Results of AUTM 2016 Survey
Rate the importance of the following items in defining a quality disclosure. Please rank them 1 to 5 – with 1 being not important and 5 being very important.
A well-written idea description
1 5%
2 0%
3 0%
4 36%
5 59%
Drawings and diagrams that are explained by the idea description
1 0%
2 0%
3 45%
4 32%
5 23%
Evidence demonstrating SOME investigation of the current state of the art
1 5%
2 5%
3 36%
4 50%
5 4%
A list of the best keywords to use for starting formal search efforts
1 9%
2 9%
3 41%
4 27%
5 14%
Clearly identifying the source(s) of funding
1 5%
2 14%
3 9%
4 27%
5 45%
If a more well-written idea description would be important in a quality disclosure, please select the top three (3) items from the list below that would improve that quality.
A description that identifies the intended use of the invention
59%
A description that clearly identifies the uniqueness of the idea
91%
A description that identifies similar ideas (further clarifying its uniqueness)
41%
A description that shows some alternative uses for the invention
27%
A description that incorporates well-validated keywords
9%
A description with the basic components of the mechanism and/or steps and sequence of operations
73%
Once the disclosure is received, what steps consume the MOST TIME for your TTO staff? Please select the top three (3) items from the list below that consume the most time.
Rewriting the idea description to clearly identify the invention
55%
Coordinating time with the researcher to get more research details
73%
Logging search activity (keywords, databases and documents searched)
36%
Identifying and validating the best keywords to do a more formal prior art search
9%
Time to build Boolean keyword query strings for multiple search databases
9%
Validating the uniqueness of the submitted idea
91%
Identifying and producing reference documents for the Patent Information Disclosure
Statement (IDS)
18%
Which of the following items are you doing NOW to help generate more disclosures? Please select ALL that apply.
Ongoing education between university inventors and your TTO
86%
Regular follow-up by your TTO representatives with their inventors
95%
Encouraging your university to value disclosure activity in the process of granting tenure
32%
Using an electronic disclosure submission system
41%
Typical response time of less than 3 days to acknowledge receipt of disclosure and offer estimated time for preliminary feedback
55%
Typical response time of less than 30 days to give inventor preliminary feedback
77%
Regular proactive meetings of TTO staff with key departments to review all active research projects to uncover inventions
45%
Which of the following items are you doing NOW to help generate more campus-wide exposure of the TTO? Please select ALL that apply.
Distributing in some format your university’s TTO success stories
55%
Co-sponsoring patent research education with the Research Library
14%
Sponsoring regular “invention-oriented” meetings with core research departments
82%
Providing an inventor-targeted research platform for your campus inventor community
32%
Integrating more invention-related courses and projects into the curriculum
27%
Introducing the TTO department as part of the New Student Packet
22%
Placing TTO information basics on relevant department bulletin boards
27%
Sponsoring invention idea contests for the student body
45%
Share:
