# Presentation: 922579

## Content of the Report

_**Background**_
**Methodology  (page T-4)**
**Sampling  (page T-8)**
_**Quantitative Results**_
**Demographic Profile of Participants  (page T-10)**
**Absolute View of Results  (page T-17)**
**Comparison with 1999 Results  (page T-28)**
**What Did the Survey Measure?  Summary of Factor ****Analysis Results  (page T-35)**
**Review of Results by the 6 Factors  (page T-46)**
**Examination Process  (page T-47)**
**Appropriateness of Searches (page T-51)**
**Analyzing Consistency in the Examination Process (page T-59)**
**Customer Service  (page T-63)**

## Content of the Report (cont.)

_**Quantitative Results**_** ****(cont.)**
**Timeliness  (page T-68)**
**First Office Action Timeliness  (page T-73)**
**Problem Resolution  (page T-76)**
**Most Frequently Encountered Problems  (page T-86)**
**Document Accuracy  (page T-90)**
**Change in Service  (page T-93)**
**How Do Changes in Most Recent Experience Compare ****to 1999?  (page T-95)**
**Questions Pertaining to the Overall Trademark Process – ****Overall Questions  (page T-105)**
**Are Outcomes of the Process Related to Perceptions About Value****and Overall Satisfaction?  (page T-112)**
**How Do Factors Relate to Overall Questions  (page T-115)**
**Key Driver Analysis  (page T-118)**
**Moving Customers from Neutral to Satisfied in Overall Satisfaction (page T-131)**
**Demographic Differences  (page T-141)**
**Electronic Filing  (page T-153)**

## Content of the Report (cont.)

_**Qualitative Results**_** **
**Summary of Open-Ended Comments  (page T-162)**
_**Conclusions**_
**Overall Summary  (page T-189)**
**Conclusions  (page T-194)**
_**Appendices**_
**Appendix A:****	****Procedures and Methodology**
**Appendix B:****	****Sampling Procedures**
**Appendix C:****	****Description of Analytic Techniques**
**Appendix D:****	****2000 Trademark Survey Instrument**
**Appendix E:****	****Crosswalk of 2000 Survey with 1999 Survey**
**Appendix F:****	****Question-by-Question Frequencies for 2000 Data**
**Appendix G:****	****Trend Data Comparing 2000, 1999, 1998, 1996, and 1995**
_**Volume II**_
**Appendix H:****	****Verbatim Qualitative Comments by Category**
**Appendix I:****	****Respondent Inquiries Report**

## Methodology

- T-

## Methodology*

**Purposes:     ****	****Assess satisfaction with USPTO processes and standards.**
**Survey Items:****	****Redesign was purposely kept minimal to maintain ****	****comparability with previous survey questions.**
**	**_**Summary of Changes in 2000 Survey**_**:**
**	******** ****	****Some items that were not used in the 1999 analysis or that were****	****	****difficult for respondents to understand were deleted from the****	****	****survey.**
**	******** ****	****New items were added.**
**	****	******** ****	****Respondents could select only one affiliation in ****	****	****Question A1 – What is your affiliation?**
**	****	******** ****	****See crosswalk of 1999 and 2000 surveys – Appendix E.**
**Nonrespondent ****Analysis:****	******** ****	****Conducted nonrespondent analysis of 1999 nonrespondents****	****	****and found that the following could be affecting response rates:**
**	****	****	******** ****	****Respondents are too busy.**
**	****	****	******** ****	****Survey is too long.**
**	****	****	******** ****	****Summer data collection is a bad time of year.**
**	****	****	******** ****	****Respondents did not think results would be used by USPTO.**

*** Appendix A describes the methodology in more detail.**

## Methodology* (cont.)

**Conducted ****Experiment:****	******** ****	****Conducted an experiment to determine if reminder postcard ****	****	****and timing of second survey mailing affect response rate.**
**	******** ****	****3 groups:**
**	****	******** ****	****PC = sent postcard 2 weeks after initial mailing and****	****	****	****second survey 4 weeks after initial mailing.**
**	****	******** ****	****NPC2 = did not get postcard and sent second survey****	****	****	****2 weeks after initial mailing.**
**	****	******** ****	****NPC4 = did not get postcard and sent second survey****	****	****	****4 weeks after initial mailing.**
**	****	******** ****	****Response Rates**
**	****	****	******** ****	****PC****	****=  40%**
**	****	****	******** ****	****NPC2****	****=  36%**
**	****	****	******** ****	****NPC4****	****=  37%**

**___________________**
***   Appendix A describes the methodology in more detail.**

## Methodology (cont.)

**Survey****	**
**Administration:****	****From May 1, 2000, to July 6, 2000**
**	**_**4 Mailings**_**:**
**	********	****Advance letter – May 1, 2000**
**	********	****Initial survey packet (cover letter, survey****	****	****return envelope) – May 15, 2000**
**	******** ****	****Reminder Postcard – May 31, 0000**
**	******** ****	****Second mailing to nonrespondents (cover letter,****	****	****survey, return envelope) – May 31, 2000, and June 13, 2000**
**	******** ****	****Closed data collection – July 6, 2000**
**Response Rates:****	****1,113 ****	****Mailed**
**	****   ****400* ****	****Returned complete**
**	****  ****38%****	****Overall trademark response rate**

- ___________________
*** Of the 400 completed surveys, 38 were returned after the close of data collection.  Those****   surveys are included in the response rate calculation but are not included in the data analysis.**

## Sampling

- T-

## Sampling

**File Cleaning:****	********	****Duplicate records were deleted to  ****	****	****get one ****	****record per person per address.**
**	******** ****	****Records with incomplete address****	****	****information were deleted.**
**Change in****	****In 1998 and 1999, respondents were sampled by ****Sampling****	****establishment.  In 2000, respondents were sampled****Methodology:****	****by individual name and address.  The sampling plan****	****was changed to lower respondent burden by ****	****reducing the likelihood that individuals would****	****receive a survey from year to year.**
**Sample Selection:****	****Goal was to sample approximately 1,000 ****	****respondents.**
**Sample Size:****	****Initial trademark sample frame size = ****	****2,171**
**	****Duplicate/incomplete records =****	****223**
**	****Sampling rate =****	****4 of 7**
**	****Final mail-out size = ****	****1,113**
**__________________**
*** Appendix B presents more detail regarding the sampling procedures employed.**

## Who Were the Respondents?

***A Demographic Profile******of Participants***

- T-

## A1.  What is your affiliation?  

**                                                        ****2000   1999    1998     1996****	****     1995**
**	****%****	****%*****	****   %*****	****%*****	****%***
******** ****Federal government agency  (n=1)****	****  0****	****0****	****0****	****1****	****1**
**   ****University or college  (n=2)****	****  1****	****0****	****0****	****0****	****1**
**   ****Large business  (n=41) ****	****11****	****12****	****11****	****19****	****35**
**   ****Small business  (n=35) ****	****10****	****12****	****9****	****1****	****1**
**   ****Law firm  (n=267) ****	****75****	****74****	****78****	****78****	****49**
**   ****Individual applicant  (n=3) ****	****  1****	****3****	****3****	****3****	****14**
**   ****Other (Specify)  (n=8) ****	****   2****	****1****	****1****	****2****	****5**
**___________________**
***   ****Percents from 1995 to 1999 may sum to more than 100% because more than one response could be****     chosen.  In 2000, respondents could choose only one affiliation.**
****  ****Response categories changed from 1995/1996 to 1998/1999.  The question is still comparable****     from year to year.**

**The 2000 affiliation profile is similar to the 1999 profile. Three-quarters of the survey respondents said they are affiliated with law firms.**

## A2.	How often did you contact the USPTO for products or services over the past year?	

**	****                                    ****2000       1999       1998      1996      1995**
**                                                ****%            %            %           %          %**
**	****Never  ****(n=3)****	****  1****	****3****	****2****	****2****	****13**
**	****Only once  ****(n=14)**** ****	****  4****	****4****	****4****	****2****	****9**
**	****Rarely  ****(n=15)**** ****	****  4****	****6****	****5****	****3****	****5**
**	****Occasionally  ****(n=57)**** ****	****16****	****22****	****18****	****14****	****16**
**	****Often  ****(n=266)**** ****	****75****	****65****	****72****	****80****	****58**
**	**

**From 1999 to 2000, the percentage of respondents who contacted the USPTO often increased substantially, from 65% to 75%.  **

## A3.  What is your relationship with the USPTO?	

**Three-quarters of the respondents reported they are continuous customers with the USPTO. Occasional/one-time customers represented only 14% of the respondents.**

**                                                             ****2000      ****	****1999        1998       1996****	****      1995**
**                                                               ****	****%****	****%*****	****%*****	****%*****	****%***
**A continuous customer (n=266) ****	****75****	****72****	****77****	****84****	****61**
**A frequent, but not continuous ****customer (n=37) ****	****11****	****8****	****6****	****5****	****8**
**An occasional customer (n=38) ****	****11****	****15****	****14****	****9****	****19**
**A one-time customer (n=11) ****	****  3****	****4****	****3****	****3****	****9**
**A former customer (n=2)****	****  1****	****1****	****0****	****0****	****2**
**Not a customer******	****--****	****1****	****0****	****0****	****1**
**_______________________**
***    Question wording changed slightly from 1998 to 1999.  The question is still comparable****      from year to year.**
****  The option “not a customer” was removed from the survey in 2000.**

## C19.  What is your job title?	

**About three-quarters of the respondents identified themselves as attorneys.**

**Percent in**** **_**Category**_**	**_**Responses Were Coded Under Six Categories**_
**	****76%****	****Attorney/Counsel/Associate**
**	****9%****	****Executive**
**	****5%****	****Paralegal**
**	****4%****	****Director/Manager**
**	****4%****	****Support Staff (Legal Assistant/Office Manager)**
**	****2%****	****Other (Shareholder, Teacher, Musician)**

## Affiliation (A1) by Job Title (C19)

**Of the respondents affiliated with large businesses, 27% are paralegals. Of those affiliated with small businesses, almost three-quarters are executives.**

**	****%**
**	****Patent****	****%****	****	****	****%**
**	****Agent,****	****Director,****	****%****	****%****	****Support****	****%**
**Affiliation****	****Attorney****	****Manager****	****Executive****	****Paralegal****	****Staff****	****Other**
**Federal government****agency (n=1)****	****100****	****  0****	****  0****	****  0****	****0****	****0**
**University or ****college (n=2)****	****  50****	****  0****	****50****	****  0****	****0****	****0**
**Large business (n=37)****	****  46****	****19****	****  0****	****27****	****8****	****0**
**Small business (n=32)****	****  10****	****  6****	****72****	****  0****	****9****	****3**
**Law firm (n=242)****	****  90****	****  2****	****  2****	****  2****	****2****	****2**
**Individual applicant (n=2)****	****  50****	****  0****	****50****	****  0****	****0****	****0**
**Other (Specify) (n=8)****	****  63****	****  0****	****12****	****  0****	****13  ****	****12  **

## Demographic Profile – In Summary

**Law firms represented three-quarters of the respondents.  Individual applicants made up only 1% of the total  respondent population.  The 1999 and 2000 profiles are basically the same.**
**Three-quarters of the respondents reported that they contacted the USPTO often during the past year, an increase of 10 percentage points since 1999.  Fewer than 10% of the respondents said they never, only once, or rarely contacted the USPTO during the year.  The percentage of respondents contacting the USPTO only occasionally declined by 6 points.**
**Three-quarters of the respondents reported they are continuous customers with the USPTO, and another 11% said they are frequent customers.  There was a slight increase in the percentage of continuous customers from 1999 to 2000.**
**Three-quarters of the respondents identified themselves as attorneys.**

## Absolute View of Results

- T-

## A Review of Results By:

**Most and Least Satisfied Questions**
**Most Dissatisfied Questions**
**Major Changes from 1999 Data**
**Questions Grouped into Six Factors**
**Questions Pertaining to the Overall Trademark Process**
**Questions Having a Strong Association with Overall Satisfaction (Key Drivers)**
**Demographic Differences**
**Content Analysis of Open-Ended Comments**

## Most and Least Satisfied Questions

- T-

## What Respondents Are Most Satisfied With 

***What Respondents Are Most Satisfied With ***

- C1AP1.	Amount of time needed to submitrequired information
- B1.  	Treat you with courtesy eachtime you contact us
- C1AP3. 	Use of phone by employees todeal with examination issues
- B24.  	Issue Certificates of Registrationwith the correct information
- C15c.	Overall courteousness (in handling of problems)
- B4.  	Clearly written communications ofposition of examining attorneys

**Survey **
_**Item #**_

_**Satisfied**_

## What Respondents Are Most Satisfied With (cont.) 

***What Respondents Are Most Satisfied With ******(cont.)****** ***

- C1OE1.	Outcome met your objective
- B23.	Issue Official Gazettes withthe correct information
- C1AP2.	Handling of issues related to goods/services during examination process
- C1OE2.	Fairness of examination

**Survey **
_**Item #**_

_**Satisfied**_

**Amount of time needed to submit required information, courtesy, use of the telephone to deal with examination issues, and issuing Certificates of Registration with the correct information have the highest satisfaction ratings.**

## What Respondents Are Least Satisfied With 

***What Respondents Are Least Satisfied With ***

- C15a.	Handling of delays
- B10.	Mail filing receipts within 14 daysafter receipt of application
- B15.	Respond to Request to Divide within30 days from mail room receipt
- B20.	Respond to Section 9 Requests within30 days from mail room receipt
- B7.	Provide first action regardingregistrability within 3 months
- B19.	Respond to Section 8 Requests within30 days from mail room receipt

**Survey **
_**Item #**_

_**Satisfied**_

## What Respondents Are Least Satisfied With (cont.) 

***What Respondents Are Least Satisfied With ******(cont.)****** ***

- B26.	Resolve problems in processing ofapplications or registrations within 7 days
- C15b.	Handling of mistakes
- B18.	Respond to Section 7 Requests within30 days from mail room receipt
- B14.	Respond to Amendments within35 days from mail room receipt
- C15d.	The way problem was handled

**Survey **
_**Item #**_

_**Satisfied**_

**Respondents are least satisfied with meeting several process time standards and with the handling of problems.**

## Most Dissatisfied Questions

- T-

## What Respondents Are Most Dissatisfied With 

***What Respondents Are Most Dissatisfied With ***

- B10.	Mail filing receipts within 14 daysafter receipt of application
- B7.  	Provide first action regardingregistrability within 3 months
- C15b.	Handling of mistakes
- C15a.	Handling of delays
- B26.	Resolve problems in processing ofapplications or registrations within 7 days
- B21.	Issue filing receipts with the correctinformation

**Survey **
_**Item #**_

_**Dissatisfied**_

## What Respondents Are Most Dissatisfied With (cont.) 

***What Respondents Are Most Dissatisfied With ******(cont.)****** ***

- B19.	Respond to Section 8 Requests within30 days from mail room receipt
- B8.	Provide final determination regardingregistrability within 13 months
- C15d.	The way problem was handled
- B14.	Respond to Amendments within35 days from mail room receipt
- B20.	Respond to Section 9 requests within30 days from mail room receipt

**Survey **
_**Item #**_

_**Dissatisfied**_

**Almost all of the items with the lowest levels of satisfaction also have the highest levels of dissatisfaction.  Issuing filing receipts with the correct information shows up only on the most dissatisfied list.**

## Absolute View of Results – In Summary

**Most Satisfied**
**Amount of time needed to submit required information**
**Courtesy**
**Use of phone in dealing with examination issues**
**Certificates of Registration with correct information**
**Least Satisfied**
**Handling of problems**
**Meeting several process time standards (e.g., filing receipts, responding to Section 7, 8, and 9 requests)**
**Most Dissatisfied**
**Mailing filing receipts with correct information**
**Providing first actions**
**Handling of problems**

