Pick a trouble ticket

This page is mostly for members of the Patentcenter listserv.  You should of course join the Patentcenter listserv if you have not done so already.  The goal of this page is to make it easy for people to pick trouble tickets and contribute to the communications with the USPTO about Patentcenter.  Here is the background.

Right now there are 289 members of the Patentcenter listserv.  Seventy-four members signed a letter Dated December 16, 2021 to Drew Hirshfeld, the Acting Director of the USPTO, as you may see here:  https://blog.oppedahl.com/?p=7307 .  The letter presented six “asks”:

  • Direct your Patentcenter developers to identify one or two people from their developer team to subscribe to the Patentcenter listserv to follow the postings. This might sometimes permit those people to pass things along from the listserv to appropriate colleagues on the Patentcenter developer team.
  • Direct your developers to formally adopt the Patentcenter listserv trouble ticket page as a “to do” list for trouble ticket action by the developers
  • Direct your developers to formally adopt the Patentcenter listserv feature request page as a place for the developers to receive feature requests for Patentcenter.
  • Direct your developers to report back to the people of the Patentcenter listserv each time the developers clear a trouble ticket, referencing the listserv trouble ticket number in the report.
  • Direct your developers to report back to the people of the Patentcenter listserv each time the developers implement a feature request, referencing the listserv feature request number in the report.
  • Direct your developers to cooperate with the people of the Patentcenter listserv by means of some periodic two-way communications by which the progress with trouble tickets and feature requests may be reviewed.

A few days ago, apparently prompted by the letter to Drew Hirshfeld, I received an email from one of the USPTO people in charge of the development of Patentcenter.  Of course what I would have hoped is that maybe this person would be calling to say that we will get our six “asks”.  That is not what happened during the telephone call.

What did happen is that after some discussion this person agreed to have his people get back to us with USPTO’s view as to its “clearance status” for a selected fraction of the trouble tickets.  By this I mean that his people will provide a table with rows and columns, with a row for each of a selected fraction of the tickets.  The trouble ticket page presently has 72 tickets number CP1 through CP72.  I had hoped to get the USPTO people to agree to provide such a table for all 72 tickets, but we did not get that.  Bargaining against myself, I then asked if they would provide such a table for all of the tickets for which the ticket number was a multiple of 3.  We did not reach agreement on this.  Bargaining further against myself, I then asked if they would provide such a table for all of the tickets for which the ticket number was a multiple of 4.  This they agreed to.  We will thus hear back, I imagine within a week or two, as to the USPTO’s assessment of the status of 18 of the 72 trouble tickets for Patentcenter.  I am sure you will agree with me that this is a very encouraging sign and a reason for guarded optimism as to possible further dialogue about the remaining 54 trouble tickets.

Another development is an agreement on a trial basis to have some small-group get-togethers between selected members of the listserv and selected people from the USPTO who are connected with the Patentcenter developer process.  These would be on a weekly basis.  The get-togethers would be set up so that there could be shared desktop activity.  A chief goal would be to provide opportunities for a listserv member to click and demonstrate or illustrate a particular trouble ticket.  A typical goal of this would be to assist the USPTO people for the tickets where the status is that the USPTO had not been able to reproduce the problem.  The hope would be that when the listserv person reproduces the problem and the USPTO people see it happening on the screen, this would help the USPTO better appreciate the problem being reported.  This might also permit the listserv people to explain verbally how the problem affects users or what might be done to fix the problem.  Maybe in some cases the USPTO people would be able to offer comments in response.

If you look at what I just wrote in the previous paragraph, what will jump out at you is that there is an extremely urgent need.  We need to figure out which particular tickets are the best candidates for discussion in these upcoming small-group get-togethers.  Tickets might fall into several categories.

Tickets that are already fixed.  If a particular bug has actually been fixed, and has been fixed correctly, then barring some surprise it seems to me that the ticket would not be a good candidate for discussion in the get-togethers.  But we want to be thoughtful about this.  It is possible to imagine that as for some particular ticket, the USPTO people might in all good faith think they had fixed the problem but it might actually be that with some particular inputs or application status, the problem still comes up.

