A recurring theme on this blog, and in other online fora, is the knuckleheaded way in which the USPTO processes incoming documents. Would it take so much effort to explain in clear language what’s formally wrong with an application paper, and to point out the exact spot in what was submitted that doesn’t comply with USPTO rules? And why on earth has the USPTO turned the filing of an application data sheet (ADS) into a world of its own, often necessitating several go-rounds of the applicant guessing until it gets it right, despite this adding nothing of value to the application file?
But worse, there doesn’t seem to be anyone to talk to at the USPTO. There’s something called the ombudsman program, but that’s really designed for dealing with substantive examination issues, not the problem of formalities people gumming up the works. Also, the people who run the USPTO’s electronic business center (EBC), which we use to file documents and to keep track of our applications, troll some of the online fora, and will make improvements in response to user complaints. But again, those are electronic input/output and user interface issues, not matters of how the office processes documents once it’s received them. The lack of ability to get through to the people who created and manage that inefficient and oftentimes user-unfriendly system only adds to the frustration felt by those of us who have to navigate this system on a daily basis.
I was recently at conference where a delegation from the European Patent Office (EPO) was in attendance. I took the opportunity to mention that I appreciated the generally high level of examination at the EPO. I also took the opportunity to voice a complaint about a particular matter. Much to my surprise, the delegate with whom I spoke invited me to file a complaint via the EPO’s website. Yes, that’s right: if you go to the “contact us” page on the EPO’s site, among the headers is one labeled “Make a complaint”, with a link to an online complaint form. See the screenshot below:
Unsurprisingly, the USPTO’s “contact us” page doesn’t have anything remotely similar, and a search for the word “complaint” on the USPTO’s web site yields a bunch of hits relating to invention promotion scammers, but nothing about registering a complaint with the USPTO about its own services.
Using the EPO’s online complaint function, I presented my problem, and within a few days I received a response (via email) on EPO stationery. The EPO acknowledged awareness of the particular problem, as I was not the only one who had complained; it indicated that it thought it had pinpointed the source of the problem, but (a) was still investigating and (b) had nevertheless changed practices in response; and it pointed me to some services it already offered that I could avail myself of to decrease the likelihood of a repeat problem in the future.
What a welcome contrast to the treatment one gets from the USPTO! Although the EPO’s answer didn’t satisfy me 100%, it went a long way toward ameliorating the problem, and was daylight in comparison to the dark “we-don’t-care-we-don’t-have-to-we’re-the-USPTO” attitude that seems to be the default setting for the USPTO. Reminiscent of this Dilbert cartoon. Or this one.
(FWIW, the ILPTO also has a complaints page (literally “inquiries from the public”), which includes the name of the ILPTO staff member responsible for fielding complaints, along with an online complaints form. This is a standard form for all state offices, and is somewhat cumbersome to use. )