USPTO Performance and Accountability Report - U.S. Patent and ...

TABLE 13 Measure: Trademark Final
Compliance Rate
FISCAL YEAR TARGET ACTUAL
Target Met.
2009 97.0% 97.6%
2010 97.0% 96.8% 1
2011 97.0% 97.0%
2012 97.0% 97.1%
2013 97.0%
2014 97.0%
1 Within the target range of 97.0% considering the margin
error of (+/- 0.6%).
The Trademark organization strives to enhance the
quality of examination by adopting more rigorous
customer-centric measures. The new “exceptional”
quality measure—which reflects comprehensive
excellence of the search, evidence, writing, and decision-making
of the initial office action, while also
emphasizing the appropriate use of telephone and
e-mail communications to settle or clarify issues with
the applicant or its attorney—exceeded its target by
6 percentage points (Figure 19). The target is an indication
of the high standard that has been set in
defining excellence. Feedback from user groups is
used to ensure that the standards of excellence
reflect users’ perception of excellence as well.
Trademark Efficiency Performance
The efficiency measure (Table 14) is calculated by
dividing total expenses associated with the examination
and processing of trademarks (including
associated overhead and allocated expenses) by
outputs or office disposals. The measure is a relative
indicator of the efficiency of the trademark process
FIGURE 19 Exceptional Office Action
TABLE 14 Measure: Total Cost Per
Trademark Office Disposal
FISCAL YEAR TARGET ACTUAL
Target Met.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
2008 $697 $470
2009 $639 $474
2010 $607 $520
2011 $650 $541
2012 $607 $560
2013 $609 1
2014 $608 1
1 Outyear targets subject to change.
and related services over time; it does not represent
the unit cost of a trademark since office disposals
are only one measure among many products and
services that the USPTO performs each year.
OBJECTIVE 3: Ensure accuracy of
identifications of goods and services in
trademark applications and registrations
The USPTO conducted public outreach and roundtables
aimed at addressing concerns about the
accuracy in the descriptions or identifications of
goods and services. USPTO practice regarding the
level of specificity of identifications, greater collaboration
with industry groups, and sharing international
databases of acceptable identifications were
discussed with members of the user community.
The Trademark organization hosted a number of
public meetings as a follow-up to address issues
concerning fraud, policing measures, and tactics.
Following up on one of the leading suggestions from
an earlier report, the USPTO issued a final rule to
implement a pilot program requiring additional
specimens or other evidence in connection with a
Section 8 and 71 Affidavit of Continued Use to assess
the level of accuracy of the identifications. The results
from the pilot are expected next year and could
yield information about the reliability of the trademark
register or whether a problem exists which may
require measures to address it.
The USPTO extended its collaboration with the international
community on acceptable identifications.
The agency hosted the 10th Annual Meeting of the
www.uspto.gov
31