## Comparison with1999 Results

- T-

## Improvements from 1999  (4 percentage points or more)Ranked by Change in % Satisfied

- C1AP1.	Amount of time needed to submitrequired information
- B18.	Respond to Section 7 Requests
- C15c.	Overall courteousness (in handlingof problems)
- C15a.	Handling of delays
- B14.	Respond to Amendments within35 days of receipt
- B17.	Respond to Extension Requests within 30 days

**Change in****% Satisfied**_**from 1999**_
**+9***
**+8**
**+6**
**+4**
**+4**
**+4**

**Survey **
_**Item #**_

**_______________**
*** Change in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant at p < .01.  All subsequent significance testing was done at  this p level.**

**Survey items with improvements in satisfaction from 1999 include time needed to submit required information and responding to Section 7 Requests.**

## Declines from 1999  (4 percentage points or more)Ranked by Change in % Satisfied

- C1P2.	Good value for the USPTO fees
- C1P1.	USPTO fees for trademark applications
- B3.	Return calls within 1 business day
- B21.	Issue filing receipts with correctinformation
- B10.	Mail filing receipts within 14 days
- C18.	Overall satisfaction
- C1AP3.	Use of telephone by  employees to dealwith examination issues

**Change in****% Satisfied**_**from 1999**_
**-10***
**-9***
**-6**
**-6**
**-6**
**-4**
**-4**

**Survey **
_**Item #**_

**________________**
*** Change in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant.**

**Survey items with significant declines in satisfaction from 1999 are good value for USPTO fees and fees for trademark applications.**

## Trends 1998 to 1999 (27 comparable items - differences in % satisfied)

**Declined**

**Improved**

**>10**

**6 - 10**

**1 - 5**

**6 - 10**

**>10**

**1 - 5**

**0**

**Percentage-Point Change**

**All comparable items improved from 1998 to 1999.  Of the 27 comparable items, 14 improved significantly.**

## Trends 1999 to 2000 (51 comparable items - differences in % satisfied)

**Declined**

**Improved**

**>10**

**6 - 10**

**1 - 5**

**6 - 10**

**>10**

**1 - 5**

**0**

**Percentage-Point Change**

**There were about equal numbers of declines and gains. Five items declined by 6 to 10 percentage points.**

## Changes from 1999 – In Summary

**There were 23 declines and 22 improvements in percent satisfied for comparable items from 1999 to 2000. The trends from 1998 to 1999 were noticeably different, with all 27 comparable items improving. **
**Improvements from 1999 include:**
**Amount of time needed to submit required information***
**Responding to Section 7 Requests (satisfaction rating remains low, at 35%)**
**Overall courteousness in handling of problems**

**________________**
*** The change in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant.**

## Changes from 1999 – In Summary (cont.)

**Declines from 1999 include:**
**Good value for the USPTO fees***
**USPTO fees for trademark applicants***
**Return calls within 1 business day**
**Issue filing receipts with correct information**
**Mail filing receipts within 14 days**
**Of the 51 comparable items, 3 improved in satisfaction by over 5 percentage points and 5 declined in satisfaction by over 5 percentage points.**

**_________________**
*** The change in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant.**

## What Did the Survey Measure?

***A Summary of the Factor******Analysis Results****

*** Appendix C provides a description of the analytic procedures.**

- T-

## The Six Factors

**Examination Process**
**Customer Service **
**Timeliness**
**Problem Resolution**
**Document Accuracy**
**Change in Service**

## Examination Process

**B4.****	****Clearly written communications of position of examining attorneys**
**C1AP2.****	****Handling of issues related to goods/services during examination process**
**C1AP4.****	****Searches performed under 15 USC **§** 1052(d) – Likelihood of Confusion**
**C1AP5.****	****Appropriateness of refusals made under 15 USC** § **1052(d) – Likelihood of Confusion**
**C1AP6.****	****Appropriateness of refusals made under 15 USC** §** 1052(e) – Merely Descriptive, Surname, Geographic**
**C1AP7.****	****Consistency of examination performed by examining attorneys**
**C1AP8.****	****Adequacy of explanation or reason for office action**
**C1AP9.****	****Sufficiency of evidence supporting office action**
**C1OE1.****	****Outcome met your objective**
**C1OE2.****	****Fairness of examination**
**C1OE3.****	****Efficiency of examination process**

_**Survey Item #**_

## C1AP1.*	Amount of time needed to submit required information 
Appropriateness of Searches
C2.**	Are the referrals made by examining attorneys under 15 USC § 1052(d) - Likelihood of Confusion usually appropriate?
C4.**	Are the refusals made by examining attorneys under 15 USC § 1052(e) - Merely Descriptive, Surname, Geographic usually appropriate?

_**Appropriateness of Searches**_
**C2.******	****Are the referrals made by examining attorneys under 15 USC ****§**** 1052(d) - Likelihood of Confusion usually appropriate?**
**C4.******	****Are the refusals made by examining attorneys under 15 USC ****§**** 1052(e) - Merely Descriptive, Surname, Geographic usually appropriate?**

***Additional Relevant Questions***

**______________**
*******	****This item was excluded from the Examination Process factor because this part of the examination process concerns the applicant rather than USPTO employees.**
****  These questions were not included in the factor analysis because they do not****specifically ask about satisfaction.**

## Customer Service

**B1.****	****Treat you with courtesy each time you contact us**
**B2.****	****Direct you promptly to the proper office or person**
**B3.****	****Return phone calls within one business day**
**B27.****	****Provide clear/accurate answers to questions through Trademark Assistance Center**
**C1AP3.****	****Use of phone by employees to deal with examination issues**
**C1SC1.****	****Ability to provide accurate answers to questions**
**C1SC2.****	****Genuinely committed to providing the best possible service**
**C1SR1.****	****Assistance at a time convenient to you**
**C1SR2.****	****Prompt and helpful service**
**C1SR3.****	****Flexibility in trying to address your needs**
**C15c.****	****Overall courteousness (in handling of problems)**

_**Survey Item #**_

## Timeliness

**B5.****	****Respond to status letters within 30 days of receipt**
**B6.****	****Disseminate info on changes in practices and procedures before effective date**
**B7.****	****Provide first action regarding registrability within 3 months**
**B8.****	****Provide final determination regarding registrability within 13 months**
**B9.****	****Mail applicant’s return postcard within 3 days**
**B10.****	****Mail filing receipts within 14 days after receipt of application**
**B11.****	****Mail Notices of Publication within 30 days after approval for publication**
**B12.****	****Mail Certificates of Registration within 7 days after registration**
**B13.****	****Mail Notices of Abandonment within 45 days after abandonment**
**B14.****	****Respond to Amendments within 35 days from mail room receipt**
**B15.****	****Respond to Request to Divide within 30 days from mail room receipt**
**B16.****	****Respond to Statements of Use within 30 days from mail room receipt**

_**Survey Item #**_

## Timeliness (cont.)

**B17.****	****Respond to Extension Requests within 30 days from mail room receipt**
**B18.****	****Respond to Section 7 Requests within 30 days from mail room receipt**
**B19.****	****Respond to Section 8 Requests within 30 days from mail room receipt**
**B20.****	****Respond to Section 9 Requests within 30 days from mail room receipt**
**B26.****	****Resolve problems in processing of applications or registrations within 7 days**
_**Additional Relevant Question**_
**C6.*****	****Is a prompt first action important to you?**

_**Survey Item #**_

**______________**
*******	****This question was not included in the factor analysis because it did not specifically****ask about satisfaction.**

## Problem Resolution*

**C15a.****	****Handling of delays**
**C15b.****	****Handling of mistakes**
**C15d.****	****The way your problem or difficulty was handled**
_**Additional Relevant Questions**_******
**C13.****	****Have you experienced any problems or difficulties with USPTO services over the past year?**
**C14.****	****Was your problem resolved?**

_**Survey Item #**_

- __________
***    Except for C13, includes only customers who experienced a problem or difficulty over the****      past year.**
**** These questions were not included in the factor analysis because they do not specifically ask****     about satisfaction.**

## Document Accuracy

**B21.****	****Issue Filing Receipts with the correct information**
**B22.****	****Issue Notices of Allowance with the correct information**
**B23.****	****Issue Official Gazettes with the correct information**
**B24.****	****Issue Certificates of Registration with the correct information**
**B25.****	****Issue Notices of Abandonment with the correct information**

_**Survey Item #**_

## Change in Service, Compared to Previous Filings

**C17a.****	****Overall Service**
**C17b.****	****Timeliness**
**C17c.****	****Outcome of the Process **
**C17d.****	****Staff Competence**
**C17e.****	****Staff Responsiveness **
**C17f.****	****First Office Action Pendency **
**C17g.****	****Problem Resolution**

_**Survey Item #**_

## How Well Did Trademark Do on Each Factor?

- Customer Service
- Document Accuracy
- Examination Process
- Timeliness
- Problem Resolution
- Change in Service**

**Customer Service and Document Accuracy have the most positive ratings. Timeliness and Problem Resolution have the least positive ratings.  Change in Service averages 28% “better.”**

_**Average Percent Satisfied or Better**_*****

**________________**
***   For each respondent, average percent satisfied is calculated by summing the number****  of items for which a person responded 4 (satisfied) or 5 (very satisfied), then dividing****  by the total number of items answered and multiplying by 100.  For the change in****  service factor, a 4 or 5 indicates a response of better or much better, respectively.**
**** Average percent better.**

## Review of Resultsby the 6 Factors

- T-

## Examination Process

- T-

## Examination ProcessRanked by % Satisfied

- B4.	Clearly written communications ofposition of examining attorneys
- C1OE1.	Outcome met your objective
- C1AP2.	Handling of issues related to goods/services during examination process
- C1OE2.	Fairness of examination
- C1AP8.	Adequacy of explanation or reason for office action
- C1AP4.	Searches performed under 15 USC § 1052(d)  – Likelihood of Confusion
- C1AP9.	Sufficiency of evidence supporting office action

**Change in****% Satisfied**_**from 1999**_
**0**
**-3**
**+1**
**-1**
**+3**
**+1**
**-3**

**Survey **_**Item #**_

## Examination Process (cont.)Ranked by % Satisfied

- C10E3.	Efficiency of examination process
- C1AP7.	Consistency of examination performed by examining attorney
- C1AP5.	Appropriateness of refusals madeunder 15 USC § 1052(d)  –  Likelihood of Confusion
- C1AP6.	Appropriateness of refusals made under 15 USC § 1052(e)  – MerelyDescriptive, Surname, Geographic

**Survey **_**Item #**_

**There are moderately high levels of satisfaction with the outcome/fairness of the examination, handling of issues related to  goods/services, and clearly written position of examining attorneys.  There are lower levels of satisfaction with appropriateness of refusals for 1052(d) and (e).**

**Change in****% Satisfied**_**from 1999**_
**-2**
**0**
**+1**
**+2**

## Additional Question About Examination Procedure

**________________**
*** The change in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant.**

**Change in****% Satisfied**_**from 1999**_
**+9***

- C1AP1.	Amount of time needed to submitrequired information

**Almost all respondents reported they are satisfied with the amount of  time needed to submit required information.  Satisfaction with this item improved significantly from 1999.**

## Appropriateness of Searches

- T-

## Appropriateness of Searches

**If respondents reported that refusals made by examining attorneys under 15 USC ****§**** 1052(d) - Likelihood of Confusion and under 15 USC ****§**** 1052(3) - Merely Descriptive, Surname, Geographic were not usually appropriate, they were asked why.**
**The following results are based on the questions on appropriateness of refusals and on write-in comments.**

## 1052(d) - Likelihood of Confusion

**Percent in**
_** **__**Category**_*******	**** **_**Responses Were Coded Under the Following Categories**_
**	****45%****	****Poor Analysis/Insufficient Evidence/Inappropriate Citations**
**	****22%****	****Too Strict or Rigid Application of the Law**
**	****20%****	****Failure to Comprehend Applications/Field**
**	****15%****	****Inconsistency**
**	****3%****	****Lack of Training**

**C2.****	****Are the refusals made by examining attorneys under ****15 USC ****§**** 1052(d) - Likelihood of Confusion usually appropriate?**
**	****	****Yes****	****66%**
**	****	****No****	****34%**
**C3.****	****If no, why are they not appropriate?**

**________________**
*** Percents do not add up to 100 because comments were often coded under more than one category.  Percent for each category equals the number of responses with that category code divided by the number of respondents who answered the question.**

## C3.	If refusals made under 1052(d) are not appropriate, why not?

**“****Poor legal analysis and reasoning, failure to adequately comprehend substance ****of application and references.”**
**“****Inconsistent and not adequately explained.  Also, arguments showing no likelihood of confusion are completely ignored.”**
**“****In a significant number of cases, the Examiner is overly conservative, cites one mark, when mark is already diluted and weak and a number of similar marks already exist on the Register.”**
**“****One refusal I received was entirely inappropriate and was reversed when I responded - but slowed down the process considerably.”**
**“****I feel that in many instances it's very subjective in nature.  Too much discretion ****is given to EA.”**
**“****They cite marks that are not confusingly similar with the mark sought to be registered.”**
**“****Majority of refusals are overturned on responses filed by applicant.  Further understanding of applicant's use of mark would prevent refusals.”**
**“****Sometimes the rejections are appropriate and sometimes not.”**
**  ****Examining Attorneys too often cite marks merely to cover themselves for quality review, and too often make**
**  ****unproven assumptions in relatedness of goods/services, marketplace, and fail to look at the register as a whole.**
**  ****Inconsistent standards from one application examination to another.**

***C3.******	******If refusals made under 1052(d) are not appropriate, why not?***

## C3.	If refusals made under 1052(d) are not appropriate, why not?

**“****Many times, marks are cited which, although identical or similar, have very different goods or services.”**
**“****Examining Attorneys too often cite marks merely to cover themselves for quality reviews, and too often make unproven assumptions in relatedness of goods/ services, marketplace, and fail to look at the register as a whole.”**
**“****Inconsistent standards from one application examiner to another.”**

***C3.******	******If refusals made under 1052(d) are not appropriate, why not?***

## 1052(e) - Merely Descriptive, Surname, Geographic

**Percent in**
_** **__**Category**_*******	**** **_**Responses Were Coded Under the Following Categories**_
**	****58%****	****Poor Analysis/Insufficient Evidence/Inappropriate Citations**
**	****30%****	****Too Strict or Rigid Application of the Law**
**	****23%****	****Inconsistency**
**	****7%****	****Failure to Comprehend Application**
**	****2%****	****Lack of Training**
**	**

**C4.****	****Are the refusals made by examining attorneys under ****15 USC ****§**** 1052(e) - Merely Descriptive, Surname, Geographic usually appropriate?**
**	****	****Yes****	****68%**
**	****	****No****	****32%**
**C5.****	****If no, why are they not appropriate?**

**________________**
*** Percents do not add up to 100 because comments were often coded under more than one category.  Percent for each category equals the number of responses with that category code divided by the number of respondents who answered the question.**

## C5.	If refusals made under 1052(e) are not appropriate, why not?

**“****Again, the standard is applied too narrowly.  The average consumer is considered very stupid which is not the case.”**
**“****The ones that I have had that are not appropriate usually are due to the Examiner being too rigid as to geographic description where the Examiner has failed to do a proper analysis to determine if there are other areas that use the same name.”**
**“****There are clearly instances where the descriptiveness argument is not appropriate, but more generally, it is appropriate.”**
**“****Merely descriptive is too vague; unfortunately there is no way around this.”**
**“****In many cases, not all, I think the Examiners make merely descriptive rejections to marks that are suggestive, not merely descriptive.  I think they tend to draw the line too close to the suggestive side of things.”**
**“****Decisions seem arbitrary at times and it is very difficult to change an initial incorrect decision.”**
**“****These refusals have become too broad.  Almost no mark is considered suggestive and I've had a number of generic refusals that are too broad.  Oftentimes, the Examiner has provided no support for the refusal.”**

