PCT/A/41/3 Page 5 E PCT/A/41/3 OriGINAL English DATE July

pct/a/41/3 page 5 e pct/a/41/3 original: english date: july 2, 2010 international patent cooperation union (pct union)

PCT/A/41/3
page 5
E
PCT/A/41/3
OriGINAL: English
DATE: July 2, 2010
International Patent Cooperation Union (PCT Union)
Assembly
Forty-First (24th Extraordinary) Session
Geneva, September 20 to 29, 2010
QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FOR THE PCT INTERNATIONAL
AUTHORITIES
Document prepared by the International Bureau
Summary
=======
 Reports from each of the International Searching and Preliminary
Examining Authorities are publicly available on the PCT website,
setting out how the Authorities have implemented and developed their
quality management systems in accordance with Chapter 21 of the PCT
International Search and Preliminary Examination Guidelines. The
International Authorities have increased their efforts to improve
quality management systems and quality of work products.
Quality Reports
===============
 At the start of 2010, each of the active International Authorities
as well as the Egyptian Patent Office and the Israel Patent Office
(which have been appointed as International Authorities but have not
yet commenced operations) submitted a quality report indicating what
improvements had been made to its quality management systems in the
course
of 2009. These reports are available from the WIPO website at
www.wipo.int/pct/en/quality/authorities.html.
Recent Developments
===================
 At the 17th session of the Meeting of International Authorities,
held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in February 2010, the International
Authorities discussed the quality reports and a variety of matters
relating to quality management systems, as outlined in paragraphs 16
to 35 of the report of the session (document PCT/MIA/17/12) as
follows:
“QUALITY FRAMEWORK
“Review of Annual Reports
“16. Discussions were based on paragraphs 2 and 3 of document
PCT/MIA/17/8, and the reports on quality management systems referred
to in those documents.
“17. One Authority commented that the annual reports were becoming
increasingly interesting as Authorities’ experience with quality
management systems and the reports themselves increased. Some of the
points where further information was sought included:
“(a) in respect of a patent examiner competency program, the details
of how the training needs of examiners were being monitored;
“(b) an investigation into reports where only “A” category citations
had been made showed that these reports were more likely than others
to be found deficient – in this case, the relevant Authority observed
that it was looking into the possibility of having such cases reviewed
by a further examiner before a report was established;
“(c) details of the work of a quality task force;
“(d) whether a new checklist for international preliminary examination
reports dealt with the substantive requirements of such reports or
only with the formalities – the relevant Authority clarified that the
checklist covered both substantive and formal issues.
“18. The Meeting agreed that the International Authorities’ annual
reports on their quality management systems should again be published
and that this fact should be reported to the Assembly.
“Templates for Future Annual Reports
“19. Discussions were based on paragraphs 4 and 5 and Annexes I and II
of document PCT/MIA/17/8.
“20. The European Patent Office introduced the proposed templates,
recalling that the first reports on quality management systems had
been very diverse in content and difficult to compare. This situation
had been improved by the introduction of the existing templates. The
proposed new templates aimed both to reflect the new layout and
content of Chapter 21 of the International Search and Preliminary
Examination Guidelines as expected to come into force shortly and to
introduce further structure aimed at assisting comparison of reports.
The Office stated that it should not be considered necessary to follow
the format rigidly in all cases where this was not appropriate, but
merely be used as an aid to ensuring that other Offices could use the
reports effectively.
“21. One Authority welcomed the templates but noted that they
addressed the formal aspects of quality management and did not deal
with the question of the quality of the actual search reports and
written opinions. The Authority hoped that this aspect would also be
addressed.
“22. Two Authorities noted that the templates proposed by the European
Patent Office included questions which were a great deal more specific
than in the current templates. They expressed particular concern about
the items corresponding to paragraphs 21.09, 21.18(d), 21.24(a)(iv),
21.22(b) and 21.23(h), which went into matters which appeared to go
beyond what was clearly required by the new version of Chapter 21 of
the PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination Guidelines.
“23. The Meeting agreed that future reports should be established
using the templates as shown in Annexes I and II of document
PCT/MIA/17/8, subject to the understanding that it was not essential
for Authorities to complete all items within the template or to follow
those formats rigidly in cases where they did not consider this
appropriate.
“Creation and Mandate of a Quality Subgroup
“24. Discussions were based on paragraphs 6 to 11 of document
PCT/MIA/17/8.
“25. The International Authorities observed that quality was
fundamental to most of the main issues facing the PCT at the moment.
The Authorities faced a wide variety of different problems but could
nevertheless learn a great deal from each other. Most of the
Authorities considered that more effective discussion between
Authorities was required outside of the formal sessions of the
Meeting. However, if a quality subgroup was to be set up, it was
important that it should have clear tasks and deadlines.
