Posts

Posted on

US PCT filers get yet another option for International Searching Authority

Until now a US filer of a PCT application had the ability to choose from any of a list of seven International Searching Authorities — ISA/US (the USPTO’s contractors), ISA/EP (the European Patent Office), ISA/KR (the Korean patent office), ISA/AU (the Australian patent office), ISA/RU (the Russian patent office), ISA/IL (the Israeli patent office), and ISA/JP (the Japanese Patent Office).  Starting a week from now, on April 1, 2016, US filers will be able to choose from a longer list of eight International Searching Authorities.

Continue reading “US PCT filers get yet another option for International Searching Authority”

Posted on

Trap for the unwary — a new patent Filing Receipt after a Notice of Allowance

Patent applicants and practitioners need to be extremely vigilant for the possibility that the USPTO might mail out a new patent Filing Receipt after a Notice of Allowance.  Failure to pay close attention to such a new Filing Receipt, and failure to take prompt action when called for, could lead to a granted patent with different information on the front page than was intended.

Continue reading “Trap for the unwary — a new patent Filing Receipt after a Notice of Allowance”

Posted on

Meet the Bloggers XII

Will you be in Orlando at the time of the 2016 INTA annual meeting?  If so, you might want to attend the twelfth annual Meet the Bloggers.  This is your opportunity meet the writers of some of the most widely read intellectual property and trademark related blogs.  To find out more, go to https://www.meet-the-bloggers.com/.

Posted on

USPTO continues to fail to provide up-to-date web security

It’s been many years since I first tried to nudge the USPTO in the direction of providing up-to-date web security for its customers.  Up-to-date web security includes at least three measures:

  • HTTPS connections for all e-commerce web sites
  • PFS (perfect forward secrecy) for all HTTPS web sites
  • DNSSEC (Domain Name System security) for all domain names

I’m not the only one trying to nudge the USPTO in the right direction.  No less an authority than the White House has also tried to nudge the USPTO in this direction, by means of presidential executive order:

  • In 2008, the White House directed all US government agencies (including the USPTO) to implement DNSSEC on all of their domain names (memorandum M-08-233).
  • In 2015, the White House directed all US government agencies (including the USPTO) to implement HTTPS on all of their web sites (memorandum M-15-13).

A White House CIO web page explains to US government agencies how to implement HTTPS on their web sites.  The web page says:

Federal websites that do not convert to HTTPS will not keep pace with privacy and security practices used by commercial organizations, and with current and upcoming Internet standards. This leaves Americans vulnerable to known threats, and may reduce their confidence in their government.

In August of 2014 I urged the USPTO to implement HTTPS on its servers (“USPTO needs to implement SSL and PFS on all servers“).  I pointed out that TESS, TEAS, EPAS, ETAS, AOTW, PATFT, and TSDR all lacked HTTPS and PFS.  I pointed out that EPO and WIPO have PFS on their servers that have HTTPS.

What progress has USPTO made since August of 2014 when I nudged the USPTO?  What progress has USPTO made since June of 2015 when the President nudged the USPTO? Continue reading “USPTO continues to fail to provide up-to-date web security”

Posted on

Radio controlled wristwatches

I was reminded today of one of the benefits of a radio controlled wristwatch.

radio-watchA radio controlled wristwatch contains a sensitive AM radio receiver that picks up radio transmissions from a government time standard such as WWVB.  WWVB transmits digitally coded time signals on 60 kHz.  A watch or clock equipped to receive the WWVB signal can synchronize itself to the government time standard and thus can be consistently quite accurate.

Such a wristwatch is designed to check the WWVB signal in the middle of the night, because night-time conditions in the ionosphere permit such signals to propagate much further than during the day.

There are similar government time standard radio stations in China, Japan, Great Britain, and Germany.  The watch in the photograph picks up the Chinese and German signals as well as the US signal.

Which brings us to the fun thing about radio controlled watches.  A radio controlled watch automatically corrects for daylight saving time changes.  At 2:00 AM this morning, this watch automatically “sprang forward”.  There was no need to manually adjust this wristwatch for daylight saving time.

 

Posted on

Paying attention to Daylight Saving Time and RO/IB for the next two weeks

Most PCT filers know that there are always a minimum of two Receiving Offices (and sometimes more than two) available to any PCT applicant that is entitled to use the Patent Cooperation Treaty.  For example for a US-based PCT applicant, the ROs available are (at a minimum) at least RO/US and RO/IB.  And most PCT filers also know that there can sometimes be very good reasons to use RO/IB rather than RO/US.  Indeed there are some fact situations where it is tantamount to malpractice to fail to use RO/IB rather than RO/US.

Given all of this, it is very important to keep in mind that for the next two weeks, the drop-dead time of day for filing in the RO/IB will be different than it is for most of the year.

Normally the drop-dead time of day for filing in the RO/IB is 4:00 PM (for filers in the Mountain Time Zone).  That is, the time in Switzerland is eight hours different from the time in Denver.

But for the next two weeks, the drop-dead time of day for filing in the RO/IB will be 5:00 PM (for filers in the Mountain Time Zone).  Said differently, for the next two weeks you could file in the RO/IB an hour later than usual and still receive a same-day filing date.

Posted on

How long a trademark Request to Divide takes?

If you are an active trademark practitioner before the USPTO, the E-Trademarks listserv is a good place to hang out.  Here is a question that a listserv member posted to the discussion group:

Does anybody have an idea of how long it takes to process a request to divide?  That last one I filed took about 2 days, but that was some time ago.  I am currently waiting on one I filed over three weeks ago.  Does anybody know the standard timeline these days?
How long do you suppose it takes for the Trademark Office to act upon a Request to Divide?

Continue reading “How long a trademark Request to Divide takes?”