You can see comments which people have submitted to USPTO’s proposed penalty for non-DOCX filings.
Unfortunately the way the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is written, it mixes together many different issues. So it’s not easy to pick out the comments that particularly address the proposed penalty for non-DOCX filings.
Here are some comments that address this issue:
Okay, loyal readers, who among us knows the name of this fitting? I first encountered these fittings a very long time ago, when I was about ten or eleven years old. If you know what this kind of fitting is called, please post a comment below.
Nadine, there’s plenty of patent attorneys. We just got to keep on looking till we find one that understands drape runners.
The National Institute of Industrial Property of Argentina (“INPI-AR”) will soon join the DAS system. Continue reading “Argentina’s patent office will soon join DAS”
USPTO’s form PTO/AIA/01/DE (version of June 2012) uses a wrong word as quoted at right, and needs to be corrected.
The English word of interest here “application” which the form incorrectly translates as “Bewerbung”. That German word only makes sense as for example a job application, not a patent application. The correct German word in the context of a patent application is “Anmeldung”.
One of the fundamental requirements in the design of an important system like USPTO’s system for e-filing patent applications is that the system should not force the customer to purchase any particular proprietary software as a precondition of use of the system.
USPTO’s initiative to try to force customers to file patent applications in DOCX format is an example of a failure to satisfy that requirement. Continue reading “USPTO fails to support DOCX from non-Microsoft word processors”
I still vividly recall the first time a hotel annoyed me by charging a package fee. It was a Hyatt hotel in downtown Chicago; I was attending a professional meeting about twenty years ago. I had arranged for some courier package to be sent to me, and I had to pay a $15 ransom to get the package. Continue reading “Amazon lockers in hotels”
How may one monitor the status of a list of US patent applications? Clearly one way to do this is to set up a routine and to carry out manual steps of logging into PAIR daily to check the status. This is tedious and error-prone. What about USPTO’s Patent Docket widget in its MyUSPTO system? Is this a reliable way to monitor the status of a list of US patent applications? Continue reading “Monitoring status of US patent applications”
(Update: it is time for you, dear reader to consider signing another letter. See blog posting.)
Until now, it has been optional for a practitioner to file a US patent application in DOCX format rather than in PDF format. But USPTO now proposes to charge a $400 penalty for filing a patent application in non-DOCX format. This is a very bad idea, for reasons that I will discuss in detail. Only if USPTO were to make fundamental changes in its way of receiving DOCX files would it be acceptable for USPTO to impose a penalty for filing in a non-DOCX format.
USPTO needs to follow WIPO’s example, permitting the practitioner to file a “pre-conversion format” version of a patent application along with the DOCX file. In the event of some later problem with USPTO’s rendering of the DOCX file, the practitioner would be permitted to point to the pre-conversion format, which would control in the event of any discrepancy.
Continue reading “The problem with USPTO’s proposed non-DOCX penalty”
A reader of this blog wrote to me to ask “is a US patent applicant required to file an IDS even if the inventor is not aware of any relevant prior art?” The question inspired the blog article that follows. Continue reading “Is a US patent applicant required to file an IDS?”