***C5.******	******If refusals made under 1052(e) are not appropriate, why not?***

## C5.	If refusals made under 1052(e) are not appropriate, why not?

**“****Failure to distinguish between what is suggestive and merely descriptive.”**
**“****Improper review standard, do not follow specific case interpretations, rather, rely on general law.”**
**“****There has been some inconsistent treatment of the same mark with slightly modified form.”**

***C5.******	******If refusals made under 1052(e) are not appropriate, why not?***

## Analyzing Consistency in the Examination Process

- T-

## Consistency of the Examination

**Since only 50% of the respondents reported they are satisfied with examination consistency (C1AP7) and there were numerous write-in comments about the lack of consistency in decisions made by examining attorneys in the examination process, we analyzed the data to determine if satisfaction with refusals is related to perceptions about consistency. **

**                                                                                            **

**Satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the appropriateness of refusals are highly related to perceptions about consistency in the examination process. For example, of those satisfied with appropriateness of refusals under 1052(d), 78% are satisfied with consistency. When dissatisfied, only 9% are satisfied with consistency.**

**	****	****	**_**Satisfied**_
**	****	****	****C1AP7.   Consistency of**
**	****	****	****examination performed**
**	****	****	**_**by examining attorney**_
**C1AP5.****	****Appropriateness of refusals****	****Satisfied****	****	****78%**
**	****made under 15 USC § 1052(d) – ****	****Neutral****	****	****35%**
**	****Likelihood of Confusion****	****Dissatisfied****	****	****9%**
**C1AP6.****	****Appropriateness of refusals****	****Satisfied****	****	****78%**
**	****made under 15 USC § 1052(e) – ****	****Neutral****	****	****39%**
**	****Merely Descriptive, Surname****	****Dissatisfied****	****	****17%**
**	****Geographic**
**	**

## Consistency of the Examination (cont.)

**                                                                       **_**Satisfied**_**	**
**	****C1AP7****	****C1AP8****	****C1AP9**
**	****Consistency of****	****Adequacy of****	****Sufficiency of**
**	****examination ****	****explanation****	****evidence****	****C18****	****C1P2**
**	****performed by****	****or reason for****	****supporting****	****Overall****	****Value for**
**	****examining attorney****	****office action****	****office actions****	****satisfaction****	****fees paid**
**        ****Satisfied****	****90%****	****79%****	****86%****	****65%**
**        ****Neutral****	****54%****	****31%****	****53%****	****33%**
**        ****Dissatisfied****	****38%****	****21%****	****33%****	****44%**

**Perceptions about the consistency of the examination process are strongly related to satisfaction with the adequacy of the reason for office actions, sufficiency of evidence supporting office actions, and overall satisfaction.  For example, of those satisfied with consistency of the examination, 79% are satisfied with sufficiency of evidence. When dissatisfied with consistency, only 21% are satisfied with sufficiency of evidence.**

**We also analyzed the data to determine if consistency is related to adequacy of the explanation/reason and sufficiency of evidence for the office action and to overall satisfaction.**

## Examination Process – In Summary

**Approximately three-fourths of the respondents are satisfied with the clearly written positions of the examiners and said that outcomes met their objectives.  The handling of issues related to goods and services, fairness of the examination, and the adequacy of explanation/reason for office action also show relatively high satisfaction levels.**
**About one-half of the respondents are satisfied with sufficiency of evidence supporting office actions, efficiency of the examination process, and consistency of the examination performed.  Over one-fourth of the respondents are dissatisfied with consistency.**
**The areas with the lowest levels of satisfaction are appropriateness of refusals under 1052(d) and 1052(e).**
**About one-third of the respondents reported that refusals made by examining attorneys under 1052(d) and 1052(e) are usually not appropriate, mainly because of poor analyses, insufficient evidence, and inappropriate citations.**
**Perceptions about appropriateness of refusals are related to perceptions about consistency.  In addition, perceptions about consistency are related to perceptions about the adequacy of explanation or reason for office action, sufficiency of evidence, and overall satisfaction.**

## Customer Service

- T-

## Customer ServiceRanked by % Satisfied

- B1.	Treat you with courtesy each timeyou contact us
- C1AP3.	Use of phone by employees to deal with examination issues
- C15c.	Overall courteousness (in handling problems)
- C1SC1.	Ability to provide accurateanswers to questions
- B2.	Direct you promptly to the proper office or person
- C1SR1.	Assistance at a time convenientto you

**Change in****% Satisfied**_**from 1999**_
**-1**
**-4**
**+6**
**-3**
**-1**
**+1**

**Survey **_**Item #**_

## Customer Service (cont.) Ranked by % Satisfied

- C1SR2.	Prompt and helpful service
- C1SC2.	Genuinely committed to providing the best possible service
- C1SR3.	Flexibility in trying to address your needs
- B27.	Provide clear/accurate answers toquestions through TrademarkAssistance Center
- B3.	Return phone calls within one business day

**Change in****% Satisfied**_**from 1999**_
**-1**
**-1**
** ****0**
**+3**
**-6**

**Courtesy and use of the telephone to deal with examination issues have the highest satisfaction ratings.  Returning telephone calls within one business day and providing clear, accurate answers to questions through the Trademark Assistance Center have the lowest satisfaction ratings.**

**Survey **_**Item #**_

## Relationship Between Returning Calls (B3) and Overall Satisfaction (C18)

**	****Results show a moderately strong relationship between returning phone calls and overall satisfaction.**

**A substantial difference exists in overall satisfaction levels between those who are satisfied and dissatisfied with returning phone calls within 1 business day.**

**	****	****	****         **_**Satisfied**_
**B3.****	****Return phone calls****	****	**_**within 1 business day**_**	**** C18.****	**_**Overall satisfaction**_** ****	**
**	****Satisfied****	****	****	****80%**
**	****Neutral****	****	****	****55%**
**	****Dissatisfied****	****	****	****43%**

## Customer Service – In Summary

**Courtesy of USPTO staff to customers and the use of the telephone in dealing with examination issues continue to show high levels of satisfaction.**
**About two-thirds of the respondents are satisfied with certain aspects of service quality, such as providing accurate answers, directing customers to the proper office/person, and offering assistance at a time convenient to the customer.**
**Returning telephone calls within one business day has the highest dissatisfaction level (30%).  In addition, satisfaction with this item declined by 6 percentage points from 1999 to 2000.**
**Returning telephone calls within one business day is strongly associated with overall satisfaction.**
**Satisfaction with 7 of the 11 items declined from 1999;  satisfaction with only 3 items improved. None of those changes are statistically significant.**

## Timeliness

- T-

## TimelinessRanked by % Satisfied

- B6.	Disseminate information on changes in practices and procedures beforeeffective date
- B12.	Mail Certificates of Registration within7 days after registration
- B9.	Mail applicant’s return postcard within3 days
- B11.	Mail Notices of Publication within 30days after approval for publication
- B5.	Respond to status letters within 30 days of receipt
- B13.	Mail Notices of Abandonment within45 days after abandonment
- B17.	Respond to Extension Requests within30 days from mail room receipt

**Change in****% Satisfied**_**from 1999**_
**+2**
**-1**
**0**
**-1**
**0**
**+3**
**+4**

**Survey **_**Item #**_

## Timeliness (cont.)Ranked by % Satisfied

- B8.	Provide final determination regardingregistrability within 13 months
- B16.	Respond to Statements of Use within30 days from mail room receipt
- B14.	Respond to Amendments within 35days from mail room receipt
- B18.	Respond to Section 7 Requests within30 days from mail room receipt
- B26.	Resolve problems in processing ofapplications or registrations within7 days
- B19.	Respond to Section 8 Requests within30 days from mail room receipt
- B7.	Provide first action regardingregistrability within 3 months

**Survey **_**Item #**_

**Change in****% Satisfied**_**from 1999**_
**-1**
**+1**
**+4**
**+8**
**0**
**+1**
**+2**

## Timeliness (cont.)Ranked by % Satisfied

- B20.	Respond to Section 9 Requests within 30 days from mail room receipt
- B15.	Respond to Request to Divide within30 days from mail room receipt
- B10.	Mail filing receipts within 14 daysafter receipt of application

**Change in****% Satisfied**_**from 1999**_
**+2**
**+2**
**-6**

**Survey **_**Item #**_

**With the exception of disseminating information on changes in practices/ procedures and mailing Certificates of Registration, all items show satisfaction ratings below 50%. Mailing filing receipts, providing first action regarding registrability, and resolving problems have dissatisfaction ratings of 40% or more.  **

## Don’t Know or Not Applicable Responses in Timeliness Questions

**It should be noted that the following timeliness items had more than 30% of the respondents indicating “Don’t know or not applicable (N/A).”**

_**Item**_**	****	**_**Don’t Know or N/A**_
**B15.****	****Respond to Request to Divide within 30 days****	****from mail room receipt****	****51%**
**B18.****	****Respond to Section 7 Requests within 30 days****	****from mail room receipt****	****46%**
**B20.****	****Respond to Section 9 Requests within 30 days****	****from mail room receipt****	****32%**

**The high levels of don’t know or N/A may be due to respondents who did not make that particular request and/or to lack of knowledge among the respondents about internal USPTO activities.**

## First Office Action Timeliness

- T-

## First Office Action Timeliness*

**C6.****	****Is a prompt first action important to you?**
**	****	****Yes****	****82%**
**	****	****No****	****18%**
**C7.****	****If yes, why is a prompt first action important?**

**More than 80% of the respondents believe that a prompt first action is important, mainly because of client business needs.**

**__________________**
***  New question on the 2000 survey.**
**** Percents do not add up to 100 because comments were coded under more than one category.**

**Percent in**
** **_**Category**_********	**** **_**Responses Were Coded Under the Following Categories**_
**	****52%****	****Client Business Planning/Need for Decisions/Time Is Money**
**	****37%****	****Client Relations/Show Client Process Is Moving**
**	****26%****	****Determine Quickly If Any Problems/Issues**
**	****6%****	****Speed Up the Process in General**
**	****4%****	****Reduce Client Expenses**
**	****1%****	****Not Applicable**

## Timeliness – In Summary

**Disseminating information on changes in practices and mailing Certificates of Registration within 7 days after registration are the only timeliness items with satisfaction ratings higher than 50%.**
**The items with the highest levels of dissatisfaction include mailing filing receipts within 14 days, providing first actions within 3 months, and resolving processing problems within 7 days.**
**Other items with levels of dissatisfaction over 30% include responding to Statements of Use, Section 8 and Section 9 Requests, and Amendments, as well as providing final determination regarding registrability within 13 months.**
**More than 80% of the respondents said that a prompt first action is important to them.  The majority of reasons they cited concern client business needs.**
**None of the changes in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 for timeliness items are statistically significant.**

## Problem Resolution

- T-

## Problem Resolution

**C13.****	****Have you experienced any problems or difficulties ****with USPTO services over the past year?**
**	****	****	****2000 ****	****1999  ****	****	**_**Results**_** ****	**_**Results**_** **
**	****	****Yes, and I contacted someone at the USPTO****	****54%****	****51%**
**	****	****Yes, but I did not contact the USPTO****	****10%****	****   7%**
**	****	****No****	****36%****	****42%**
**C14.****	****Was your problem resolved?**
**	****	****Yes, and it was handled quickly****	****24%****	****29%**
**	****	****Yes, but it was not handled quickly****	****52%****	****44%**
**	****	****No, problem was not resolved****	****24%****	****27%**

**Almost two-thirds of the respondents experienced problems/difficulties with the USPTO during the past year, compared with 58% in 1999.  About one-quarter of those experiencing problems did not have their problems resolved.**

## Problem ResolutionRanked by % Satisfied

- For those who had a problem...
- (n=223)
-   C15d.	The way your problem or difficulty was handled
-   C15b.	Handling of mistakes
-   C15a.	Handling of delays

**Change in****% Satisfied**_**from 1999**_
**0**
**-3**
**+4**

**All aspects of problem handling have low levels of satisfaction and high levels of dissatisfaction.  **

**Survey **_**Item #**_

## Problem Handling and Overall Satisfaction

**C13.****	****Have you experienced a problem over the past year?**

**C14.****	****Was problem resolved?**

**   ****C18.  Overall Satisfaction**
**              **_**% Satisfied**_** **

**Yes, but did not contact USPTO**
**10%**

**Respondents who had a problem, contacted the USPTO about it, and had it handled quickly reported an overall satisfaction rating of 88%.  Compare that rating with the ratings for respondents who had a problem, contacted the USPTO about it, and did not have it handled quickly (48%) and respondents who did not get their problems resolved at all (35%).**

**Yes, and contacted USPTO**
**54%**

**No, I did not experience a problem**
**36%**

**84%**
**51%**
**88%**
**48%**
**35%**

**Yes, and handled quickly (24%)**
**Yes, but not handled quickly (52%)**
**No, problem not resolved (24%)**

## Time to Resolve Problem and Perceptions About Overall Problem Handling

**Yes, and handled quickly****	****63%****	****73%****	****81%**
**Yes, but not handled quickly****	****15%****	****21%****	****32%**
**No, problem not resolved****	****17%****	****13%****	****   8%**

**Handling of problems quickly is related to perceptions about overall handling of problems.  Note the decline in satisfaction when the problem is not handled quickly.**

**                                                                         ****C15.  Handling of Problems**
**	****	****(a)****	****Handling ****	****(b)****	****Handling****	****(d)****	****The Way Problem**
**	****	****	****of Delays****	****	****of Mistakes****	****	**** Was Handled****                                                    (% Sat)                   (% Sat)                       (% Sat)**

**C14.****	****Was Problem Resolved?**

**Of those who had a problem...**

## Handling of Problems and Customer Service

**  ****	****	****	**_** **__**Satisfied**_
**	****	****C1SC2**
**	****	****Genuinely****	****	****C1SR3**
**	****	****Committed****	****C1SR2****	****Flexibility**
**C15d.****	****Satisfaction with****	****to Providing****	****Prompt and****	****in Trying to**
**	****Handling of Problem ****	****Best Service****	****Helpful Service****	****Address Needs**
**	****Satisfied****	****79%****	****79%****	****71%**
**	****Neutral****	****31%****	****38%****	****36%**
**	****Dissatisfied****	****36%****	****44%****	****41%**

**Handling of problems is related to perceptions about customer service.  For example, of those who are satisfied with problem handling, 79% are satisfied that the USPTO is genuinely committed to providing the best service.  Note the decline in satisfaction for customer service items for those who are neutral/dissatisfied with the handling of problems.**

**Of those who had a problem...**

## Problems/Difficulties with USPTO Services Over Past Year, by Affiliation

**	****C13(1)****	****C13(2)****	****C13(3)**
**	****Yes, and****	****Yes, but did****	****No, did not**
**	****contacted****	****not contact****	****experience**
**Affiliation*****	****someone****	****someone****	****problem**
**Large Business****	****41%****	****15%****	****44%**
**Small Business****	****15%****	****  3%****	****82%**
**Law Firm****	****62%****	****10%****	****28%**
**Other****	****38%****	****13%****	****50%**
**	**

**Close to three-quarters of the respondents from law firms encountered problems during the past year.**

**_____________________**
*** Demographic groups with fewer than 1% of the respondents are not shown.**

## Handling of Problems and Satisfaction with Fees and Value

**	****	****	****C1P1****	****C1P2**
**	****	****	****USPTO fees****	****Good value**
**	****	****	****for trademark****	****for USPTO fees**
**	****	****	****applications****	****for applications**
**Of those who had a problem...****	****(Satisfied)****	****(Satisfied)**
**C14.****	**_**Was problem resolved**_**?**
**	****	****Yes, and handled quickly****	****62%****	****61%**
**	****	****Yes, but not handled quickly****	****55%****	****51%**
**	****	****No, problem not resolved****	****40%****	****36%**
**C15d.****	****The  way your problem/****	****difficulty was handled?**
**	****	****Satisfied****	****65%****	****63%**
**	****	****Neutral****	****52%****	****45%**
**	****	****Dissatisfied****	****43%****	****38%**

