If you have stopped receiving listserv postings

(Update:  See a followup message here about a step that you might take to try to get the listservs working for you again.)

(Here is an update.)

(See also “I turned on munging“.)

Oppedahl Patent Law Firm LLC sponsors a dozen listservs (email discussion communities) free of charge for the intellectual property community.   If you are a subscriber to one or more of the listservs, and if you have stopped receiving the postings, read on.

You can see many of the listservs here.  The email discussion communities sponsored free of charge by OPLF include:

On about November 17, we migrated the listservs from “shared hosting” at our hosting provider to “dedicated hosting”.   In the old system, our outbound listserv traffic was commingled with that of the many other customers of our hosting provider who were also being hosted on the particular server that was our “shared server”.  (In case it is of interest to you, our traffic came out from IP address 198.54.114.161.)  But starting on about November 17, our outbound listserv traffic came out all by itself, not commingled with anybody else’s traffic, from our dedicated server.  (In case it is of interest, our traffic now comes out from IP address 162.213.248.195.)

The volume of our outbound email traffic is no greater than before, and the nature and type of our traffic is unchanged from what it was before.  But instead of being commingled with outbound email traffic from other entities unrelated to OPLF, it now comes out from an IP address that is not the source of email from anybody other than OPLF.

And starting on about November 18, several email service providers, among them Google, have been randomly blocking lots of our email traffic. 

As best I can see, the service providers use some poorly designed AI algorithm.  The algorithm notices that email traffic is arriving from a new IP address, and the algorithm notices that multiple email messages from this new IP address have identical content, and then the algorithm in a very mindless way decides to block random messages that arrives from that IP address.  

If the decision whether or not to block randomly selected emails were made by an actual human being, things would be different.  The human being would see the multiple identical email messages being a very dry discussion of some obscure aspect of the Patent Cooperation Treaty or the Madrid Protocol or the Hague Agreement and would realize that this is not a sales pitch for a cream for dissolving skin moles or a proposal of a way to spirit ten million dollars out of a bank in Nigeria.  The human being would notice that each of the listserv messages has an “unsubscribe” link and is emitted from a “Mailman” software system that ensures that email postings only get sent to people who have actually subscribed to the listserv.

But it is clear that these decisions, at Google and at other email service providers, are being made by poorly designed algorithms that do not exercise any such judgment.  

I have attempted to contact several of the poorly behaved email service providers, including Google, but I have not been able to reach an actual human being at any of them.  And I have not gotten any of them to pay any attention to this problem.

As far as I can see, the only chance of straightening this out is for you, the paying customer of the email service provider, to instruct your email service provider to be smarter.  As I describe here, this might be a matter of whitelisting emails that are “From:” particular email addresses in our listserv system.  Or it might be a matter of whitelisting emails where the “envelope sender” is “server1.oppedahl-lists.com”.  Or it might be a matter of whitelisting emails where the sender is IP address 162.213.248.195.  It might be as simple as instructing them to read this blog article.  

Your email service provider probably won’t do this because I ask.  Probably if they do the right thing it will only be because you ask it to do so.

If you do contact your email service provider and give them instructions, please post a comment below for the benefit of other readers and listserv members.  Indeed the accumulated comments might help a decisionmaker at a company like Google to better appreciate what is the right thing to do about this.

November 28 is a holiday at the USPTO

Thursday, November 28, 2019 will be a federal holiday in the District of Columbia.  This means the USPTO will be closed.  This means that any action that would be due at the USPTO on November 28 will be timely if it is done by Friday, November 29, 2019.

When EUIPO will join DAS for designs

Well, folks, as I blogged here, the Offices that constitute the ID5 have one by one slowly made plans to become Depositing Offices and Accessing Offices in the DAS system.  And for some time now, the sole remaining ID5 Office that had not made any public statement about plans to join the DAS system was EUIPO.  The EUIPO has an Information Centre and every few months I make an inquiry to the Information Centre about this.  In February of 2019, this was EUIPO’s official answer:

Your question is being taken into consideration by the EUIPO. We’ll contact you as soon as we have a definitive answer.

Not having heard back, last week I made inquiry again at the the Information Centre.  And now I have received EUIPO’s official answer as to when it will join the DAS system for designs.  

Continue reading “When EUIPO will join DAS for designs”

How to get a decent PDF of a US design patent that is in color or grayscale

As US patent practitioners know very well, the chief database used by USPTO personnel to carry out most patent prosecution (including design patent prosecution) is called IFW (image file wrapper).  Some nameless person at the USPTO made a decision back when IFW was being designed a decade ago, to make this a database in which no color or grayscale drawing would be displayed clearly.  Instead any color or grayscale drawing will get blurred, often to the point of unrecognizability.

Which then raises the question, how may a member of the public obtain a PDF copy of an issued US design patent that shows the actual color or grayscale drawings instead of the blurred non-color drawings of IFW? Continue reading “How to get a decent PDF of a US design patent that is in color or grayscale”

Followup on “why the check box doesn’t work”

click to enlarge

Last week I posted a blog article in which I explained that I had figured out why the check box doesn’t work.  What USPTO says is that if you check the box, then for the next 24 hours you won’t have to do the two-step authentication.  What really happens is that this almost never works.  My explanation, as detailed in that blog article, is that there is a sneeze sensor in the software and if you have the bad luck to sneeze before your next login, this negates the effect of checking the box.

What is very sad about this situation with this poorly designed USPTO software is that judging from the reader comments and from other comments that I received privately, my explanation, which was intended to be humorous, was apparently no less plausible than whatever the (unknown to anyone outside of the USPTO) true explanation is.  Many people were taken in.