Tickets where USPTO people say they are unable to reproduce the problem.  This strikes me as an area where the get-togethers could be very very helpful.  If a listserv member were able to pick out one or two sets of inputs that reliably demonstrate what goes wrong with some trouble ticket item, and if this can be shown on a shared desktop with the USPTO developers, just imagine how this could make a big difference for all of the people involved.

Tickets where the need is particularly urgent.  Some of the Patentcenter bugs strike me as particularly urgent.  I can think of several ways that we might think of a particular bug as being urgent. 

A bug that presents a big risk of loss of substantive rights, or a trap for the unwary.  There are some bugs that I think many of us would feel are urgent simply because the longer they go without being fixed, the more times some applicant will have gotten “burned” by a loss of rights or the need to spend money to fix a problem that should never have arisen.  I think of the bugs that have caused me to either lose a filing date or that have caused me to come very close to losing a filing date.  I think of the bugs where a perfectly good document like a scanned oath or declaration or a perfectly good scanned IDS got turned into a blank sheet of paper.

A bug where the developers really ought to have fixed it years ago.  I am thinking of the “last 40 ack receipts”.  Probably there are others in this category. 

Tickets where the fix is needed because supposedly the USPTO people are replicating functions of PAIR and EFS-Web.  Even now after four years since Patentcenter got launched, with the stated goal that all of the functions of PAIR and EFS-Web would be provided in Patentcenter, there are gaping voids, large and small.  For the longest time it was simply impossible to e-file any SFD (subsequently filed document, or follow-on submission) in any 35-series design patent application.  Finally they fixed that, sort of.  But even now, many seemingly ordinary recurring tasks that you can do in a 29-series design application, such as paying an Issue Fee, are not possible in a 35-series design application.  (Well, there is a workaround, but there is no good reason why a workaround should be needed.)  Right now if you decide you want to look at recent outgoing correspondence, it works in PAIR but broadly speaking it does not work in Patentcenter.  Right now if you want to “search by attorney docket number”, this is easy to do from a starting screen in PAIR, but if you want to try to do it in Patentcenter it is buried in layers of clicking. 

Back to “we need your help”.

So what we really need right now is to get a second pair of eyes, and a third pair of eyes, and fourth and fifth, on the trouble ticket list.  One reason this is needed is that if indeed the USPTO has fixed some particular bug, we might as well give them credit for it.  Shame on them if they never bothered to get back to us to tell us they think they fixed it, but that is a separate matter.  The fact is, if they have indeed fixed it, we might as well give them credit for it, and we need to know it is fixed so that we do not accidentally waste the precious and limited small-group meeting time talking about that instead of some ticket that needs fixing.

So each and every one of you practitioners and paralegals who belong to the Patentcenter listserv … please help.  Here is what you can do:

Please click “Generate” to pick a trouble ticket number.

Then please go to this page to see which ticket has that number.  Then please decide what you think about that trouble ticket.  Then please click here to report your findings.  Then please come back here to pick another trouble ticket.

If you are not a member of the Patentcenter listserv, please join now.  And then please join in this effort to evaluate the trouble tickets, so that we can make best use of this valuable opportunity for direct communication with some of the USPTO people responsible for Patentcenter.

Thank you.

Upcoming ePCT webinars (not the same as upcoming PCT webinars)

Update:  the webinars are now imminent.  See a followup article.

Hello dear ePCT enthusiasts!  Here are fifteen upcoming webinars that I will be presenting in the next few months on ePCT topics.  Note that this is not the same as the upcoming fifteen webinars about PCT.  This is fifteen upcoming webinars about ePCT.  Note the “e”. Continue reading “Upcoming ePCT webinars (not the same as upcoming PCT webinars)”

Results: the 2021 US Tote Boards

Here are the results for the 2021 US Tote Boards.

The firm ranked first in filing of granted US plant patents in 2021 is Randall | Danskin.  The runner-up is Koenig IP Works, PLLC.  This is the third annual US Plant Patent Tote Board.

The firm ranked first in filing of granted US design patents in 2021 is Banner Witcoff.  The runner-up is Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP.  This is the tenth annual US Design Patent Toteboard.