**Handling problems quickly and satisfaction with the way problems are handled are both positively related to satisfaction with fees and value.**

## Problem Resolution – In Summary

**The area of problem resolution continues to offer opportunities for improvement, with dissatisfaction levels over 30% for all 3 items (C15a, C15b, and C15d).  Dissatisfaction levels for the handling of delays and mistakes are close to 50%.**
**Nearly two-thirds of the respondents experienced problems or difficulties with USPTO services over the past year (64%), up from 58% in 1999.  Ten percent of the respondents who had a problem did not contact the USPTO about it.**
**About one-quarter of those who reported problems said their problems were not resolved.**

## Problem Resolution – In Summary (cont.)

**Only about one-quarter of those reporting problems said they were handled quickly.  Handling a problem quickly is positively related to perceptions about the way the problem was handled (C15a,b,d) and to overall satisfaction (C18).  There is a substantial decline in satisfaction levels when problems are not handled quickly.**
**Only 32% of the respondents are satisfied that the USPTO resolves their problems within 7 days of notification (B26).**
**The way the problem is handled is also related to perceptions about customer service (genuinely committed to service, prompt and helpful service, and flexibility in trying to address needs) and value.**
**For example, of those customers who are satisfied with the handling of their problems, 79% are satisfied that the USPTO is genuinely committed to providing the best possible service.  Of those customers who are dissatisfied with the handling of their problems, 36% are satisfied with the USPTO’s commitment to customer service.**
**The changes in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 for problem resolution items are not statistically significant.**

## What Are the Most Frequent Problems That Customers Encounter?

***(Write-In Comments)***

- T-

## C16.	What are your most frequently encountered problems?

**Respondents were asked to comment on their most frequently encountered problems.  Those responses were coded under the following categories.**
**Percent in**_**Category**_*******	**_**Problem Area**_
**	****33%****	****Filing Receipt Errors**
**	****26%****	****Problems with Decisions/Inconsistency of Examinations**
**	****22%****	****Lost or Misplaced Files, Papers, or Documents**
**	****19%****	****Administrative Operations and Errors in Documents**
**	****16%****	****Telephone Service Quality/Customer Service**
**	****11%****	****Process Delays**
**	****10%****	****Improper Abandonment**
**	****  ****9%****	****Certificate of Registration Problems**
**	****  ****4%****	****Deposit Account Errors**

**________________**
*** Percents do not add up to 100 because comments were often coded under more than one category.  Percent for each category equals the number of responses with that category code divided by the number of respondents who answered the question.**

## Question C16 – Selected Verbatim Comments

**“****Examiners applying such different standards on issues of likelihood of confusion and descriptiveness.”**
**“****Trademark filing receipts with serious inaccuracies, omission of entire class list of goods, scrambled addresses and the like.”**
**“****Incorrect abandonment; lost papers; spelling on filing receipts.”**
**“****Examiners not returning calls.  Examiners not dealing with issues over the phone.”**
**“****Rejections for descriptiveness are made too often and in inappropriate situations.  Inconsistency from one examiner to another (process is too subjective).”**
**“****Delay by post-issuance group in handling cancellations.”**
**“****Amendments and the materials submitted are not handled very well.  I think the worst area, in terms of performance, is the Receiving Office of the USPTO.”**
**“****Inconsistency on comments on description of services and requirement of specimens.”**
**“****Items lost in mailroom - resulting in abandonment of application - in one instance, it required more than 5-10 calls; speaking to 3 different examiners and faxing response with certificate of mailing 3 separate times to take care of - still not resolved, 1 year later.”**

## The Most Frequent Problems That Customers Encounter – In Summary

**Filing receipt errors,**
**Inconsistency and problems with decisions, and**
**Lost or misplaced files and correspondence.**

**The most frequent problems encountered by respondents are:**

## Document Accuracy

- T-

## Document AccuracyRanked by % Satisfied

- B24.	Issue Certificates of Registrationwith the correct information
- B23.	Issue Official Gazettes with thecorrect information
- B22.	Issue Notices of Allowance withthe correct information
- B25.	Issue Notices of Abandonmentwith the correct information
- B21.	Issue Filing Receipts with thecorrect information

**Change in****% Satisfied**_**from 1999**_
**+2**
**+1**
**-3**
**-3**
**-6**

**Survey **_**Item #**_

**Except for filing receipts, there are high levels of satisfaction with document accuracy, especially accuracy of Certificates of Registration.**

## Document Accuracy – In Summary

**Most respondents are satisfied with the accuracy of Certificates of Registration, Official Gazettes, and Notices of Allowance.  For example, 80% of the respondents are satisfied that the USPTO issues Certificates of Registration with the correct information.**
**Issuing filing receipts with the correct information continues to be a problem; 38% of the respondents are dissatisfied, and only 44% are satisfied (a decline from 50% in 1999).  There were also numerous write-in comments complaining about filing receipt errors.**
**None of the changes in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 for document accuracy items are statistically significant. **

## Change in Service

- T-

## C17e.	Staff responsiveness compared to previous filings
C17b.	Timeliness compared to previous filings
C17a.	Overall service compared to previous filings
C17f.	First Office Action pendency compared to previous filings
C17d.	Staff competence compared to previous filings
C17g.	Problem resolution compared to previous filings	
C17c.	Outcome of the process compared to previous filings

- C17e.	Staff responsiveness compared to previous filings
- C17b.	Timeliness compared to previous filings
- C17a.	Overall service compared to previous filings
- C17f.	First Office Action pendency compared to previous filings
- C17d.	Staff competence compared to previous filings
- C17g.	Problem resolution compared to previous filings
- C17c.	Outcome of the process compared to previous filings

**For the whole range of service items, there were many more reports of better service than of worse service.  The percentage better ratings were highest for staff responsiveness and timeliness.  The majority of respondents reported no change in service.**

***Change in Service******Ranked by % Better***

**Survey **_**Item #**_

## How Do Changes in Most Recent Experience Compare with Satisfaction Results from 1999?

- T-

## Change in Overall ServiceComparison with Overall Satisfaction

- C17a.	Compared to previous filings, rate your most recent experience in terms of Overall Service
- C18.	Overall satisfaction withall experiences

- Change in % satisfied
- _from 1999 to 2000_
- -4

**Reports of better overall service in most recent filings were about four times as great as reports that overall service was worse.  Almost two-thirds of the respondents reported no change in overall service.  **

_**Overall Service**_

## Change in TimelinessComparison with Timeliness Questions

- C17b.	Compared to previous filings, rate your most recent experience in terms of Timeliness

- Change in % satisfied
- _from 1999 to 2000_

_**Timeliness**_

**Reports that timeliness was better for most recent filing experience clearly outnumber reports that timeliness was worse.  Overall, satisfaction ratings for timeliness remain as low as they were in 1999 (less than 50%).**

- B8.	Provide final determination regarding registrability within 13 months	-1
- B7.	Provide first action regarding registrability within 3 months	+2

## Change in Outcome of the ProcessComparison with Outcome Questions

- C17c.	Compared to previousfilings, rate your most recent experience in terms of Outcome of the Process

_**Outcome of the Process**_

**Many more respondents reported better outcomes than worse outcomes in their most recent filing experience.  Almost three-quarters of the respondents remain satisfied with outcome fairness.**

- C1OE1.	Outcome met your objective	-3
- C1OE2.	Fairness of examination	-1
- C1AP7.	Consistency of the examination	0

- Change in % satisfied
- _from 1999 to 2000_

## Change in Staff CompetenceComparison with Staff Competence Questions

- C17d.	Compared to previous filings, rate your most recent experience in terms of Staff Competence

- Change in % satisfied
- _from 1999 to 2000_

_**Staff Competence**_

**Reports that most recent experience with staff competence was better are nearly three times as great as reports that most recent experience was worse.  About two-thirds of the respondents said there was no change from previous filings.  From 1999 to 2000, the percent satisfied with staff competence remained about the same.**

- C1SC1.	Ability to provide accurate answers to questions	-3
- C1SC2.	Genuinely committed to providing the best possible service	-1

## Change in Staff ResponsivenessComparison with Staff Responsiveness Questions

- Change in % satisfied
- _from 1999 to 2000_

_**Staff Responsiveness**_

- C17e.	Compared to previous filings, rate your most recent experience in terms of Staff Responsiveness

**About one-third of the respondents said that staff responsiveness was better compared to previous filings.  However, the percentage of respondents satisfied that telephone calls are returned within one business day declined by 6 points from 1999 to 2000.**

- C1SR1.	Assistance at a time convenient to you	+1
- C1SR2.	Prompt and helpful service	-1
- C1SR3.	Flexibility in trying to address your needs	-1
- B3.	Return telephone calls within one business day	-6

## Change in First Office Action PendencyComparison with First Office Action Pendency Questions

- C17f.	Compared to previous filings, rate your most recent experience in terms of First Office Action Pendency

- Change in % satisfied
- _from 1999 to 2000_

_**First Office Action Pendency**_

**Satisfaction with providing first actions within 3 months remains low; only 31% of customers are satisfied. The percentage of respondents who reported that their most recent filing experience with First Office Action Pendency was better was more than twice as great as the percentage who reported it was worse.  **

- B7.	Provide first action regardingregistrability within 3 months	+2

## Change in Problem ResolutionComparison with Problem Resolution Questions

- C17g.	Compared to previous filings, rate your most recent experience in terms of ProblemResolution

- Change in % satisfied
- _from 1999 to 2000_

_**Problem Resolution**_

**Over two-thirds of the respondents said problem resolution was about the same in their most recent filing experience. Reports of better problem resolution were more numerous than reports of worse problem resolution. Satisfaction levels remain low for all aspects of problem resolution.**

- C15a.	Handling of delays	+4
- C15b.	Handling of mistakes	-3
- C15d.	The way your problem or difficulty was handled	0

## Change in Service – In Summary

**General Comments**
**Low percentages of respondents reported that service for a whole range of items was worse in their most recent filings.  From two to five times as many reported that service was better.  For most of the service items, a majority reported that service in their most recent filings was about the same as in previous filings.**
**All of the changes in percent satisfied from 1999 to 2000 for service items are low and are not significant.  To help in evaluating satisfaction with service items in 2000, one needs to use 1999 satisfaction levels as a benchmark.**
**Comments on Individual Service Questions**
**The majority of respondents reported that overall service is about the same compared to previous filings.  Only 7% of the respondents said their most recent experience was worse, compared with 31% who said it was better.**

## Change in Service – In Summary (cont.)

**Comments on Individual Service Questions (cont.)**
**About one-third of the respondents reported that staff responsiveness and timeliness are better now compared to previous filings.  Only 8% to 12% said it was worse.  Satisfaction levels for most timeliness items, however, remain low, and satisfaction with returning telephone calls within one business day declined by 6 percentage points from 1999.**
**A majority of the respondents reported that outcome of the process and First Office Action Pendency remain about the same.  Satisfaction with providing first actions within 3 months remains low, at 31%.**
**About two-thirds of the respondents said that staff competence in their most recent filings was the same as in previous filings, but reports of better staff competence outnumber reports of worse staff competence by almost three to one.**
**Satisfaction with indicators of problem resolution remain low. Over two-thirds of the respondents said that problem resolution was about the same as in previous filings. A comparison of reports of better and worse problem resolution in most recent filings indicates that about twice as many respondents said problem resolution was better compared with previous filings. **

## Questions Pertaining to the Overall Trademark Process

***(Overall Questions)***

- T-

## Overall Questions

**C18****	****Overall satisfaction**
**C1P1****	****USPTO fees for trademark applications**
**C1P2****	****Good value for USPTO fees paid for application**

**Survey**_**Item #**_

## Overall Question - Overall Satisfaction 

**Overall satisfaction declined by 4 percentage points from 1999 to 2000.  That decline is not statistically significant. Overall dissatisfaction remains low, at 14%.**

**C18.****	****Considering all of your experiences with the USPTO **
**	****trademark process, how satisfied are you OVERALL?**

**Satisfied (%)**
**Neutral (%)**
**Dissatisfied (%)**

**Change in****% from 1999**_**to 2000**_
**-4**
**+4**
**0**

## Overall Questions - Price and Value 

**C1P1.  USPTO fees for trademark applications****

**C1P2.  Good value for USPTO fees paid for application****

**Change in****% from 1999**_**to 2000**_
**-9***
**-2**
**+11***

*** The change in percentage from 1999 to 2000 is statistically significant.**
*** * In 1999 and 2000, the term “fees” was used instead of “costs,” which was used in 1998.**

**There were statistically significant declines in satisfaction and increases in dissatisfaction from 1999 to 2000 with respect to fees and value for fees paid.**

**Change in****% from 1999**_**to 2000**_
**-10***
**0**
**+10***

## Fees Paid / Perceived Value and Overall Satisfaction

**	****	****	****C18**
**	****	****	****How satisfied are you **
**	****	****	****overall with the USPTO **
**	****	****	****trademark process?**
**	****	****	**_**(Satisfied)**_
**C1P1.****	****USPTO fees for trademark applications**
**	****	****Satisfied****	****69%**
**	****	****Neutral****	****65%**
**	****	****Dissatisfied****	****54%**
**C1P2.****	****Good value for USPTO fees paid for****	****the application**
**	****	****Satisfied****	****76%**
**	****	****Neutral****	****60%**
**	****	****Dissatisfied****	****41%**

**Respondents’ overall satisfaction/dissatisfaction levels are more strongly related to value for fees paid than to fees alone.  In addition, 76% of those satisfied with values are satisfied overall, compared with 69% of those satisfied with fees.**

## Fees Paid / Perceived Value and Overall Satisfaction - In Summary

**There is a weak relationship between trademark fees and customer satisfaction. **
**However, there is a stronger relationship between value and overall satisfaction.  Value consists of both the quality of products/services received and the price paid for the products/services.  Given that fees appear to have a weak relationship with customer satisfaction, quality of the products/services may be the more important determinant of value.**

## Overall Questions – In Summary

**Overall satisfaction declined from 69% in 1999 to 65% in 2000, but the change is not statistically significant.**
**Overall dissatisfaction remains low, at 14%.**
**Satisfaction ratings for fees paid and value for the amount of fees paid are 56% and 59%, respectively.  Satisfaction declined significantly (9 to 10 percentage points) from 1999 levels for both items.  Dissatisfaction levels for both items increased by a similarly significant amount.**
**Respondents’ overall satisfaction/dissatisfaction levels are more strongly related to value than to fees.**

## Are Outcomes of the Process Related to Perceptions About Value and Overall Satisfaction?

***(Comparing Law Firm Applicants with All Other Applicants)***

- T-

## Relationships Between Process Outcomes, Value, and Overall Satisfaction 

**Do perceptions about outcomes, value, and overall satisfaction differ ****between law firms and the rest of the sample?**
**                                                                                                                               **_**Satisfied**_
**	****	****	****	****C1P2****	****C18**
**	****	****	****	****Good value for USPTO****	****Overall**
_**For Respondents “Satisfied” with**_**:****	****	**_**fees paid for application**_**	**_**Satisfaction**_
**C1OE1****	****Outcome met your objectives**
**	****	****Law Firms (76%)****	**** ****	****58%****	****75%**
**	****	****All Other Affiliations (73%) ****	**** ****	****62%****	****82%**
**C1OE2****	****Fairness of the final decision**
**	****	****Law Firms (72%) ****	**** ****	****60%****	****77%**
**	****	****All Other Affiliations (72%) ****	****	****62%****	****78%**
**C1OE3****	****Efficiency of examination process**
**	****	****Law Firms (50%) ****	**** ****	****66%****	****83%**
**	****	****All Other Affiliations (54%) ****	****	****70%****	****89%**

