§ 4 and 5. Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the total increase in the staff of the Patent Office to date since the 31st of December last; whether any additional staff will be commencing their duties within the next six weeks; and whether he can state, approximately, the average number of applications that a members of the staff deals with in the course of a year;
(2) approximately, the number of months that an applicant for a patent has to wait after making application before the first official act on is taken in the matter?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)As the answer is long, I propose, subject 173 to the hon. Member's concurrence, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIn view of the answer given last week, that arrears were accumulating at the rate of 76 per week, has the right hon. Gentleman any ground for hoping that the additional staff will be able in a reasonable time, to reduce to nothing this accumulation of arrears?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIf it does not do so entirely, I think there ought to be a further increase of staff. This is a staff which requires special training. I think, however, that there was a very sudden accumulation of applications entirely out of proportion to the ordinary number in a normal year. I am advised that it would be well to see whether it means a large normal increase year by year. I quite agree that the staff ought to be adequate to deal in a reasonable time with the normal number of cases that arise.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEWill the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that it is important to keep up the classification of inventions, which is a necessary part of Patent Office work?
§ Following is the answer:
§ The total increase in the staff of the Patent Office between the 1st January and the 28th February, 1929, was 15, of whom eight were assistant examiners and seven were of other grades.
§ During the six weeks from 1st March, about 12 additional assistant examiners are expected to commence their duties.
§ On the average, each officer of the examining grade deals annually with 63 applications accompanied by complete specifications, 125 applications accompanied by provisional specifications, and 42 complete specifications filed in pursuance of applications originally accompanied by provisional specifications.
§ An application for a patent must be accompanied either by a complete specification, or by a provisional specification which may subsequently be followed by a complete specification. In the case of applications accompanied by complete specifications an applicant has, on the average, to wait seven months before the result of the first official action (examination and search) is communicated to him; in the case of applications accompanied 174 by provisional specifications the result of official action is usually communicated within a fortnight; in the case of complete specifications filed in pursuance of applications originally accompanied by provisional specifications an applicant has to wait, on the average, about three months before the result of official action (examination and search) is communicated to him.
§ 6. Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated amount paid over to the Exchequer for the latest available year as the surplus of income derived from fees for patents, etc., over the expenditure of the Patent Office?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe latest year for which figures are available is 1927, when the surplus, as shown in the Report of the Comptroller-General of the Patent Office, was £112,939.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIn view of the very large sum which this Office is passing to the Exchequer, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that applicants for patents are entitled to a little more consideration and not the delay which has occurred recently?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThat is a superficial criticism. I do not say it in any offensive way. When one goes into the matter one finds that the surplus arises entirely out of the claims for the renewal of patents which have already been granted. The actual fee which is charged for the consideration of an application for an original patent, I am advised, is inadequate to cover the amount of work done.
§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIs it not a fact that there is a profit made out of this Office, and that applicants are kept waiting for something like nine months? Is not that a thing that needs looking into in the future, as well as consideration of the question how far in the past steps have not been taken to keep the Office up-to-date?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI do not think that is quite a fair criticism. Obviously, the applicant for a patent who is charged a fee which does not actually cover the amount of work done is not being charged too much. I do not think it is necessary, in the interests of the taxpayer, to see that fees for renewals, 175 which are paid by owners of successful patents, are exclusively used for reducing below the cost the fees on original patent applications.
Sir GEORGE HAMILTONIs my right hon. Friend aware that in the United States the Patent Office is nearly 18 months in arrear?