0

Quality Management System

for Patent Examination at the JPO

Hiromi TAKAOKADirector, Quality Management Office

21 June 2017

1

Contents

1.Quality Management System (QMS)i. Quality Policy on Patent Examination

ii. Quality Manual / PDCA Cycle in QMS

iii. Organizational Chart of JPO

iv. Organization of Quality Management

2.Quality Verification

3.Quality Assurance

4.Continuous Enhancement

2

1. i. Quality Policy on Patent Examination

We grant robust, broad and valuable patents. We meet wide-ranging needs and expectations. We all dedicate ourselves to improving quality,

cooperating with concerned persons and parties. We contribute to improving the quality of patent

examination globally. We continually improve operations. We raise the knowledge and capabilities of our

staff.

http://www.jpo.go.jp/seido_e/s_gaiyou_e/pdf/patent_policy/policy.pdf

3

1.ii. Quality Manual / PDCA Cycle in QMS

http://www.jpo.go.jp/seido_e/quality_mgt/pdf/patent_manual/manual.pdf (2016FY Ver.)

4

Commissioner

Deputy

Commissioner

Policy Planning &

Coordination Dept.Trademark &

Customer Relations

Dept.

Exam. Dept. 1 Exam. Dept. 2 Exam Dept. 3 Exam Dept. 4 Trial & Appeal Dept.

General

Coordination

Div.

Trademark Div.

Design Div.

Exam. Div. Exam. Div. Exam. Div. Exam. Div.

Japan Patent Office

Administrative

Affairs Div.

1.iii. Organizational Chart of JPO

Physics,

Optics,

Social Infrastructure

& Design

Mechanical

Technology

Chemistry,

Life Science

& Material

Science

Electronic

Technology

- 38 Examination Divisions

- 130 Directors

5

CommissionerDeputy

Commissioner

Policy Planning &

Coordination Dept.Trademark &

Customer Relations

Dept.

Exam. Dept. 1 Exam. Dept. 2 Exam Dept. 3 Exam Dept. 4 Trial & Appeal Dept.

General

Coordination

Div.

Trademark Div. Design Div.

Quality Management

Officers

Exam. Div. Exam. Div. Exam. Div. Exam. Div.

Quality Management

Committee (QMC)

Japan Patent Office

Subcommittee on Examination Quality

Management

Intellectual Property Committee of the

Industrial Structure Council, METI

Quality Management

Office (QMO)

Administrative

Affairs Div.

④

③

②

①

1.iv. Organization of Quality Management (1)

The JPO obtains

- objective feedback about its systems for

- its current state of quality management

on patent examination

from external experts

Around 90 Quality

management Officers

for quality audit

6

CommissionerDeputy

Commissioner

Policy Planning &

Coordination Dept.Trademark &

Customer Relations

Dept.

Exam. Dept. 1 Exam. Dept. 2 Exam Dept. 3 Exam Dept. 4 Trial & Appeal Dept.

General

Coordination

Div.

Trademark Div. Design Div.

Quality Management

Officers

Exam. Div. Exam. Div. Exam. Div. Exam. Div.

Quality Management

Committee (QMC)

Japan Patent Office

Subcommittee on Examination Quality

Management

Intellectual Property Committee of the

Industrial Structure Council, METI

Quality Management

Office (QMO)

Administrative

Affairs Div.

④

③

②

①

1.iv. Organization of Quality Management (2)

5 Examiners & 27 Researchers

- supporting initiatives

- obtaining facts on examination

processes

- planning necessary initiatives

1 Chairperson & 12 Directors

- analyzing & evaluating data

- reporting results

- feedback to examiners

7

Contents

1.Quality Management System (QMS)

2.Quality Verificationi. Quality Audit

ii. Partial Audit

iii. User Satisfaction Survey

iv. Meeting with Users on Examination Quality

v. Acceptance of Opinions on Examination Quality

3.Quality Assurance

4.Continuous Enhancement

Director

Approval

DispatchQuality

Management

Officer

Feedback Quality Audit

Not

Found

Found

Reason for

Refusal/Rejection

Decision to Grant

a Patent

Decision of

Refusal/Rejection

ISR, WO/ISA,

IPER

8

Feedback

Deficiencies

Examiner A

Examiner B

Examiner Z

Checking

Notifications

Substantive Check

Formality Check

Random

Check

Reviewing

Audit Results

Senior Quality

Management

Officer

Understanding

Invention

Additional Search

2. i. Quality Audit

Judgment

2. ii. Partial Audit

9

Director

Approval

Providing

Results

Reason for

Refusal/Rejection

Partial Audit

QMO

Researcher

Understanding

Invention

Additional Search

Judgment

Examiner A

Examiner B

Examiner Z

Reviewing Audit

Results

QMO

Officer

(Examiner)

Providing

Results

Random

Check

Checking

Notifications

Substantive Check

Formality Check

2. ⅲ. User Satisfaction Survey (1)

10

High response rates of

around 90%!!