**The relationships between satisfaction with process outcomes and satisfaction with good value and overall satisfaction are similar for law firms and all other affiliations.**

## Relationships Between Process Outcomes, Value, and Overall Satisfaction (cont.)

**Do perceptions about outcomes, value, and overall satisfaction differ ****between law firms and the rest of the sample?**
**                                                                                                                               **_**Satisfied**_
**	****	****	****	****C1P2****	****C18**
**	****	****	****	****Good value for USPTO****	****Overall**
_**For Respondents “Dissatisfied” with**_**:****	**_**fees paid for application**_**	**_**Satisfaction**_
**C1OE1****	****Outcome met your objectives**
**	****	****Law Firms (4%)****	****	****36%****	****  9%**
**	****	****All Other Affiliations (7%)****	****	**** 40%*****	**** 17%***
**C1OE2****	****Fairness of the final decision**
**	****	****Law Firms (9%)****	****	****33%****	****22%****	****	****All Other Affiliations (12%)****	****  ****	****40%*****	****30%***
**C1OE3****	****Efficiency of examination process**
**	****	****Law Firms (25%)****	****	****42%****	****35%****	****	****All Other Affiliations (22%)****	****  ****	****29%*****	**** 17%***
**___________________**
***Based on 5 or fewer respondents.**

**Differences vary more between law firms and all other affiliations regarding dissatisfaction with outcomes and satisfaction with value and overall satisfaction. **

## How Do the Factors Relateto the Overall Questions?

- T-

## Ranking of How Factors Relate to Overall Satisfaction*

- _Factor_
-     Document Accuracy	   4**
-     Customer Service	2**
-     Timeliness	6
-     Change in Service	  3**
-     Examination Process	 1**
- _Single Item_
-     Had Problem or Difficulty    Over Past Year	5
- R2 ***	   .471
- ____________________
- *	Numbers in table indicate rankings, with 1 being the strongest predictor and 5 being the weakest predictor 	of the outcome measure.
- ** 	Statistically significant at the p < .05  level.
- ***	R2 is  the proportion of the variance in responses to each overall question accounted for by all the variables	in the model.  As an example:  .471, or 47.1%, of the variance in overall satisfaction is accounted for by all	the variables in the model.  (An R2 value less than .30 indicates the variables, as a group, have low	explanatory power; that is, they do not do a very good job of predicting that question.)

**	****C18**
**	****Overall**
**Variables****	****Satisfaction**

- T-

***USPTO 2000 Trademark Customer Satisfaction Survey***

## Relationship Between Factorsand Overall Questions – In Summary

**The five factors and one single item, as a group, are good predictors of overall satisfaction.  They help to explain differences in overall satisfaction levels—47.1% of the variance in overall satisfaction can be explained by all the variables in the model.**

## Key Drivers:

***Questions That Have the Strongest Relationship with Overall Satisfaction***

- T-

## Key Driver Analysis

**Two key driver analyses were performed:**
**In the first analysis, which included all respondents, identification of key drivers was done separately for service standards and trademark process items.**
**Because only those respondents who experienced problems in the past year answered questions about problem resolution, a separate identification of key drivers was done that included only respondents who stated they had had a problem in the past year.  The purpose of this second analysis was to see if any of the problem resolution items are key drivers of overall satisfaction.  The first analysis did not include items on problem resolution.**
**________________**
**Note:  All key drivers listed for each of the analyses are strongly related to**
**overall customer satisfaction. The key drivers are listed in the order they**
**appear in the survey instrument.**

## Identification of Key Drivers Separately for Service Standards and Trademark Process Items

***(All Respondents)***

- T-

## Service Standards	Satisfied
B2.	Direct you promptly to the 	proper office/person	68%
B4.	Clearly written communications 	of position of examining attorneys	77%
B8.	Provide final determination	regarding registrability 	within 13 months	41%
B10.	Mail filing receipts within 	14 days after receipt of 	application	27%
B14.	Respond to amendments 	within 35 days	37%
B24.	Issue Certificates of 	Registration with the correct 	information	80%
B27.	Provide clear and accurate	answers to questions through	the Trademark Assistance	Center	58%

**B2.****	****Direct you promptly to the ****	****proper office/person****	****68%**
**B4.****	****Clearly written communications ****	****of position of examining attorneys****	****77%**
**B8.****	****Provide final determination****	****regarding registrability ****	****within 13 months****	****41%**
**B10.****	****Mail filing receipts within ****	****14 days after receipt of ****	****application****	****27%**
**B14.****	****Respond to amendments ****	****within 35 days****	****37%**
**B24.****	****Issue Certificates of ****	****Registration with the correct ****	****information****	****80%**
**B27.****	****Provide clear and accurate****	****answers to questions through****	****the Trademark Assistance****	****Center****	****58%**

_**Trademark Process**_**	**_**Satisfied**_
**C1AP5.****	****Appropriateness of****	****refusals made under****	****15 USC § 1052(d) –****	****Likelihood of ****	****Confusion****	****45%**
**C1OE2.****	****Fairness of****	****examination****	****73%**
**C1OE3.****	****Efficiency of the ****	****examination process****	****52%**
**C1SC2.****	****Genuinely committed****	****to providing the best****	****possible service****	****62%**
**C1SR2.****	****Prompt and helpful****	****service****	****63%**

***Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction – ******By Service Standards and Trademark Process******(Excluding Problem Resolution Items)***

**Timeliness of the process, specific aspects of responsive customer service, and examination quality are priority areas for improving satisfaction.**

## Comparison of 2000 Key Drivers to 1999 Key DriversService Standards

_**1999 Key Drivers**_**	**_**2000 Comparison**_
**B3.****	****Return phone calls within****	****B3.****	****Not a Key Driver ****	****1 business day****	****	**** **
**B8.****	****Provide final determination****	****B8.****	****Key Driver****	****regarding registrability****	****	****	****within 13 months**
**B4.****	****Clearly written ****	****B4.****	****Key Driver****	****communications of position****	****	****	****of examining attorneys****	**
**B10.****	****Mail filing receipts within****	****B10.****	****Key Driver****	****14 days after receipt of****	****	****	****application**
**B1.****	****Treat you with courtesy****	****B1.****	****Not a Key Driver****	****each time you contact us****	****	**
**B25.****	****Issue Official Gazettes with****	****B23.****	****Not a Key Driver****	****the correct information****	****	**
**B28.****	****Resolve any problems in****	****B26.****	****Not a Key Driver****	****processing of applications****	****	**** ****	****or registrations w/in 7 days**
**B17.****	****Respond to Extension****	****B17.****	****Not a Key Driver****	****Requests within 30 days****	****from mail room receipt**

**	****1999****	****2000**

_**New This Year**_
**B2.****	****Direct you promptly to ****	****the proper office/person **
**B14.****	****Respond to Amendments****	****within 35 days**
**B24.****	****Issue Certificates of****	****Registration with correct****	****information**
**B27.****	****Provide clear and accurate****	****answers to questions****	****through the Trademark****	****Assistance Center**

## Comparison of 2000 Key Drivers to 1999 Key Drivers (cont.)Trademark Process

_**1999 Key Drivers**_**	**_**2000 Comparison**_
**C1OE2.****	****Fairness of examination****	****C1OE2.****	****Key Driver****	**
**C1OE3.****	****Efficiency of****	****C1OE3.****	****Key Driver****	****examination process**
**C1SR3.****	****Flexibility in trying to****	****C1SR3.****	****Not a Key Driver ****	****address your needs****	****	**
**C1AP2.****	****Handling of issues****	****C1AP2.****	****Not a Key Driver****	****related to goods/****	****	****	****	****services during****	****	****	****	****examination process**
**C1SR2.****	****Prompt and helpful****	****C1SR2.****	****Key Driver****	****	****service**
**C1AP6.****	****Appropriateness of****	****C1AP6.****	****Not a Key Driver****	****refusals made under****	****	****	****15 USC § 1052(e) –****	****	**** ****	****Merely Descriptive,****	****	**** ****	****Surname, Geographic****	****	**

**	****1999****	****2000**

_**New This Year**_
**C1SC2.****	****Generally committed****	****to best possible service**
**C15AP5.****	****Appropriateness of****	****refusals made under****	****15 USC § 1052(e) – ****	****Likelihood of****	****Confusion****	**

## Example:	Relationship Between Timeliness Items and Overall Satisfaction and Customer Service

**                                                                                                             **_**Satisfied**_**  **
**	****	****                                                           ****C1SC2**
**	****                                                                                              ****C18                 Genuinely**
**	****                                                                                           ****Overall         committed to best                          **
_**Key Driver**_**                                                                                **_**satisfaction**_**      **_**possible service**_
**B10.****	****Mail filing receipts within  ****	****Satisfied****	****86%****	****83%****14 business days****	****Dissatisfied****	****52%****	****51%**
**B8.****	****Provide final determination****	****Satisfied****	****87%****	****81%****regarding registrability****	****Dissatisfied****	****40%****	****40%****within 13 months**
**B14.****	****Respond to amendments ****	****Satisfied****	****83%****	****79%****within 35 days****	****Dissatisfied****	****41%****	****43%**

**Satisfaction with timeliness key drivers is strongly related to overall satisfaction and satisfaction with customer service commitment.**

## Example:	Relationship Between Examination Process and Overall Satisfaction and Customer Service 

**                                                                                                               **_**Satisfied**_**  **
**	****	****                                                         ****C1SC2**
**	****                                                                                           ****C8                   Genuinely**
**	****                                                                                        ****Overall         committed to best                          **
** **_**Key Driver**_**                                                                               **_**satisfaction**_**      **_**possible service**_
**B2.****	****Direct you promptly to the****	****Satisfied****	****78%****	****77%****proper office or person****	****Dissatisfied****	****24%****	****20%**
**C1AP5.****	****Appropriateness of refusals****	****Satisfied****	****83%****	****78%****made under 15 USC § 1052(d) –****	****Dissatisfied****	****39%****	****36%**
**C1SR2:****	****Prompt and helpful service****	****Satisfied****	****81%****	****84%****	****Dissatisfied****	****33%****	****18%**
**B4.****	****Clearly written communications****	****Satisfied****	****78%****	****70%****of position of examining attys.****	****Dissatisfied****	****24%****	****35%**
**C1OE3.****	****Efficiency of examination****	****Satisfied****	****84%****	****81%****process****	****Dissatisfied****	****31%****	****30%**

**Satisfaction with the key drivers of examination quality and responsiveness is strongly related to overall satisfaction and satisfaction with customer service commitment.**

## Key Drivers by Service Standards and Trademark Process – In Summary

**Key Drivers for the Service Standards:  **
**Direct you promptly to the proper office/person**
**Clearly written position of examining attorney**
**Providing a final determination within 13 months**** **
**Mailing filing receipts within 14 days**
**Responding to Amendments**
**Issuing correct Certificates of Registration**
**Providing clear and accurate answers**
**Key Drivers for the Trademark Process:  **
**Appropriateness of refusals under 1052(d) **
**Fairness of examination **
**Efficiency of the examination process **
**Committed to customer service**
**Prompt and helpful service**

## Key Drivers by Service Standards and Trademark Process – In Summary (cont.)

**Key drivers that are well below the 60% satisfied level include:**
**Provide final determination within 13 months**
**Mailing filing receipts within 14 days**
**Responding to Amendments within 35 days**
**Efficiency of the examination process **
**Appropriateness of refusals under 1052(d)**
**Providing clear and accurate answers to questions through the Trademark Assistance Center has a satisfaction rating just below 60% and should be given attention.**

## Identification of Key Drivers Separately for Standards and Trademark Process/Problem Resolution Items

***(Respondents Experiencing Problems ******During the Past Year)***

- T-

## Key Drivers of Overall Satisfaction –  By Service Standards and Trademark Process/Problem Resolution*

**	****Service**
**	****Standards****	****Sat.**
**B2.****	****Direct you promptly****	****to the proper office/****	****person****	****68%**
**B4.****	****Clearly written ****	****position of ****	****examining attorney****	****77%**
**B14.****	****Respond to****	****Amendments within****	**** 35 days****	****37%**
**B24.****	****Issue Certificates****	****of Registration with****	****correct information****	****80%**
**B26.****	****Resolve problems****	****within 7 days of****	****notification****	****32%**

**	****Trademark**
**	****Process****	****Sat.**
**C1OE2.****	****Fairness of****	****examination****	****73%**
**C1OE3.****	****Efficiency of****	****the examination****	****process ****	****52%**
**C1SC2.****	****Genuinely****	****committed to****	****providing the****	****best possible****	****service****	****62%**
**C1SR2.****	****Prompt and****	****helpful service****	****63%**

**	****Problem**
**	****Resolution****	****Sat.**
**C14.****	****Problem resolved****	****and handled****	****quickly****	****24%**
**C15b.****	****Handling of****	****mistakes****	****33%**

**__________________**
*** Covers those respondents experiencing problems during the past year.**

**Items not in the key driver analysis for all respondents include resolving problems quickly (within 7 days) and handling of mistakes.**

## Key Drivers for Those Experiencing Problems – In Summary

**The key drivers for those experiencing problems during the past year are fairly similar to the key drivers for all respondents.**
**Additional items include resolving problems quickly (within 7 days of notification) and handling of delays.  The message is clear that respondents who experience problems want them resolved quickly.  Satisfaction with problem resolution is related to overall satisfaction.  Both of the additional problem resolution items are well below the 60% satisfied level.**

## Moving Customers from Neutral to Satisfied in Overall Satisfaction

- T-

## Moving Customers from Neutral to Satisfied in Overall Satisfaction

**Given the 4 percentage-point decline in overall satisfaction and the 4 percentage-point increase from 1999 to 2000 in the group responding “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” to the overall satisfaction question, it is important to understand how that “neutral” group responded to the survey items.**
**Since it is often easier to move customers from neutral to satisfied than from dissatisfied to satisfied, we analyzed the data for customers who reported they were neutral in overall satisfaction (C19)—21%.**
**We compared the responses to various survey items of the neutral group with the responses of the group reporting overall satisfaction.  The items that had the largest differences in percent satisfied between the two groups are presented next.**

## Comparing the Neutral Overall and Satisfied Overall Groups 

**	****                                                                   ****	**_** **__**Satisfied Ratings of Those**_**:**
**	****	****Satisfied****	****Neutral****	**
**	****	****Overall****	****Overall****	****Difference in****	**_**Item**_**	**_**(C18)**_**	**_**(C18)**_**	**_**% Satisfied**_
**C1SC2*****	****Generally committed to****	****providing the best service****	****82%****	****27%****	****55**
**C1AP7****	****Consistency of examination****	****67%****	****23%****	****44**
**C1SC1****	****Ability to provide accurate answers****	****85%****	****41%****	****44**
**C1SR3****	****Flexibility in addressing needs****	****74%****	****32%****	****42**
**B4*****	****Clearly written position of examining****	****	****attorneys****	****93%****	****53%****	****40**
**C1OE3*****	****Efficiency of the examination process****	****67%****	****27%****	****40**
**B27*****	****Provide accurate answers through TAC****	****74%****	****37%****	****37**
**B8*****	****Provide final determination within ****	****13 months****	****55%****	****18%****	****37**
**C1SR2*****	****Prompt and helpful service****	****78%****	****41%****	****37**
**C1AP5*****	****Appropriateness of refusals under 1052(d)****	****59%****	****25%****	****34**
**______________**
***Key driver items.**

