B-247066 Access to APS Text Search System at Libraries. In PTO hopes the experience gained from the pilot and the Access to APS Text Search System at Federal Agencies. In June 1992, PTO provided on-line access to its text search database system to two federal agencies--the Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health. This access is expected to support these agencies' research activities. PTO believes the project will also provide information useful for developing a strategy to provide remote access to the general public. In October 1991, PTO began Electronic Bulletin Board. Projects Under Consideration. In addition to the three B-247066 - Question: A project to examine the benefit of providing remote on-line access to the agency's Classified Search and Image Retrieval system. This system allows users to search and retrieve images of U.S. patents. A project for issuing weekly CD-ROM discs containing the images of patent information in numeric order. PTO is developing a request for proposals for producing the CD-ROM discs. The agency expects to award a contract for this project in March 1993. Could you give us GAO's opinion, if any, of how PTO might better achieve its goal of public dissemination? We are not in a position to determine how PTO might better achieve its goal of public dissemination because PTO projects are not far enough along to allow them to be evaluated. Also, these activities are fragmented and not adequately documented. Currently, two offices at the Assistant Commissioner level share responsibility for information dissemination; no one office is responsible for coordinating individual dissemination activities. Also, PTO does not have an overall dissemination plan that clearly defines the goals and objectives to be achieved; how individual projects will help to achieve them; and the personnel, equipment, and financial resources needed to accomplish them within established milestones. The Subcommittee may wish to direct PTO to provide an overall dissemination plan that (1) defines goals and objectives; (2) indicates how individual projects will help meet the goals and objectives; and (3) identifies the needed personnel, equipment, and financial resources to accomplish them. B-247066 We appreciated the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee and to provide this information for the record. If you have any further questions, please call me at (202) 512-6416. Sincerely yours, JayEtta. Hecker Director,Resources, Community, and Economic Development Information Systems (510810) Senator DECONCINI. Ms. Hecker, thank you for the detail into which you have gone. You have raised some really good questions which we will ask the PTO to respond to. I appreciate the job the GAO has done here in its professional way on a difficult subject. The APS is complicated with numerous goals and objectives, as you have pointed out, and some inconsistencies. Of all the problems you pointed out, what is the biggest problem? The inconsistencies seem to me to be a real question to which we need an answer. But in your opinion, what is the biggest problem? Ms. HECKER. As I said at the outset, our work is preliminary and we don't have firm conclusions to share with you at this time. But clearly we are concerned about the inconsistency of PTO's schedule and the cost estimates. So this is an area we think definitely requires further review. We will continue to focus on this area in the course of our review. Senator DECONCINI. You will? MS. HECKER. Yes, indeed. Senator DECONCINI. So you are going to try to get to that problem yourself? MS. HECKER. Yes, sir. Senator DECONCINI. You are due to finish this year in the fall? Ms. HECKER. We will have part of the work you requested complete in the fall and probably an additional piece early in the spring. We have split up the request because there are a number of areas which you have asked us to review. We think it will take through the spring to more fully address some of the issues. Senator DECONCINI. What will you have by the fall? Ms. HECKER. One area that we have spun off on-and I'm not really reporting on it today—is a review of the European and Japanese automated patent systems. We have made initial visits to Europe and Japan. We see the need and value of reporting some baseline description of what is in place in those two systems. So that would be one piece of the request that we would see getting out earlier. In addition, we see splitting out some of the issues where there is more certainty and getting reports to you in an earlier timeframe on those areas. If you are willing, I would like to work with staff on identifying issues we can report on earlier. Ones you need information on sooner, and on which ones we can take more time and perhaps be prepared to discuss at next spring's hearings. Senator DECONCINI. We would welcome that. But I think you raise a very interesting point. I know that you visited Europe and Japan. How does our system compare? Can you tell me of your observations without any close analysis? What is your first impression? MS. HECKER. I did not go to Europe. Some of my staff did. I did go to Japan. While we have some preliminary information, we are not ready to compare the U.S. patent system to the other two systems or draw conclusionary observations on them. The Japanese started the same time we did. Their system is very impressive. It is fully operational. It is an image-based key word system available to all examiners. They have widespread public dissemination already in place. They have spent well over $1 billion on their system. It is a very comprehensive system and they 71-185-93 - 4 are already on an upgrade and modernization of the system right now. The Europeans have moved in a more conservative way. They are exploring an important variation, something called mixed mode which has a system that has both image and text but stored in a more efficient way so that it makes more efficient use of the equipment. This important project is called the Bacon project. So there are some important initiatives underway in other countries. Major progress has certainly been made in Japan. It is important to note that neither the European nor Japanese systems eliminate paper. Neither office set out to eliminate paper and believe the paper files have to be maintained, There is very impressive progress in terms of a recent memorandum of understanding which I know your staff is aware. There are very, very important moves toward harmonization, and definitions of standards internationally. These are important areas that you have asked us to follow, and we certainly will do that. Senator DECONCINI. The fact that you have come forth with these inconsistencies you were here when Mr. Comer testified about these dates that he gave us, right? Ms. HECKER. Yes. Senator DECONCINI. Did you have that information before today? MS. HECKER. No, we did not. Senator DECONCINI. That is new to you? MS. HECKER. That is new. Senator DECONCINI. Had you talked to him? MS. HECKER. I have met with Mr. Comer. It would be good news for the public if the patent application management system in fact could be done by 1997 within the current budget. We haven't seen any supporting documentation showing how that can be financed with all the other planned activities. Senator DECONCINI. Well, I certainly don't want to discourage him from being able to fulfill those observations and statements he has made, particularly the fact that failure of full funding as requested on the time schedule has turned out to save them money. That's very interesting. I would welcome a confirmation of that as you proceed through this. Maybe procrastination has some real benefits. We're pretty good about that up here when it comes to spending money. I would like to see if those figures are correct, where he said they are going to be able to buy the workstation for $4,000 or $5,000 versus $45,000 when they bought the first one. That is a substantial savings, which leads me to probably an unfounded conclusion that maybe the first buys were not very competitive and not very well thought through. I can't believe technology would bring down the cost that much in that 9-year period. MS. HECKER. We certainly will look at that, but there have been dramatic improvements in the technology. Perhaps Dr. Stillman could address that point. I think there have been improvements of that order of magnitude that might justify it. The original system was unique. Now PTO is saying that it can get off-the-shelf equipment that is far more powerful and more capable of meeting their needs. |