Upcoming educational programs

Hello readers.  I am getting back into the routine of presenting educational webinars.  Here is the next one, with more on the way.

  • November 8, 2021.  Legal ethics: Securing email and messaging.  In this webinar, learn what steps can be easily taken to greatly improve security of email communications.  Find out how some VOIP phone lines are vastly more secure than others and are much more secure than ordinary landline telephones or ordinary mobile phones.  Learn which messaging services are much more secure than others.

Other upcoming topics include:

  • Docketing PCT
  • Picking a PCT Searching Authority
  • Picking a PCT Receiving Office
  • Making smart use of PCT Declarations
  • National phase or bypass continuation?

What other topics would readers like to see in upcoming webinars?  Post a comment below.

ST.26 “Big Bang” is officially postponed until July 1, 2022

There are many among us whose daily work includes the e-filing of sequence listings.  By this we mean computer-readable listings of nucleotides and amino acids that form part of a patent application.  The people who do this kind of work all made a mark on their calendars more than a year ago for January 1, 2022 for the Big Bang.  Many of the people who do this kind of work belong to the ST.26 listserv (see blog article), which is an email discussion group for people who work with sequence listings when they e-file patent applications.  (If you work with sequence listings, and if you have not yet joined the ST.26 listserv, then I suggest you join the listserv.)

The Big Bang relates to the way that the filer of a patent application formats the sequence listing.  The way things are right now in 2021, if you are getting ready to file a patent application, and if you are going to need to include a sequence listing as part of the patent application, then you will be formatting it according to a standard called ST.25.  But there is a new standard for the formatting of sequence listings called ST.26.  

For more than a year, it had been planned that January 1, 2022 was the day when all of the patent offices of the world would commence requiring that a newly filed patent application be formatted according to ST.26 rather than ST.25.  The colloquial way to say this is that what was going to happen on January 1, 202 was the “Big Bang”.

The big news is that all of the patent offices of the world recently had a meeting about ST.26 and they decided to postpone the Big Bang for six months, that is, until July 1, 2022.

This is, of course, a mix of good news and bad news, right?

For those filers who have been sort of dreading having to get used to the new way of formatting a sequence listing (that is, getting used to the ST.26 standard), then in a way this is good news.  For most of us, if we think something is going to be unpleasant, then the news that the unpleasant thing is going to be delayed, it is a sort of natural reaction to count this as good news.  On the other hand, some people will say that sometimes it is better just to “rip off the band-aid”.  That if something has the potential to be unpleasant, maybe it is just as well to get it over with and to move on so that we can stop dreading the prospect of the dreaded event.

Not only that, but let’s assume for sake of discussion that there is some good reason for using ST.26 instead of ST.25.  On this assumption, maybe it means that patent examiners can do their jobs better.  Maybe it means that patent offices can do a better job of figuring out what is patentable and what is not.  Maybe it means that when a searcher is doing a search in the database of all of the sequence listings that have ever been filed in any patent application (yes, there is such a database, and you can search it for free), the searcher will be able to do more and different kinds of searches that have a chance of leading more and better search results.  Anyway, let’s assume this, that somehow ST.26 has a chance of promoting science and the useful arts better than ST.25.  

If so, then the postponing of the Big Bang by six months is a postponement of whatever those benefits are of the use of ST.26.

So yes, this postponement is arguably a mix of both good news and bad news.  

But setting aside whether you, the reader, personally think of the postponement of the Big Bang by six months as good news or bad news … I am posting this blog article to let you know, it is how things are going to be.  The Big Bang for ST.26 will not happen on January 1, 2022 as previously scheduled.  It will not happen until six months later, on July 1, 2022.

Upcoming PCT webinars – eHandshakes-Access Rights-eOwnership

WIPO has two upcoming PCT webinars.  

In this webinar you will be guided through the different steps on how to establish eHandshakes, create an access rights group, manage/share access rights and request eOwnership of already filed PCT applications.  Your presenters are Pascal Piriou and Jiao Mo.  

Tuesday 07 September : 09-10.30 am (Asia, India, Europe time zones…)

Registration link: https://wipo-int.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_lVwEVDu_TxSOwi7IUJZFXw

Wednesday 08 September: 4:30-6:00 pm (America time zones)

Registration link: https://wipo-int.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_EbCdVUgTSSOUbcaPlvmonA

 

How it is going with feature requests and enhancements for Patentcenter

In a previous blog article I reviewed USPTO’s progress with fixing known bugs in Patentcenter.  In this blog article I now review USPTO’s progress in implementing feature requests and enhancements that beta users have asked USPTO to provide in Patentcenter.