Yes that previous blog article was meant like a sort of April Fool’s Day article.

I dug around in my cookies and I found what I am confident is the cookie that supposedly protects the user from having to do two-factor authentication for 24 hours.  Here is an example of such a cookie:

Name: TwoFactorToken
Content:
LhRlmjFejO7oXhVAsL0ALTLakL0uoSU6EfdQF4vUl+VK+++CkALV+TY8/QuRgPUKmcphLj2KU1xKk+qPK6uvJXGVRLyRmF8UmY0CzjKGR7VJeamcI484moLcci/pqI41RVk4fdCJ5BjomIgoidqUP1n7n3XOd7/zhMXPlS1V0kzagVru9JSHfdSZVwUQDf6jDX4oEbDHDSCiaqACeUyxsGEwnY4Kjvv0egb6Wf7Rdq1uGGE8l4co+5EYlaPLBCt18L3ieisrgwMkRLo5pgJu8HQ3XTB+3+VSKU5F0iaYXsrkn5emalQXzqAVr2Ql+YWwyf3s5jaIac1rXngcFxcMXTm0sfsPHUOPKHPTUmbI0=
Domain: .uspto.gov
Path: /
Send for: Secure connections only
Accessible to script: Yes
Created: Monday, November 4, 2019 at 11:06:24 AM
Expires: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 at 11:06:24 AM

The cookie is called “TwoFactorToken”.  It expires 24 hours after being set.  Any second-level domain within “.uspto.gov” is able to retrieve the cookie.   Clearly USPTO encrypts the “content” field.  I consider it very likely that the way it works is this.

At the time the user checks the box, the USPTO script interrogates the user’s web browser asking for every possible piece of information that it can extract from the browser. It turns out that any web site can ask your browser for quite a few things:

  • your operating system
  • your browser
  • what browser plugins you have installed
  • your display resolution
  • your battery level of charge
  • whether it is charging or not right now
  • your public IP address

The USPTO script might collect all of these things, combine it with the MyUSPTO user ID, generate a nonce, and assemble this into a data bundle.  The USPTO script would then encrypt the bundle, or extract a hash of the bundle, or encrypt a hash of the bundle, something like that.  And the result is put it into the cookie such as the one quoted above.  

Then of course you get a forced logout after 30 minutes.  So now it is time to log in again.  The USPTO system asks for your user ID and password, and then the USPTO system has to decide whether or not it will force you to go through the two-factor authentication again. So it looks for the TwoFactorToken cookie. If there is no such cookie, then you have to do the two-factor authentication.  If there is such a cookie, but it has expired, then you have to do the two-factor authentication.  If there is such a cookie and it has not yet expired, then the USPTO system asks your browser for all of these things:

  • your operating system
  • your browser and browser version
  • what browser plugins you have installed
  • your display resolution
  • your battery level of charge
  • whether it is charging or not right now
  • your public IP address

The USPTO system also looks to see what your user ID is that you are using to log in, and looks up the nonce that it stored in its local database relating to your user ID.  The USPTO then  then compares the answer that your web browser gave an hour ago with the answer that your web browser is giving right now.

Common sense tells you that many of these things are very unlikely to have changed during the past hour.  Your operating system has probably not been upgraded during that time.  Probably you have not updated your browser during that time.  Maybe your list of installed plugins has not changed.

But your public IP address might well have changed.  This might be because you logged into or out of a VPN.  Or you physically moved from a Starbucks to your office.  Maybe just moving from one location in your office to another location in your office could lead to your having a different public IP address.  Moving from the secure network in your office to a guest network might well lead to a different public IP address.

And common sense tells you, the state of charge of your notebook computer battery is very likely to have changed during that hour.  You may have plugged in your charger, or you may have unplugged your charger.

Also consider that you might have changed your screen resolution during that hour.  By this we mean the screen resolution for the active window in your browser where the USPTO login was taking place.  You might have resized a browser window for example.

Worse yet, suppose the USPTO local database containing your nonce is flaky.  Suppose it often fails to respond promptly to a query from the login authentication software?  Suppose it sometimes forgets the nonce?

Depending on how poorly the USPTO selected what to load into the cookie, any change to any of the things just mentioned could conceivably make the poorly designed USPTO software decide that you need to log in the hard way again.  Maybe your battery ran down a bit during the past hour.  Maybe you resized a browser window.  Maybe you moved from your office to a Starbucks.  

Or depending on how poorly the USPTO designed the local database that stores the nonces, maybe that by itself would explain why the checkbox often fails to work.

November 11 is a holiday at the USPTO

Monday, November 11, 2019 will be a federal holiday in the District of Columbia.  This means the USPTO will be closed.  This means that any action that would be due at the USPTO on November 11 will be timely if it is done by Tuesday, November 12, 2019.

e-filing at WIPO — back to normal

For the past week the situation for e-filing at WIPO, for most people in the US, has been that the local time to e-file so as to get a same-day filing date in Switzerland has been different from usual.  (The reason for this is that a week ago, people in Switzerland turned their clocks back.) But as of today, people in the US have turned their clocks back.  So things are back to normal.

For example if you are in the Mountain time zone, once again as of today you will be counting toward 4PM local time to get a same-day filing date in Switzerland.  (For the past week the answer was 5PM.)

Update: Status of ID5 Offices in DAS

Let’s remind ourselves how the five biggest Offices for industrial design protection (called “ID5”) are coming along in terms of participation in the DAS system.  It is recalled that the DAS system permits the exchange and retrieval of electronic certified copies of priority documents.  So which Offices are trendy, modern, and up-to-date?  Which of the ID5 Offices have not yet joined DAS for designs?  Continue reading “Update: Status of ID5 Offices in DAS”