Overall Quality

in General

Quality on

Specified Applications

National Applications Sheet Ａ Sheet Ｂ

PCT Applications Sheet Ｃ Sheet Ｄ

11

2. ⅲ. User Satisfaction Survey (2)

> 50% !!!

Overall Quality of Patent Examination on National Applications

12

2.ⅲ. User Satisfaction Survey (３)

Goals to Be Achieved by the JPO in Fiscal Year 2017

.

http://www.meti.go.jp/policy/policy_management/jissityou-hyouka/29fy-mokuhyou/29fy-jissityou-mokuhyou.pdf (Japanese version only)

１．Patents

（１）Examination Pendency for Patent Applications <shorted>

（２）Quality of Patent Examinations

• In the JPO’s survey on the quality of patent examinations, for

the level of user satisfaction on communications with

examiners, “the ratio of users who rated it as 4 and higher on

a scale of 5 should be more than 60 %.”

• The number of circuit interview examinations and video-

conferencing examinations are to be “more than 700.”

2.ⅳ. Meeting with Users on Examination Quality

13

1

JIPA :Japan Intellectual Property Association

JPAA :Japan Patent Attorneys Association

Top management• Commissioner

• Deputy Commissioner

Examination Division• Directors

• Examiners

Administrative Affairs Div.• Quality Management Office

• Industry Group

• JIPA and JPAA

• IPO and AIPLA

• Applicants

(Companies)

• Attorneys

• Inventors

・

・

Users

Quality !!IPO: Intellectual Property Owners Association

AIPLA: American Intellectual Property Law

Association

JPO

14

2. v. Acceptance of Opinions on Examination Quality

Click!

Click!

JPO website & Telephone & FAX

https://www.jpo.go.jp/sesaku_e/tousho_e.htm

15

Contents

1.Quality Management System (QMS)

2.Quality Verification

3.Quality Assurancei. Approval

ii. Consultation

iii. Standardized Notification Form

4.Continuous Enhancement

16

3. i. Approval

Examiner Z

Directors are responsible

for examination quality in

the technical field in charge.

Directors

Check the content

of all notices

Approval

Send back

Deficiencies

Examiner A

Dispatch

Feedback is given to the

examiner in charge

regarding cases needing

correction.

Examiner B

17

3. ii. Consultation

- Opinion/Knowledge Sharing

- Expertise in Search

- Reducing Discrepancies

Director in consulting

Around 50,000 cases （in FY 2016）

Examiner in

chargeExaminer in consulting

Examiner in

charge

Examiner in consulting

Consultations are conducted not only with an examiner / examiners from the same Examination Division,

but also with a Director or an examiner / examiners from a different Examination Division.

※

18

3. iii. Standardized Notification Form

Applicant

/Representative

Examiner A Examiner B Examiner Z

Applicant

/Representative

Be

fore

Aft

er

Examiner A Examiner B Examiner Z

Different Form

Same Form

・・・

・・・

？？？

19

Contents

1.Quality Management System (QMS)

2.Quality Verification

3.Quality Assurance

4.Continuous Enhancementi. Continuous Enhancement by PDCA Cycles

ii. Topic : Complete Update of Examination Guidelines

20

PLAN

DOFY2017 (2017.4-2018.3)

ACT

CHECKFY2016 (2016.4-2017.3)

check

plan

do

act

4. i. Continuous Enhancement by PDCA Cycles

Approval

Examples of challenges to be

addressed in order to enhance

examination quality

- Reduction of notices to be

corrected

- Judgment without

discrepancy among

examiners

- Enough description written

in the notices by examiners

- Unified judgment regarding

practices of inventive step

Consultation

Standardized

Notification Form

Quality AuditUser Satisfaction

Survey

Opinions on Examination Quality

・

・

・

・

2016FY 2017FY

21

4. ii. Topic: Complete Update of Examination Guidelines

④ Update of Examination Guidelines for Patents and Utility Models

To reduce discrepancies in examination practices /results and to establish easy-to-

understand examination guidelines for improving applicants’ understanding, JPO will

update (clarified and simplified) its Examination Guidelines, adding more case

examples and court precedents.

JPO Operational Plan（FY2014－FY2018）

【 Objectives of Updates 】① Making the descriptions in the Examination Guidelines

clear and concise

② Providing enough case examples and court precedents, in

order to make the Examination Guidelines easier to

understand.

③ Making the Examination Guidelines internationally

acceptable.(From Examination Guidelines expert panel WG (2014))Reviewing

descriptions

Organizing

contents structure

Examination handbook（※）

Examination

Guidelines

Internationally

acceptable

guidelines

Clear and concise

descriptions

Enough case

examples and court

precedents

※ Examination handbook has two parts: “Procedural matters and considerations in examination” and

“Practical case examples and court precedents for better understanding Examination Guidelines.” They

will be continually updated.

Revised Examination Guidelines are effective

on and after October 1, 2015!!

22

Thank youfor your attention!