## Comparing the Neutral Overall and Satisfied Overall Groups:  Experiences with Problems

**	****	****	****Neutral****	****Satisfied****	**
**	****	****	**_**Overall (C18)**_**	**_**Overall (C18)**__**	**__**Difference**_
**C13.****	****	****Experienced problems****	****(Yes)****	****81%****	****54%****	****27**
**C15d.****	****The way your problem****	****was handled****	****16%****	****56%****	****40**

**The percentage of respondents in the neutral overall group who experienced problems is higher than the percentage of respondents in the satisfied overall group who experienced problems.  Also, respondents in the neutral overall group were less satisfied with the way their problems were handled.**

## Appropriateness of Refusals vs. Overall Satisfaction Ratings (C18)

**	****	****	****C2****	****	****	****C4**
**	****	****	****Are refusals****	****	****	****Are refusals**
**C18.****	****How satisfied****	****	****under 1052(d)****	****	****under 1052(e)**
**	****are you overall?****	****              **_**usually appropriate?**_**       ****	**_**usually appropriate?**_
**	****	**_**Yes**_**	****	**_**No**_**	**_**Yes**_**	****	**_**No**_
**	****Satisfied****	****78%****	****	****22%****	****74%****	****	****26%**
**	****Neutral****	****55%****	****	****45%****	****53%****	****	****47%**
**	****Dissatisfied****	****37%****	****	****63%****	****60%****	****	****40%**

**Close to one-half of the respondents who are neutral in overall satisfaction do not believe refusals are usually appropriate under 1052(d) and1052(e).  Refusals under 1052(d) also appear to be a problem with respondents who are dissatisfied overall.**

## Moving Customers from Neutral to Satisfied in Overall Satisfaction – In Summary

**Examination quality and responsive customer service, especially regarding reports of problems, are key areas to focus on in moving respondents from neutral overall to satisfied overall with trademark services.**
**Seven of the nine comparison items are key drivers of overall satisfaction.**
**Some of the items for which the neutral overall group has the lowest percent satisfied include:**
**Provide final determination within 13 months**
**Consistency of examination**
**Appropriateness of refusals under 1052(d)**
**Committed to providing the best service**
**Efficiency of the examination process**
**The way your problem was handled / Handling of delays and mistakes / Responding to problems**
**Filing receipts**
**Responding to amendments**
**Responding to Sections 7, 8, and 9 requests**

## Overview of Those Dissatisfied Overall with Trademark Services

**Respondents who reported they are dissatisfied overall (14%) have even lower satisfaction ratings for the same items than the respondents who reported they are neutral overall.  Especially low ratings apply to most of the time standard items, appropriateness of refusals, consistency of the examination, sufficiency of evidence, efficiency of the examination process, prompt/helpful service, and problem resolution.**
**Of those respondents who are dissatisfied overall, 87% experienced problems during the year and close to 50% did not have their problems resolved.**

## Better Understanding of a Key Driver

***Efficiency of the ******Examination Process***

- T-

## 
There is one key driver that is broad in scope:
C1OE3.	Efficiency of the examination process
To better understand what survey participants mean when they respond to this broad key driver question, we identified items that are strongly related to the question.

**There is one key driver that is broad in scope:**
**C1OE3.****	****Efficiency of the examination process**
**To better understand what survey participants mean when they respond to this broad key driver question, we identified items that are strongly related to the question.**

***Understanding a Key Driver***

## C1OE3.  Efficiency of the Examination Process

**Those items that have a strong relationship with perceptions about**
**efficiency of the trademark examination process are (in order of relationship):**
**C1AP7.****	****Consistency of examination performed by examining attorney**
**C1SC1.****	****Ability to provide accurate answers to questions**
**C1OE2.****	****Fairness of examination**
**C1AP5.****	****Appropriateness of refusals made by examining attorneys under ****15 USC **§** 1052(d)**
**C1AP9.****	****Sufficiency of evidence supporting office action**
**C1AP8.****	****Provide final determination within 13 months**
**C1OE1.****	****Outcome met your objective**
**C1SC2.****	****Genuinely committed to providing the best possible service**
**B7.****	****Provide a first action within 3 months**

**Satisfaction with examination quality and satisfaction with overall service are strongly related to satisfaction with the efficiency of the examination process.**

## Demographic Differences

- T-

## Overall Satisfaction – Differences by Demographics* 

**A1.****	****Affiliation****	**
- 	Small business  (n=33)
- 	Large business  (n=40)
- 	Law firm  (n=258)
**A2.****	****Frequency of Contact****	**
- 	Occasionally  (n=55)
- 	Rarely  (n=14)
- 	Only once  (n=14)
- 	Often  (n=257)

**_________________**
*** Demographic groups with fewer than 2% of the respondents are not shown.**

**Overall Satisfaction**

## Overall Satisfaction – Differences by Demographics* (cont.) 

**A3.****	****Relationship with USPTO****	**
- 	An occasional customer  (n=34)
- 	A frequent, but not continuous customer  (n=37)
- 	A one-time customer  (n=11)
- 	A continuous customer  (n=257)

**Overall Satisfaction**

**_________________**
*** Demographic groups with fewer than 2% of the respondents are not shown.**

## Overall Satisfaction – Differences by Demographics* (cont.) 

**C19.****	****Job Title****	**
- 	Patent Agent/Attorney, etc.
- 	All other job titles

**Overall Satisfaction**

**There is little difference in overall dissatisfied/neutral/satisfied ratings between the patent agent/attorney group and the group comprising all other job titles.**

## Fees and Value—Differences by Affiliation

**A1.****	****Affiliation****	**
- 	Small business	C1P1	Fees
- 		C1P2	Value
- 	Large business	C1P1	Fees
- 		C1P2	Value
- 	Law firm	C1P1	Fees
- 		C1P2	Value

**Satisfaction ratings for value are similar for all three affiliation groups.  Small businesses have the lowest satisfaction rating for fees.**

## Affiliation and Frequency of Contact

**For all respondents, there is a significant negative relationship between frequency of contact (A2) and customer satisfaction (C18)—the more frequent the contact, the less positive the overall satisfaction level.**
**However, when controlling for law firms (which have lower levels of satisfaction than other affiliation members do), the significant relationship between frequency of contact and customer satisfaction disappears.  Thus, law firms are driving the negative relationship.**
**The same conclusions hold true for relationship with USPTO (A3) and overall satisfaction (C18).**

## Frequency of Contact During the Year, by Affiliation 

**                                                                **_**Ranked by Most Frequent Contact (A2)**_
**	****%****	****%****	****%****	****%****	****%****Affiliation (A1)*****	****Often****	****Occasionally****	****Rarely****	****Only Once****	****Never**
**Law Firm (n=266)****	****85****	****12****	****  2****	****  1****	****  0****	**
**Large Business (n=41)****	****78****	****17****	****  5****	****  0****	****  0****	**
**Small Business (n=35)****	****  9****	****37****	****17****	****31****	****  6****	**

**_________________**
*** Affiliation groups with fewer than 3% of the respondents are not shown.**

**Law firms and large businesses reported they are frequent USPTO customers.  For the most part, small businesses reported they are occasional or one-time customers.**

## Demographic Differences – In Summary

**Among the three major affiliation groups (law firms, large businesses, and small businesses), overall satisfaction ratings are lowest for law firms (about two-thirds satisfied).  The small business group has the highest overall satisfaction rating.**
**Continuous customers (mostly law firms) have lower levels of satisfaction than frequent, occasional, and one-time customers.**
**Customers who contact the office often (law firms and large businesses) have lower levels of satisfaction than customers with infrequent contact.**
**When the effects of law firms are controlled, the strong relationships between overall satisfaction and both frequency ****of contact and continuous relationship disappear.**
**Levels of dissatisfaction are very low across all demographic groups.**

## Demographic Differences – In Summary (cont.)

**This profile is about the same as in 1999, except that large businesses have a higher level of overall satisfaction (70% in 2000 vs. 65% in 1999) and law firms have a lower level of overall satisfaction (64% in 2000 vs. 68% in 1999).**
**Small businesses have the lowest satisfaction rating for fees.**
**Small businesses, large businesses, and law firms have similar satisfaction ratings for value.**

## Demographic Differences, by the 6 Factors

**	**
**	****Examination****	****Customer****	****	****Document****	****Problem****	****Change**
**    ****Trademark Data****	****Process****	****Service****	****Timeliness****	****Accuracy****	****Resolution****	****in Service****	**

**A1.****	****Affiliation**
- 	Federal government*
- 	Large business 	57	64	41	77	53	25
- 	Small business	76	77	69	73	33	34
- 	Law firm	61	69	40	67	30	28
- 	Individual applicant*
- 	University/college*
**A2.****	****Frequency of Contact**
- 	Only once  	69	72	69	82	**	31
- 	Rarely  	74	74	61	63	**	31
- 	Occasionally	75	80	57	76	54	26
- 	Often	58	65	37	66	29	28

**_________________**
***   Data for demographic groups with fewer than 1% of the respondents are not shown.**
**** Not enough respondents to report.**

- T-

_**Average % Satisfied**_

**Average **_**% Better**_

***USPTO 2000 Trademark Customer Satisfaction Survey***

## Demographic Differences, by the 6 Factors (cont.)

**	**
**	****Examination****	****Customer****	****	****Document****	****Problem****	****Change**
**    ****Trademark Data****	****Process****	****Service****	****Timeliness****	****Accuracy****	****Resolution****	****in Service****	**

**A3.****	****Relationship with****	****USPTO**
- 	A continuous customer	59	65	37	66	30	27
- 	A frequent, but not		continuous customer	67	76	49	81	42	26
- 	An occasional customer	77	81	65	76	43	30
- 	A one-time customer	66	72	70	67	*	*

- T-

_**Average % Satisfied**_

**Average **_**% Better**_

***USPTO 2000 Trademark Customer Satisfaction Survey***

**_________________**
*** Not enough respondents to report.**

## Demographic Differences by Factors - In Summary

**Except for small businesses, timeliness received low satisfaction ratings across all affiliations.**
**All affiliations have low levels of satisfaction with problem resolution issues.**
**Respondents who made frequent contact during the year have the lowest average satisfaction rating across four of the six factors.**
**Continuous customers have the lowest average satisfaction rating across five of the six factors, while the frequent (but not continuous) customers have the highest average satisfaction rating on document accuracy.**
**The demographic results across factors, for the most part, follow the same pattern as in 1999.**

## Electronic Filing

- T-

## Electronic Filing

**C8.****	****Do you file mainly:**
**	****	****Electronic applications****	****  5%****	****(n=16)**
**	****	****        ****or**
**	****	****Paper applications****	****95%****	****(n=333)**
***For those who mainly file electronically:***
**C9.****	****What method did you use to file electronically?**
**	****	****e-TEAS****	****95%**
**	****	****PrinTEASE****	****5%**
**	****	****Both****	****  0%**
**C12.****	****Did the availability of electronic filing influence ****your decision to file an application?**
**	****	****Yes****	****53%**
**	****	****No****	****47%**

**Specific questions about filing electronically were included on this year’s survey.  Questions were:**

## Electronic Filing

**C10.****	****How did you learn about electronic filing capabilities?**

**Percent in**
_** **__**Category**_*******	**** **_**Responses Were Coded Under Five Categories**_
**	****52%****	****USPTO Web Site**
**	****23%****	****Conference (e.g., INTA)**
**	****19%****	****Mailing Notices/Publications**
**	****10%****	****Colleagues**
**	****3%****	****USPTO Pilot**

**_____________**
***   Percents do not add up to 100 because some responses were coded under****    more than one category.**

## C11.	How satisfied are you with the following?

_**	**__**	**__**	**__**	**__**	**_** ****Change in**
_**	**__**	**__**	**__**	**__**	**_**% satisfied**
_**	**__**	**__**Dissatisfied**_**	**_**Neutral**_**	**_**Satisfied**_**	**_**from 1999**_
**a.****	****Ease of access to the electronic****filing system****	****  0%****	****  0%****	****100%****	****+20**
**b.****	****Ease of use of the on-line form****	****11%****	****  0%****	****  90%****	****+10**
**c.****	****Clarity of instructions for filing****electronically****	****  0%****	****  6%****	****  94%****	****+10**
**d.****	****Ease of payment for electronically****filed applications****	****  0%****	****  0%****	****100%****	****+11**
**e.****	****Ability to receive answers to****questions about electronic filing****	****  9%****	****  9%****	****  82%****	****+13**
**f.****	****Issue electronic filing receipt****with accurate information****	****  6%****	****  0%****	****  94%****	****  ****
**g.****	****Electronic filing receipt received****within 24 hours****	****  0%****	****  0%****	****100%****	****  ****

***Electronic Filing ******(cont.)***

**_________________**
**** Not asked in 1999.**

**Satisfaction ratings are high for all aspects of electronic filing.**

## 		Satisfied  	Satisfied

		B7		
		 Provide first	C18
		action within	Overall
C8.  Mainly filing:	3 months	satisfaction

**	****	****B7****	****	**
**	****	**** ****Provide first****	****C18**
**	****	****action within****	****Overall**
**C8.  Mainly filing:****	**_**3 months**_**	**_**satisfaction**_

***Other Electronic Filing / Paper Filing Comparisons***

**Given that only 5% of the respondents filed electronically, no concrete conclusions can be drawn.  With that caveat, the following comparisons were made between respondents who did and did not file electronically.**

**Electronically****5% (n=16)**

**On Paper****95% (n=333)**

**38%**

**31%**

**66%**

**63%**

**Electronic filers and those filing on paper have similar satisfaction ratings for timeliness of first actions.**

## Electronic Filers / Frequency of Contact with USPTO

**	****                                                           ****	**_**Electronic Filers in 2000**_
**A3.****	****What is your ****	**_**relationship with the USPTO?**_**	**_**%**_**	****	**_**N**_
**	****A continuous customer****	****81****	****	****13**
**	****A frequent, but not****	****continuous customer****	****13****	****  ****	****  2**
**	****An occasional customer****	****  6****	****	****  1**
**	****	**

**Approximately 80% of the electronic filers are continuous customers of the USPTO.**

## Electronic Filing and Perceptions About Fees/Value

**	****	****	**_**Satisfied**_
**	****	****	****	****C1P2**
**	****	****C1P1****	****	****Good value****C8.****	**_**Those who file mainly**_**:****	**_**USTOP Fees**__**	**__**	**__**for Fees Paid**_
**	****Electronic applications (n=16)****	****50%****	****	****56%**
**	****Paper applications (n=333)****	****52%****	****	****52%**

**There are minimal differences in perceptions about fees and value between those who file applications electronically and those who file on paper.**

## The Importance of Electronic Filing

**From the small sample of electronic filers, it appears that the electronic filers:**
**Are as dissatisfied as non-electronic filers about the Trademark Office meeting the 3-month goal for First Actions.**
**Are as satisfied overall as non-electronic filers.**
**Have about the same low satisfaction ratings as non-electronic filers about fees paid and value received.  **

## Electronic Filing – In Summary

**Because of the small number of respondents using electronic filing,**
**caution must be used in drawing conclusions from the survey results:**
**Five percent (n=16) of the respondents have filed electronically (about the same percentage as in 1999).**
**Nearly all electronic filers are continuous or frequent customers of the USPTO.**
**e-TEAS is the method used most frequently to file electronically.**
**Those using electronic filing are quite pleased with all aspects of it, including ease of access and ease of use.  The satisfaction ratings for almost all items improved substantially from 1999.**
**Electronic filers are also highly satisfied that electronic filing receipts are accurate and received within 24 hours.  **
**For about one-half of those filing electronically, the availability of electronic filing influenced their decisions to file applications.**
**Most respondents reported they heard about electronic filing through either the USPTO Web site or conferences such as INTA.**