By way of comparison, patent practitioners are accustomed to the responsiveness of WIPO when users suggest improvements and enhancements to the ePCT system.  It is commonplace to see user-friendly features that get added to ePCT specifically because users have asked for them.  WIPO personnel are subscribed to all of the relevant listservs and user groups for PCT users, and frequently it will be seen that a bug will get fixed or a feature will get added specifically because a WIPO person will have responded to a question or a comment in a listserv or in a discussion group.

If you have not already done so, you should join the PCT listserv and the Patentcenter listserv.

With this background, one might hope that USPTO would from time to time respond to suggestions and feature requests from user groups by implementing requested features or enhancements in Patentcenter.  It is this hope that prompted me to carry out a review recently of the Patentcenter feature request list to see what progress USPTO has made.  This blog article summarizes my findings.  Continue reading “How it is going with feature requests and enhancements for Patentcenter”

How things are going with bug fixes in USPTO’s Patentcenter

Patentcenter is still nominally in beta test, but USPTO seems to be plowing ahead with its plans to force all applicants to e-file patent applications in Microsoft Word format (the Microsoft Word dialect of DOCX) and has long ago stopped any development or feature enhancements for EFS-Web or PAIR.  USPTO has said it will shut down EFS-Web and PAIR and users will have no choice but to use Patentcenter to do the things that have in the past been done through EFS-Web and PAIR.  So what is the progress at the USPTO with fixing the known bugs in Patentcenter

There is a Patentcenter beta tester user community, tied together by the Patentcenter listserv.  (Interested persons should join that listserv.)  A committee from the listserv met last autumn with some USPTO developers and it was hoped that this might lead to some progress with fixing some of the bugs in Patentcenter.  It was also hoped that USPTO would listen to users and implement some of the enhancements and features requested by users.  

About four months ago, it was explored that the committee might meet again with USPTO people to review the bug list and to see what progress USPTO had been made with the bug list.  Some time has passed and the meeting had not yet happened.  So to save time, I have prepared this report that summarizes my best assessment of USPTO’s progress with the bug list.  Maybe some time soon the meeting will be able to take place and there will be an opportunity for further dialog.  In the mean time, this blog article reviews USPTO’s progress in this area.  (Preview:  things look grim.) 

In a subsequent blog article I will review USPTO’s progress with the list of requested feature enhancements for Patentcenter.  (Preview:  things look grim in that area as well.)

Continue reading “How things are going with bug fixes in USPTO’s Patentcenter”

Patentcenter fails to tell you what application you are filing in

click to enlarge

One category of recurring task in any e-filing system is what might be termed a “follow-on submission” or a “subsequently filed document”.  With such a task, you somehow indicate the application number of the application in which you wish to file your document.  Clearly one of the most important user interface goals is to help the user avoid an undesired result of inadvertently filing a document in the wrong application.   EFS-Web gets this right.  WIPO’s ePCT system gets this right.  But Patentcenter fails, as may be seen from the screen shot at right.  Continue reading “Patentcenter fails to tell you what application you are filing in”

Is it important to record assignments in divisional and continuation cases?

Assume for sake of discussion that a properly worded assignment has been executed and recorded for a US patent application.  By this we mean an assignment that indeed settles ownership of of the subject matter of that patent application to the named applicant (typically a corporation or other legal entity that to which the inventors were obligated to assign the invention).  Now assume that a continuation or divisional application gets filed pursuant to 35 USC § 120 (in this discussion I do not mean to assume a continuation-in-part).  The question posed is:

Is it important, or even necessary, to record the assignment with respect to the child case?

In this blog article I will discuss factors that I can think of that might influence an applicant’s decision as to whether or not to go to the trouble of recording the assignment in the child case.  I hope you, dear reader, will consider this question, and I hope you will post a comment below with your thoughts about this.  Continue reading “Is it important to record assignments in divisional and continuation cases?”

USPTO gets it right sometimes — disclosures from parent case

Every now and then I am astonished to see the USPTO getting something right.  Here is an example of the USPTO getting something right — what it amounts to is that I filed a divisional patent application and the USPTO filed for me the IDS that I was getting ready to file.  Yes, of course normally when one files a continuation or divisional application, one faces the tedious task of preparing an IDS in the child case to disclose all of the references from the parent case.  Here, oversimplifying it slightly, I have a case where the USPTO filed that child-case IDS for me.  I won’t have to prepare and file that IDS.  You might wonder, what’s going on here?  You might wonder, why is the USPTO doing my work for me?  If you wonder these things, then read on. Continue reading “USPTO gets it right sometimes — disclosures from parent case”