“26. One Authority considered that the Meeting itself, rather than a
subgroup, should continue to consider quality issues rather than
moving the subject to a subgroup. Another Authority considered that it
was important to address not only the procedural aspects of quality
management but the evaluation of the quality of the results being
delivered.
“27. It was hoped that most of the work could be done without physical
meetings, for example, using electronic fora and video conferencing.
Some of the Authorities considered that a physical meeting might be
beneficial, but it was noted that this would be very expensive and it
would be essential to have a clear and useful agenda if this was to
happen. The Swedish Patent and Registration Office offered to host a
meeting in or around October 2010 if this was considered appropriate.
“28. The Meeting agreed:
“(a) that one of the main objectives of the PCT system as a work
sharing tool was to provide high quality international search and
examination reports which were of the greatest possible value to
applicants, third parties and designated and elected Offices in
determining whether an international application met the main
requirements of patentability in accordance with the different
national laws of the various Contracting States;
“(b) that the purpose of the common quality framework set out in
Chapter 21 of the PCT International Search and Preliminary Examination
Guidelines was to ensure that International Authorities set up
appropriate systems to ensure that their work resulted in such high
quality international reports, consistent with the objectives of and
the requirements under the PCT; and
“(c) that confidence in the high quality of international search and
examination reports established by International Authorities was
essential to the effective use of those reports by designated and
elected Offices to assist in reducing costs, workload and unnecessary
duplication of work and increasing the quality of patents granted by
those Offices.
“29. The Meeting agreed that such confidence would be best served by
an effective evaluation of the value of international reports for the
purposes of assisting national phase processing. As a first step
towards that goal, the Meeting agreed that a quality subgroup should
be convened, which should use an electronic forum as its main means of
discussion, but may agree to physically meet, if deemed appropriate.
The International Bureau agreed to provide secretarial support for
such a meeting if it was held. The quality subgroup should have the
following initial tasks:
“(a) by the end of February 2010, the International Bureau should set
up an electronic forum and each International Authority should
nominate one main member and optionally additional members to
participate in the subgroup;
“(b) by the end of March 2010, the members of the subgroup should
confirm whether the forum is suitable for discussion of quality issues
and the International Bureau should test with each International
Authority means for “virtual” meetings (such as “webinars”) to support
interactive discussion sessions between some or all participants;
“(c) by the end of July 2010, the subgroup should identify detailed
information content requirements for an electronic quality feedback
system to be developed (see paragraphs 30 to 35, below) which would
both be likely to be used by designated Offices and be useful for
assisting International Authorities in reviewing and improving the
quality of their work (subject to any recommendations concerning this
matter agreed upon by Member States in the third session of the PCT
Working Group);
“(d) by the end of September 2010, each International Authority should
establish a report on their quality management system using the new
templates agreed by the Meeting;
“(e) by the end of December 2010, the subgroup should review the
quality reports submitted by International Authorities and prepare a
report for the next session of the Meeting, covering:
“(i) effective processes and solutions for quality assurance; and
“(ii) effective quality improvement measures.
“Quality Feedback Systems
“30. Discussions were based on document PCT/MIA/17/3.
“31. The International Authorities all supported the principle of
developing a system allowing effective quality feedback from
designated Offices to International Authorities. One Authority noted
that it had already implemented such a system locally, but that a
single centralized system which could be used by any designated Office
for any International Authority should be significantly more
effective.
“32. One Authority observed that such a system would aim to achieve
two goals: to give feedback to improve the quality of future
international reports, and to give additional information to
designated Offices to improve the national phase processing of
specific international applications.
“33. The Authorities agreed that there were strong similarities to the
requirements of a third party observation system and that it might be
appropriate to use the same basic infrastructure, subject to the need
to define exactly what types of information should be passed and the
separation of information which was important to make available to all
designated Offices (such as new citations found on a particular
international application) from comments which it might be appropriate
to retain as private feedback available only to the relevant
International Authority.
“34. Authorities also emphasized the need to ensure that the system
did not represent a burden to examiners. It was likely that the best
means for response in most cases would be to automatically forward or
make reference to the content of a national phase search report
without the need for examiners to make specific comment. No response
should be expected to feedback on individual international
applications, indeed some Authorities noted that under their law it
would not be appropriate for examiners to respond to feedback on
individual international applications. One Authority stated that such
a system should be regarded as a tool for improving quality rather
than as an attempt to evaluate quality.
“35. The Meeting agreed that the International Bureau should continue
to develop proposals for further consideration by the PCT Working
Group and that the quality subgroup should consider the information
content which would need to be passed by such a system (see paragraph
29(c), above).”
 As was stated by the Secretariat in the PCT Working Group
(paragraph 12 of document PCT/WG/3/14, reproduced in the Annex of
document PCT/A/41/1), the creation of the quality subgroup (paragraphs
28 and 29 of the extract of the report above) is considered to
represent an important step in the efforts to improve the quality of
international search and preliminary examination reports.
 The Assembly is invited to take note of the content of this
document.
[End of document]