 11), illustrating the commitment of the examiners and the office to provide and sustain excellence in constructing search strategy, preparing supporting evidence, writing the office action, and communicating the decision. The measure has proven to be a success, emphasizing a holistic approach to quality. Development of additional guidelines, as well as incentive awards, have motivated more examiners to strive for exceptional work products. The target has been raised consistently to reflect not only the new level of quality, but also to consider the impact of hiring a significant number of new examiners and implementing new procedures or processes.

TABLE 10

Measure: Trademark First Action Compliance Rate

Fiscal Year Target Actual

2010 95.5% 96.6% 2011 95.5% 96.5% 2012 95.5% 96.2% 2013 95.5% 96.3% 2014 95.5% 95.8% 2015 95.5% 2016 95.5% Target Met.

The USPTO will continue its multifaceted training program for its trademark-examining attorneys and support staff. New hires are provided with classroom training and work with a mentor for an extended period. Experienced examiners are provided with continuing training resources to improve performance. This includes legal training by our offices of quality review, ongoing case law updates and examination guidelines by and our legal policy office, as well as the use of IT to provide new research resources and procedures to minimize errors. Users of the Trademark operation’s services are another source for feedback and educational resources to maintain and enhance examination quality. The USPTO engages stakeholders in validating trademark quality findings, user groups provide industry-specific training, and the agency works with industry experts on updating identifications (IDs) for goods and services. Regular meetings with outside constituent groups, a customer call center, and an email box for customer problems also provide valuable information about examination quality.

Trademark examination quality is indicated by the first and final compliance rate, which is determined through an in-process review evaluation of the statutory bases for which the USPTO raises issues and/or refuses marks for registration based on the first office action and the examiner’s approval or denial of the application.

Table 12 shows how the USPTO improves the efficiency of the trademark examination process as measured by the average cost of a trademark disposal compared with trademark direct and indirect costs. This efficiency measure is calculated by dividing total expenses associated with the examination and process of trademarks (including associated overhead and allocated expenses) by outputs or office disposals. Actual results are based on total trademark-related expenditures compared with

office disposals. TABLE 11

Measure: Trademark Final Compliance Rate

Fiscal Year Target Actual

2010 97.0% _96.8%* 2011 97.0% 97.0% 2012 97.0% 97.1% 2013 97.0% 97.1% 2014 97.0% 97.2% 2015 97.0% 2016 97.0% Target Met.

*_{Within the target range of 97.0% considering the margin of error of (+/- 0.6%)}

OBJECTIVE 3:

ENSURE OPTIMAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

SERVICE DELIVERY TO ALL USERS

In response to directions from the USPTO Director to separate the trademark IT infrastructure from the rest of the USPTO IT infrastructure and implement an integrated IT system for end-to-end electronic processing of

trademark applications and trademark registration maintenance, work continues on the Trademark Next Generation (TMNG). TMNG will enable end-to-end processing that is faster, more practical, more feature-rich, and more reliable for the USPTO employees, trademark applicants, trademark owners, and the public at large. User-centered design (UCD) is a core component of the TMNG development effort that works with end users (both internal and external) to identify the features they

desire in the new system interface. Delivery of new TMNG examining attorney capabilities will occur in FY 2015. TABLE 12

Total Cost Per Trademark Office Disposal

Fiscal Year Target Actual

2010 $607 $520 2011 $650 $541 2012 $607 $560 2013 $609 $552 2014 $650 $559 2015 $639 2016 $597 Target Met.

TMNG development will take advantage of virtualization and cloud computing. Using this technology requires us to redesign our present system, which will give us the opportunity to improve functionality, flexibility, and mobility. The modernization effort is a multiyear

investment that delivers enhancements to existing tools such as Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR), the internal search program known as X-search, and expanding search functionality for other tools, such as the Electronic Official Gazette (eOG). Work continues on the development and replacement of FAST 1, the online examination system used by examining attorneys and Trademark Reporting Data Mart (TRDM), which will enhance management tools for reporting and analysis of performance results.

While TMNG is under development, the USPTO is committed to providing optimal service on all current legacy Trademark systems for both employees and external users. In addition, these systems must be stabilized for use during TMNG development. The electronic processing of trademark applications rose to 80.7 percent of applications were exclusively processed electronically from filing to disposition, as shown in Table 13.

TABLE 13

Measure: Trademark Applications Processed Electronically

Fiscal Year Target Actual

2010 65.0% 68.1% 2011 68.0% 73.0% 2012 74.0% 77.0% 2013 76.0% 79.0% 2014 78.0% 80.7% 2015 80.0% 2016 81.0% Target Met.