The firm ranked first in filing of granted US utility patents in 2021 is Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P.  The runner-up is Sughrue Mion PLLC.  This is the seventh annual US Utility Patent Toteboard.

The firm ranked first in filing of granted US trademark registrations in 2021 is Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.  The runner-up is Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C.   This is the seventh annual US Trademark Registration Toteboard.

Welcome developments with DAS – Denmark (correction)

Several alert readers have pointed out to me a typographical error in yesterday’s blog article Welcome developments with DAS – Denmark.  I incorrectly indicated that DPTO’s effective date for becoming an Accessing Office and a Depositing Office for utility models was September 17, 2021.  The correct date was November 30, 2021.  The first kind reader to spot this error and to report it to me was Debra Collier, located in Switzerland.  Prompted by her I have corrected the blog article.  Thank you to Ms. Collier!  

Learn about 92bis changes

Sign up to attend a webinar on February 10, 2022, at 3 p.m. (Central European Time) about Best practices for recording of changes (Rule 92bis).

The speakers will be:

  • Matthias Reischle-Park, Deputy Director, PCT Legal and User Relations Division
  • Mineko Mohri, Legal Officer, PCT Legal and User Support Section, PCT Legal and User Relations Division

To register, click here.

Welcome developments with DAS – Denmark

(Corrected on February 3, 2022 to show that the effective date is November 30, 2021, not September 17, 2021.)

This is a busy time for good news about DAS.  One piece of good news about DAS is that the Danish Patent and Trademark Office (DPTO) became an Accessing Office and a Depositing Office in DAS for utility model applications on November 30, 2021.

DPTO was already a Depositing Office for national patent applications and RO/DK was already a Depositing Office for PCT applications.  And DPTO was already an Accessing Office for national patent applications.  The big news here is that DPTO recently became both an Accessing Office and a Depositing Office for utility model applications.

This offers a reminder for those readers who are perhaps not as familiar with utility models as with other forms of intellectual property protection.  It reminds us that Denmark offers utility model protection.  WIPO has a very helpful web page that discusses utility models and lists the seventy-six Offices where utility model protection is available.

  1. Albania
  2. Antigua and Barbuda
  3. Argentina
  4. Armenia
  5. Australia
  6. Austria
  7. Belarus
  8. Belize
  9. Botswana
  10. Brazil
  11. Bulgaria
  12. Chile
  13. China
  14. Costa Rica
  15. Croatia
  16. Czech Republic
  17. Denmark
  18. Dominica
  19. Dominican Republic
  20. Egypt
  21. El Salvador
  22. Estonia
  23. Ethiopia
  24. Finland
  25. France
  26. Georgia
  27. Germany
  28. Ghana
  29. Greece
  30. Guatemala
  31. Honduras
  32. Hungary
  33. Indonesia
  34. Ireland
  35. Italy
  36. Japan
  37. Kazakhstan
  38. Kenya
  39. Kyrgyzstan
  40. Lao People’s Democratic Republic
  41. Malaysia
  42. Mexico
  43. Mongolia
  44. Mozambique
  45. Oman
  46. Namibia
  47. Nicaragua
  48. Panama
  49. Paraguay
  50. Peru
  51. Philippines
  52. Poland
  53. Portugal
  54. Republic of Korea
  55. Republic of Moldova
  56. Romania
  57. Russian Federation
  58. Serbia
  59. Slovakia
  60. Slovenia
  61. Spain
  62. Swaziland
  63. Tanzania
  64. Thailand
  65. Tonga
  66. Trinidad and Tobago
  67. Turkey
  68. Uganda
  69. Ukraine
  70. United Arab Emirates
  71. Uruguay
  72. Uzbekistan
  73. Viet Nam
  74. ARIPO
  75. OAPI
  76. Andean Community

Welcome developments with DAS – Canada

Canadian flagThis is a busy time for good news about DAS.  One piece of good news about DAS is that the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) became a Depositing Office in DAS for patent applications on February 1, 2022. 

CIPO was already a Depositing Office for national industrial design applications.  There are actually two distinct pieces of good news about this development on February 1, 2022:

  • CIPO became a Depositing Office for national patent applications
  • RO/CA became a Depositing Office for PCT patent applications.