## Summary ofQualitative Findings

- T-

## Summary ofOpen-Ended Comments

- T-

## Qualitative Methods and Procedures

**Respondents were asked to rewrite existing standards for trademark services and to provide additional standards.**
**Respondents were asked for positive and negative comments on USPTO services, experiences, etc.**
**Respondents were asked if they had any recommendations for improvements at the USPTO.**
**Respondents were also asked to describe their most frequently encountered problems.**
**All responses were transcribed and are presented verbatim in ****Appendix H (Volume II of this report).**
**Project staff reviewed all responses and for each question developed categories for coding the content of the responses.**
**Responses could be coded under more than one category, depending on content.**
**Eighty-five percent of the respondents responded to at least one open-ended item in Sections C or D (excluding C19–Job Title).**
**The percentage of responses for each category equals the number of responses with that category code divided by the number of respondents who answered the open-ended question.**

## Overview of Open-Ended Comments

**This year, 85% of the survey respondents wrote comments for C and D write-in questions (excluding C19–Job Title), compared to 69% in 1999.**
**There were an unusually high number of comments.**
**Those who responded were very interested in being heard and in expressing their opinions.**
**The qualitative findings support the quantitative results.  **

## QUESTION D1

***QUESTION D1***
***What would you say particularly pleased you about the way your trademark application was handled?***

**	****Percent in**
**	**_**Category**_*******	**_**Responses Were Coded Under the Following Categories**_
**	****38%****	****Examining Attorney Competence and Helpfulness / Examination****	****	****Quality / Overall Outcome**
**	****23%****	****Employee Courtesy****	**
**	****20%****	****Timeliness / Responsiveness**
**	****19%****	****Use of Telephone to Expedite Resolution of Issues and****	****	****Problems / Amendments**
**	****9%****	****Document Handling and Accuracy / Organization of Process**
**	****5%****	****Electronic Filing and Status Information**
**	****4%****	****Office Actions **
**	****3%****	****Accessibility of Staff / Interviews**
**	****1%****	****Costs and Fees**
**	**

- T-

**_________________**
*** Percents do not add up to 100% because comments were often coded under more****  than one category.**

***USPTO 2000 Trademark Customer Satisfaction Survey***

## Some Verbatim Comments:
“The willingness of Examining Attorney to discuss issues on the phone and to enter Examiner's Amendments in appropriate cases.”
“The examiners make a real effort to help.  We have disagreements from time to time, but the disagreements are handled professionally.”
“Electronic filing shows promise.”
“Ability to resolve issues efficiently through telephone conference; courteousness of staff; clear articulation of issues”
“I am pleased when documents are correct and personnel are responsive; unfortunately this only happens about fifty percent of the time.”
“Telephone amendments are great -  they save time.”
“The ability to have a personal interview with a receptive examining attorney and to reach agreement on how to proceed.”

**“****The willingness of Examining Attorney to discuss issues on the phone and to enter Examiner's Amendments in appropriate cases.”**
**“****The examiners make a real effort to help.  We have disagreements from time to time, but the disagreements are handled professionally.”**
**“****Electronic filing shows promise.”**
**“****Ability to resolve issues efficiently through telephone conference; courteousness of staff; clear articulation of issues”**
**“****I am pleased when documents are correct and personnel are responsive; unfortunately this only happens about fifty percent of the time.”**
**“****Telephone amendments are great -  they save time.”**
**“****The ability to have a personal interview with a receptive examining attorney and to reach agreement on how to proceed.”**

***D1:******	******What would you say particularly pleased you about ******the way your trademark application was handled?***

## Some Verbatim Comments (cont.):
“When a problem (such as in the description of goods/or services) arises in an application, I have been getting telephone calls from the examining attorneys with specific suggestions for resolving the problems.  I find this extremely helpful in prosecuting applications.  This has happened often.”
“Most examiners want to help you clarify and resolve issues.”
“Competent Trademark Attorneys, obviously careful in their work and apparently interested in helping attorney.”
“There has been a real effort to improve service since  *** took over.  It is noticed and appreciated.  Postcards are returned quickly.  Filing receipts improved last year, but seem to be slowing down now.  Time to First Office Action improved greatly last year, but seems to be slowing down again.  Examiners consistently seem genuinely concerned about doing a good job; they are courteous and helpful.”

**“****When a problem (such as in the description of goods/or services) arises in an application, I have been getting telephone calls from the examining attorneys with specific suggestions for resolving the problems.  I find this extremely helpful in prosecuting applications.  This has happened often.”**
**“****Most examiners want to help you clarify and resolve issues.”**
**“****Competent Trademark Attorneys, obviously careful in their work and apparently interested in helping attorney.”**
**“****There has been a real effort to improve service since  *** took over.  It is noticed and appreciated.  Postcards are returned quickly.  Filing receipts improved last year, but seem to be slowing down now.  Time to First Office Action improved greatly last year, but seems to be slowing down again.  Examiners consistently seem genuinely concerned about doing a good job; they are courteous and helpful.”**

***D1:******	******What would you say particularly pleased you about ******the way your trademark application was handled?***

## QUESTION D2

***QUESTION D2***
***What, if anything, would you say particularly displeased you or what flaws do you see in the application process?***

**	****Percent in**
**	**_**Category**_*******	**_**Responses Were Coded Under the Following Categories**_
**	****33%****	****Timeliness**
**	****24%****	****Inconsistency Among and Knowledge of Examining Attorneys **
**	****18%****	****Administrative Operations and Errors in Documents**
**	****15%****	****Office Actions / Outcome / Basis for Rejections**
**	****11%****	****Procedures / Requirements / Instructions / Forms**
**	****9%****	****Accessibility and Responsiveness / E-mail / Status Updates**
**	****5%****	****Lost Materials**
**	****4%****	****Problem Resolution**
**	****1%****	****Systems and Technology**
**	****2%****	****Costs**
**	**

- T-

***USPTO 2000 Trademark Customer Satisfaction Survey***

**_________________**
*** Percents do not add up to 100% because comments were often coded under more****  than one category.**

## Some Verbatim Comments:
“Excessive use of Lexis/Nexus without examiners' study and narrowing of the issues.”
“Rigidity in identification of goods/services processing is pointless and drags the application speed and cost.”
“The consistent errors in the filing receipts, publication notices, Notices of Allowance and Certificates of  Registration.”
“Delays:  (1) First Office Actions  (2) Divisional handling  (3) Publication process.  Inability of examiners to understand goods/services.  Errors in filing receipts.”
“Delay, inconsistency, an apparent attitude that the Examiner's job is to refuse registration or find problems; the identification of goods issue is a completely unnecessary fiasco.”
“Difficulty in resolving certain problems. If a received notice is not issued in a timely manner, it is very difficult to ascertain the location of the application or why the notice has not issued.”

**“****Excessive use of Lexis/Nexus without examiners' study and narrowing of the issues.”**
**“****Rigidity in identification of goods/services processing is pointless and drags the application speed and cost.”**
**“****The consistent errors in the filing receipts, publication notices, Notices of Allowance and Certificates of  Registration.”**
**“****Delays:  (1) First Office Actions  (2) Divisional handling  (3) Publication process.  Inability of examiners to understand goods/services.  Errors in filing receipts.”**
**“****Delay, inconsistency, an apparent attitude that the Examiner's job is to refuse registration or find problems; the identification of goods issue is a completely unnecessary fiasco.”**
**“****Difficulty in resolving certain problems. If a received notice is not issued in a timely manner, it is very difficult to ascertain the location of the application or why the notice has not issued.”**

***D2:******	******What, if anything, would you say particularly displeased******you or what flaws do you see in the application process?***

## Some Verbatim Comments (cont.):
“The inconsistency of positions taken from Examiner to Examiner, sloppy database maintenance such as errors in filing receipts and failure to reflect proper status, the delays in the process.”
“Inconsistency between Examining Attorneys; two examiners in the same law office can and often make different conclusions regarding the examination of the same trademark.”
“The inconsistency between examining attorneys in reviewing applications as to confusing similarity, descriptiveness and the recitation of goods and services. Also, the constantly changing definition of what is an acceptable identification of goods/services and classification in connection with Internet related goods/services; what is accepted by one examiner-attorney is too often refused by another.”
“Inconsistency between Examining Attorneys, failure to recognize marketplace realities.  The time it apparently takes to get a paper from the mailroom to the appropriate Law Offices (apparently about a month).”

**“****The inconsistency of positions taken from Examiner to Examiner, sloppy database maintenance such as errors in filing receipts and failure to reflect proper status, the delays in the process.”**
**“****Inconsistency between Examining Attorneys; two examiners in the same law office can and often make different conclusions regarding the examination of the same trademark.”**
**“****The inconsistency between examining attorneys in reviewing applications as to confusing similarity, descriptiveness and the recitation of goods and services. Also, the constantly changing definition of what is an acceptable identification of goods/services and classification in connection with Internet related goods/services; what is accepted by one examiner-attorney is too often refused by another.”**
**“****Inconsistency between Examining Attorneys, failure to recognize marketplace realities.  The time it apparently takes to get a paper from the mailroom to the appropriate Law Offices (apparently about a month).”**

***D2:******	******What, if anything, would you say particularly displeased******you or what flaws do you see in the application process? (cont.)***

## Some Verbatim Comments (cont.):
“I don't like it when examiners don't return telephone calls, especially when I am calling to try and move the application along and get it off their desk.”
“Substantive refusals are of substandard quality.  Too many marks are cited when none should be, yet many highly similar marks are overlooked, causing unnecessary opposition practice.  The examiners need to better understand that specimens today are not necessarily ‘tags, labels, or brochures,’ yet are appropriate – e.g., presentation slides instead of brochures.”
“(1) Under-experienced examiners make the process unpredictable, so we can’t advise clients.  (2) Unreasonableness of rejections makes it hard to select any mark with a hint or a risk.”
“Again, the lack of ability to contact staff (legal assistants, paralegals, etc.) because of voice mail boxes.”
“Response time.  I have called and left messages many times and on more than several occasions have never had a call back -- even after a week.”

**“****I don't like it when examiners don't return telephone calls, especially when I am calling to try and move the application along and get it off their desk.”**
**“****Substantive refusals are of substandard quality.  Too many marks are cited when none should be, yet many highly similar marks are overlooked, causing unnecessary opposition practice.  The examiners need to better understand that specimens today are not necessarily ‘tags, labels, or brochures,’ yet are appropriate – e.g., presentation slides instead of brochures.”**
**“****(1) Under-experienced examiners make the process unpredictable, so we can’t advise clients.  (2) Unreasonableness of rejections makes it hard to select any mark with a hint or a risk.”**
**“****Again, the lack of ability to contact staff (legal assistants, paralegals, etc.) because of voice mail boxes.”**
**“****Response time.  I have called and left messages many times and on more than several occasions have never had a call back -- even after a week.”**

***D2:******	******What, if anything, would you say particularly displeased******you or what flaws do you see in the application process? (cont.)***

## What Displeased You in the Application Process (D2), by Satisfaction Rating (C18)

**To better understand the written comments on what displeased respondents in the application process (D2), we sorted the write-in comments by category and by three respondent groups:  those responding dissatisfied, neutral, and satisfied to the question on overall satisfaction with the USPTO trademark process (C10).**

## What Displeased You, by Satisfaction Rating

_**Number of Comments, by Category and Satisfaction Rating**_
**                                                                                **_**Overall Satisfaction (C18)**_
**	****Dissatisfied****	****Neutral****	****Satisfied****	****Total**
_**What Displeased You Categories (D2)**_**	**_**(n = 42)**_**	**_**(n = 49)**_**	**_**(n = 100)**_**	**_**(n = 191)**_
**Lost Materials****	****  3****	****  5****	****  2****	****10**
**Timeliness****	****14****	****16****	****34****	****64**
**Costs****	****  0****	****  0****	****3****	****  3**
**Procedures/Requirements/****Instructions/Forms****	****  4****	****  7****	****10****	****21**
**Administrative Operations and****Errors in Documents****	****11****	****11****	****11****	****33**
**Accessibility and Responsiveness/****E-mail/Status Updates****	****  6****	****  5****	****  7****	****18**
**Inconsistency Among and****Knowledge of Examining Attorneys****	****14****	****14****	****17****	****45**
**Office Actions/Outcome/Basis****for Rejections****	****10****	****  8****	****10****	****28**
**Systems and Technology****	****  0****	****  0****	****  2****	****  2**
**Problem Resolution****	****  0****	****  2****	****  5****	****  7**

## What Displeased You, by Satisfaction Rating - In Summary

**The two categories that had the most write-in comments for each of the three respondent groups (dissatisfied, neutral, and satisfied) were (1) timeliness and (2) inconsistency among and knowledge of examining attorneys.**

## QUESTION D3

***QUESTION D3***
***How can products and services be improved at the USPTO?******(Including any new products or services)***

**	****Percent in**
**	**_**Category**_*******	**_**Responses Were Coded Under the Following Categories**_
**	****31%****	****Systems and Technology**
**	****17%****	****Timeliness**
**	****14%****	****Staffing / Qualifications / Training / Supervision of Staff**
**	****11%****	****Staff Competence, Customer Service, and Communication Skills**
**	****11%****	****Administrative Operations and Accuracy of Documents**
**	****11%****	****Accessibility and Responsiveness of Staff / Phone and E-mail****	****	****Communications**
**	****7%****	****Access to Information on Procedures, Policies, Rules, ****	****	****and Status**
**	****5%****	****Employee Accountability / Compensation**
**	****5%****	****Procedures / Requirements / Standards / Process**
**	****5%****	****Consistency of Outcome / Classifications / Problem Resolution**
**	****3%****	****Costs and Fees**
**	**

- T-

***USPTO 2000 Trademark Customer Satisfaction Survey***

**_________________**
*** Percents do not add up to 100% because comments were often coded under more****  than one category.**

## Some Verbatim Comments:
“Email communications with examining attorneys would prove helpful and may aid in the timeliness of responses.”
“The electronic application process has improved but needs to be made even more friendly.”
“All personnel can be more responsive. I wait days, sometimes weeks for a response to inquiries at every level.”
“Install a fax receipt confirmation method.”
“The PTO should expedite handling of Section 8 affidavits and renewals - and provide data bank to make this information available.”
“Receiving Office needs to be held more accountable.”
“Gain consistency between examining attorneys and create acceptable identifications of goods/services and classification and then STICK TO THEM. It often seems like the identification and classification guidelines change on a weekly basis.”

**“****Email communications with examining attorneys would prove helpful and may aid in the timeliness of responses.”**
**“****The electronic application process has improved but needs to be made even more friendly.”**
**“****All personnel can be more responsive. I wait days, sometimes weeks for a response to inquiries at every level.”**
**“****Install a fax receipt confirmation method.”**
**“****The PTO should expedite handling of Section 8 affidavits and renewals - and provide data bank to make this information available.”**
**“****Receiving Office needs to be held more accountable.”**
**“****Gain consistency between examining attorneys and create acceptable identifications of goods/services and classification and then STICK TO THEM. It often seems like the identification and classification guidelines change on a weekly basis.”**

***D3:******	******How can products and services be improved at the USPTO?******(Including any new products or services)***

## Some Verbatim Comments (cont.):
“Add the examiner's name and telephone number to the TARR database.  Improve the training for searches, and give better training on 2(d) citations.  Also, better training can be given for generic issues (there have been a large number of reversals lately).”
“Make it easier to get someone on the phone who is knowledgeable and helpful.”
“Better training for entry level employees; lessons on how to communicate in a business manner on the phone; impression is that the lower level employees are ignorant; have received the comment, "that area's not really my bag  . . .”

**“****Add the examiner's name and telephone number to the TARR database.  Improve the training for searches, and give better training on 2(d) citations.  Also, better training can be given for generic issues (there have been a large number of reversals lately).”**
**“****Make it easier to get someone on the phone who is knowledgeable and helpful.”**
**“****Better training for entry level employees; lessons on how to communicate in a business manner on the phone; impression is that the lower level employees are ignorant; have received the comment, "that area's not really my bag  . . .”**

***D3:******	******How can products and services be improved at the USPTO?******(Including any new products or services)***

## QUESTION D4

***QUESTION D4***
***Any additional comments?***

**	****Percent in**
**	**_**Category**_*******	**_**Responses Were Coded Under the Following Categories**_
**	****22%****	****Positive – Overall Trademark Service / Good Improvements**
**	****16%****	****Negative – Staff Competence / Customer Service / Accessibility****	****	****to Staff and Status Updates**
**	****13%****	****Comments About the Survey and Miscellaneous Comments**
**	****10%****	****Negative – Problem Resolution / Quality Control / Administrative****	****	****Errors**
**	****9%****	****Negative – Changes to and Information on Regulations,****	****	****Procedures, and Process / Fees**
**	****8%****	****Positive – Staff Competence / Customer Service**
**	****8%****	****Positive – Electronic Services**
**	****8%****	****Negative – Timeliness **
**	****6%****	****Negative – Systems and Technology **
**	****4%****	****Suggested Improvements**
**	****2%****	****Negative – Consistency and Basis of Decisions / Outcome**
**	**

- T-

***USPTO 2000 Trademark Customer Satisfaction Survey***

**_________________**
*** Percents do not add up to 100% because comments were often coded under more****  than one category.**

## Some Verbatim Comments:
“Quicker turnaround time on first actions would be great if this could be accomplished without jeopardizing the quality of the examination process.”
“Great web site and opportunity to file electronically (the PTO's enthusiasm for electronic processing is ahead of the curve for most governmental departments).”
“There are very few experienced examiners.  I get a lot of dumb refusals because the examiners do not know what they are doing.  Maybe more training would help.”
“You are improving and there is no other PTO in the world that compares.  Just wish refusals were a little more intelligent.”
“Trademark Office appears to run more effectively than Patent Office.  I constantly must track lost files and papers in patent applications.  Not the case for Trademarks.”
“Examiners should be uniform with respect to disclaimers and standards for descriptiveness.”

**“****Quicker turnaround time on first actions would be great if this could be accomplished without jeopardizing the quality of the examination process.”**
**“****Great web site and opportunity to file electronically (the PTO's enthusiasm for electronic processing is ahead of the curve for most governmental departments).”**
**“****There are very few experienced examiners.  I get a lot of dumb refusals because the examiners do not know what they are doing.  Maybe more training would help.”**
**“****You are improving and there is no other PTO in the world that compares.  Just wish refusals were a little more intelligent.”**
**“****Trademark Office appears to run more effectively than Patent Office.  I constantly must track lost files and papers in patent applications.  Not the case for Trademarks.”**
**“****Examiners should be uniform with respect to disclaimers and standards for descriptiveness.”**

***D4:******	******Any additional comments?***

## Some Verbatim Comments (continued):
“Customer service be readily available to answer questions and return voice mail messages promptly. Certainly to return them, period, and hopefully within 3 days.”
“Overall, I receive good service.  My major concern is with timeliness.  I would like to hear responses quicker, especially with filing receipts and statements of use.”
“I realize that trademark issues are very serious; perhaps a free online check for conflicts can be established.”
“All things considered the Trademark Office is to be highly commended for its performance and for seeking to improve (and doing so more often than not).”
“PTO web site is very helpful.  The PTO has really provided useful information that is a great supplement to the staff.  I'm sure I would have less positive feedback on the process if the web site were not available.”

**“****Customer service be readily available to answer questions and return voice mail messages promptly. Certainly to return them, period, and hopefully within 3 days.”**
**“****Overall, I receive good service.  My major concern is with timeliness.  I would like to hear responses quicker, especially with filing receipts and statements of use.”**
**“****I realize that trademark issues are very serious; perhaps a free online check for conflicts can be established.”**
**“****All things considered the Trademark Office is to be highly commended for its performance and for seeking to improve (and doing so more often than not).”**
**“****PTO web site is very helpful.  The PTO has really provided useful information that is a great supplement to the staff.  I'm sure I would have less positive feedback on the process if the web site were not available.”**

***D4:******	******Any additional comments?***

## Observations from Open-Ended Comments 

***Comments About Performance Standards – Section B ***
**The following standards attracted the most comments:**
**Unevenness in returning telephone calls within one business day (B3)**
**Timeliness of first office actions (B7) **
**Filing receipts–both in terms of timeliness and accuracy (B10, B21)**
**Respond to Section 8 requests (B19)**
**There is no pattern in recommending changes to the existing standards.  The focus of the comments appears to be on simply meeting the present standards.**
**“****Your standards are fine.  I don’t believe that you have met any of them in the past year.”**
**In addition, some respondents suggested new standards.  Those comments deal mainly with the Trademark Assistance Center, lost files, and responding to requests for corrections.**

## Observations from Open-Ended Comments 

_**On the Positive Side**_
**Many comments pertain to examining attorneys’ and supervisors’ responsiveness, helpfulness, and knowledge.  Examples were cited of how examining attorneys are eager to work with the applicants and explain their positions.**
**There appears to be widespread appreciation for proactive assistance from examining attorneys.  Several examples were provided in which examining attorneys proposed solutions rather than just pointing out problems.  Respondents like the resolution of actions and issues by telephone and fax, as well as by telephone conference amendments. **
**Customers would like to see even more use of the telephone in handling prosecution matters.  They believe that phone calls help to improve timeliness.**
**Respondents wrote positive comments about the USPTO’s Web site as well as the electronic filing process.  They are pleased to see how much of the process can be accomplished over the Internet and want to see more services added.**
**Some respondents do appreciate the enormous amount of work that the Trademark Office processes.**

## Observations from Open-Ended Comments (cont.) 

_**On the Negative Side**_
**The majority of negative comments deal with poor searches, inconsistent interpretations and handling of issues, and miscomprehension of the applicant’s business/market.  There are a number of comments about inappropriate rejections, especially in citing 1052(d)–Likelihood of Confusion and 1052(e)–Surname and Merely Descriptive:**
**Comments about unnecessary rejections, especially on 1052(d) issues, ****that are later withdrawn, causing undue time and expense.**
**Comments about the lack of evidence in supporting rejections.**
**Comments about a lack of consistency with search results.**
**Respondents also expressed concern that newer examining attorneys frequently make mistakes because of inexperience, lack of training, and lack of proper supervision.**
**Respondents also reported lost/misplaced items–specimens, checks, files, and requests.**
**Lost/misplaced items sometimes lead to improper abandonments.**
**Many respondents complained about continually getting voice mail and not having their calls returned.**

## Observations from Open-Ended Comments (cont.) 

_**On the Negative Side**_** (cont.)**
**Respondents gave many examples of errors that cause delays in the process:**
**Filing receipts (frequently identified)**
**Notices of Allowance**
**Notices of Publication**
**Certificates of Registration**
**Respondents also wrote about their difficulties in finding the appropriate person to talk to, as well as finding persons who are willing to take responsibility and solve problems.  The perception seems to be that there is no easy and timely way to make corrections.**
**“****The large number of routine mistakes that we have to request corrections of are very frustrating and time-consuming.”**
**Respondents cited examples of delays concerning first office actions and the publication process.**

## Observations from Open-Ended Comments (cont.) 

_**On the Negative Side**_** ****(cont.)**
**Respondents complained about the timeliness of the process, especially first office actions.  Other timeliness issues that respondents cited as problems include:**
**Filing Receipts**
**Responding to Status Letters**
**Responding to Extension Requests**
**Responding to Statements of Use**
**Responding to Section 8 and Section 9 Requests**
**Providing a Final Determination**
**There were also complaints about the Trademark Assistance Center– long waits to reach someone and not receiving accurate answers to questions about the application process and contact information.**
**Respondents said the telephone status report is usually out-of-date.**

## Supplemental Questions

***Use of Internet-Based Survey***

- T-

## Internet-Based Survey 

**Respondents were given the option of responding to the survey over the Internet or on paper.  Eighteen percent of the respondents used the Internet-based survey.**
**Questions about ease of use and future use were asked of respondents who used the Internet-based survey:**
**	****S1.****	****How easy was it to complete this Internet-based survey?**
**	****	****	****Neither **
**	****	****	**_**Difficult**__**	**__**Difficult nor Easy**__**	**__**Easy/Very Easy**_
_**	**_**	****	****2%****	****5%****	****93%**
**	****S2.****	****Would you consider using the Internet-based survey again?**
**	****	****	****	****	**_**Definitely Not**__**	**__**Neither**__**	**__**Probably/Definitely**_
_**	**_**	****	****2%****	****2%****	****96%**

**Almost all of the respondents who used the Internet-based survey said it was easy to complete and they would use it again.**

## Overall Summary

- T-

## Overall Summary

**The following pages summarize the strengths (60% or more satisfied)**
**and the opportunities for improvement (25% or more dissatisfied).**
_**Strengths**_
_**Customer Service**_
**Courteous service (B1 and C15c)**
**Ability to provide accurate answers and prompt, helpful, and flexible service at a time convenient to the customer (C1SC1, C1SR1, C1SR2*, C1SR3)**
**Genuinely committed to providing the best possible service (C1SC2*)**
**Directing customer promptly to proper office/person (B2*)**
_**Examination Quality**_
**Use of telephone to deal with issues (C1AP3)**
**Fairness of examination and outcome meeting objectives (C1OE1, C1OE2*)**
**Clearly written communications by examining attorneys (B4*)**
**Handling of issues related to goods and services (C1AP2)**
**Searches performed under 1052(d) -- Likelihood of Confusion (C1AP4)**
**Adequacy of explanation/reason for office actions (C1AP8)**

- __________________
*** Key Driver**

## Overall Summary (cont.)

_**Strengths (cont.)**_
_**Document Accuracy**_
**Certificates of Registration, Notices of Allowance, Official Gazettes, and Notices of Abandonment with correct information (B24*, B22, B23, B25)**
_**Application and Fees**_
**Amount of time to submit requested information (C1AP1)**
**Widely disseminate information on changes prior to effective date (B6)**

- __________________
*** Key Driver**

## Overall Summary (cont.)

_**Opportunities for Improvement**_
**	**_**Timeliness Standards**_**:**
**Providing first actions within 3 months (B7)**
**Mailing filing receipts within 14 days (B10*)**
**Resolving problems within 7 days (B26)**
**Responding to Statements of Use within 30 days (B16)**
**Responding to Extension Requests within 30 days (B17)**
**Mailing applicant’s return postcard within 3 days (B9)**
**Responding to Amendments within 35 days (B14*)**
**Responding to Section 8 and 9 Requests within 30 days (B19, B20)**
**Returning telephone calls within one business day (B3)**
**Providing a Final Determination within 13 months (B8*)**

- __________________
*** Key Driver**

## Overall Summary (cont.)

_**Opportunities for Improvement**_** ****(Cont.)**
_**Problem Resolution**_
**Handling of delays (C15a)**
**Handling of mistakes (C15b)**
**The way your problem or difficulty was handled (C15d)**
_**Examination Quality**_
**Appropriateness of refusals made under 1052(d) – Likelihood of Confusion and 1052(e) – Merely Descriptive, Surname, Geographic (C1AP5*, C1AP6)**
**Consistency of the examination (C1AP7) **

- __________________
*** Key Driver**

## Conclusions

- T-

## Conclusions

**Overall satisfaction remains above 60% (at 65% satisfied), and the rating for dissatisfied with overall services remains low, at 14%.**
**Satisfaction with document accuracy (with the exception of filing receipts) remains strong.**
**Aspects of customer service that show satisfaction ratings of 70% or higher are courteousness and use of the telephone to deal with examination issues.**
**Satisfaction levels regarding clearly written position of examining attorneys, fairness of the examination, and outcomes meeting customer objectives remain strong, with ratings of 70% or higher.**
**There continue to be many positive write-in comments about the professionalism and helpfulness of the examining attorneys.  Respondents are pleased with telephone contacts with examining attorneys; they perceive such contacts as a quick and productive way to handle application issues and formal matters.**

## Conclusions (cont.)

**While several areas remain strong in 2000, the results indicate some declines and some unchanging satisfaction levels from 1999 to 2000.**
**Overall satisfaction declined from 69% to 65% (the decline is not statistically significant).**
**Satisfaction ratings declined for 23 of the 51 comparable items, with 5 of the items declining by 6 to 10 percentage points (two of the declines are statistically significant: values/fees).**
**Satisfaction with customer service was basically unchanged, but some slippage occurred for returning phone calls within one business day.**
**Low levels of satisfaction still exist regarding some key examination quality issues, including sufficiency of evidence in supporting office actions, efficiency of the examination process, consistency of examination, and appropriateness of refusals made under 1052(d) and 1052(e).**
**Because they are unmet, most service standards still have low ratings.**
**The percentage of respondents experiencing problems increased. **

## Conclusions (cont.)

**Why did overall satisfaction not improve?**
**	****While there is no way to answer this question definitively, several indicators from the survey data analyses and from write-in comments suggest possible reasons for continuing low levels of satisfaction and complaints about problems and how they are handled. **
**Those who responded either neutral or dissatisfied overall (C18) have very low satisfaction ratings (35% or less) for several key items, including returning calls within one business day, providing a final determination, appropriateness of refusals, consistency of examination, sufficiency of evidence, efficiency of the examination process, and perceptions about being genuinely committed to providing the best possible service.**
**The percentage of respondents experiencing problems during the year increased.  For example, more than 80% of those responding neutral or dissatisfied to the question on overall satisfaction experienced problems during the year.  Also, the percentage of respondents whose problems were resolved quickly declined by six points.**

## Conclusions (cont.)

**Why did overall satisfaction not improve from 1999? (cont.)**
**There were many more write-in comments this year concerning inconsistencies in examination, inappropriate refusals, and perceptions of poor searches and judgment on the part of examining attorneys. **
**There were also many write-in complaints about poor telephone service.  The percentage of respondents satisfied with calls being returned within one business day declined by 6 points. **
**Respondents report that the majority of in-process time standards established by the Trademark Office are not met.  Write-in comments demonstrated the importance of prompt first office actions.**
**Is the fee increase related to overall satisfaction?  **
**A fee increase was implemented at the beginning of the year.  Analysis of the data shows a weak relationship between USPTO fees for trademark applications (C1P1) and overall satisfaction (C18).  However, value for fees paid has a stronger relationship with overall satisfaction.  **

## Conclusions (cont.)

_**Targets for Improvement—The Vital Few**_
**From the write-in comments and the results of the data analyses, the following targets for improvement have been identified:**
**Revise the standards for issuing refusals, and issue refusals only when it is clear that the refusals are appropriate.  For customers who still have complaints, have a process for reviewing their complaints and responding to the customers.**
**Provide additional training, especially to new examining attorneys, on issues related to decisions under 1052(d) and 1052(e).**
**Acknowledge problems/difficulties reported in faxes and letters, and notify those reporting problems of the steps that will be taken to solve the problems.**
**Re-focus attention on returning phone calls within one day and, where appropriate, provide alternative customer service contacts through the voice mail system.  In addition, continue to explore the feasibility of using e-mail to respond to general questions from applicants.**

## Conclusions (cont.)

_**Targets for Improvement—The Vital Few (cont.)**_
**Consider establishing additional training modules for the TAC staff on the application process and on contact information for examining attorneys. Respondents continue to cite concerns about the Trademark Assistance Center; they have difficulty in getting through (are placed on hold too long), and only 58% of the respondents reported they receive accurate answers to questions. **
**Carefully analyze the types of administrative mistakes and errors being reported and notify applicants about efforts to improve quality control procedures within the administrative structure.**
**Develop an action plan to expand the number of applicants using electronic filing. Electronic filers are extremely positive about accessibility and ease of use of electronic filing and the accuracy of filing receipts.**