Category: Patents

(It took a couple of days, but USPTO did eventually acknowledge that it broke the XML import feature.  See a followup post here.)

By way of background, for many years, since the first days of EFS-Web, it has been possible using Acrobat to import bib data from an XML file on the user’s hard drive into the Application Data Sheet (PDF) file such as Form PTO/AIA/14.  The resulting PDF file could then be uploaded into EFS-Web.

Bruce Young, who is an alert member of the EFS-Web listserv, recently reported that when USPTO released version 2.1.12 of its Application Data Sheet PDF form, USPTO broke the XML import capability of the form.  As Bruce explains:

Older versions of the ADS form, up to and including 2.2.11 (number in lower left corner of the form) allowed an .xml file to be imported into the form to populate it.  … I use this feature because my docketing system (AppColl) can create a .xml file with all of the correct information that I have entered into that system, so I don’t have a possibility of typos once the information has been correctly entered into my docketing system.

But [the new version of the PDF form] for some reason does not allow the importation of a .xml file. The menu option for Import Data is greyed out for some reason.

The unhappy consequence of this action by USPTO, breaking the import feature, is that users are forced to hand-key bib data into the PDF form.  This increases the risk of a user completing the ADS form incorrectly.

USPTO should repair this form, re-enabling the XML import feature of the form.

The Office of Patent Petitions dashboard would have us believe that the present backlog for deciding PPH petitions is 136 days.  Given that the factual requirements for such a petition are nowadays self-certified by the filer, it seems unreasonable that the filer should have to wait 136 days for the petition to be decided.  Indeed it seems to me that USPTO should make this into an ePetition (the kind of petition that is automatically processed by EFS-Web and immediately granted, if all petition requirements are met).

Some weeks ago a high-up person in the Office of Patent Petitions told me that Something Was Going To Be Done.  Resources were going to be found, I was told, so that this backlog could be reduced.  But my post today notes that one of our PPH cases had its petition filed 144 days ago and the Office of Patent Petitions has not yet gotten to that petition.  Things seem to be getting worse, not better.

The policy goals of PPH (reducing examination backlog, improving patent quality, promoting science and the useful arts) are not well served when the USPTO falls so far behind (four, five, even six months of delay) in deciding PPH petitions.

A question came up the other day in the listserv for patent practitioners (EFS-Web).  A list member asked how one should fill in the various fields in Form PTO/AIA/22 (Petition for Extension of Time).  One of the fields is “FOR” and the list member wondered whether the title should be pasted into that field.

One thing about this is that in my view (see blog), no field other than the application number actually matters or is required.  But more importantly, in my view Form PTO/AIA/22 (and its companion form PTO/SB/22) is completely unnecessary.  Here’s why.

Continue reading “No need for Extension of Time Petitions”

The First Action Interview Pilot program (FAIP) is a way to try to get a patent faster.  For some applicants it may be smart to use FAIP.  USPTO’s patent dashboard claims that the first office action allowance rate for FAIP cases is 30%, while the corresponding statistic for non-FAIP cases is 12%.  This suggests that an applicant might be smart to try FAIP.  In this blog post I will discuss some of the potential advantages and disadvantages of FAIP.   Continue reading “First Action Interview Pilot program might be a good choice for some applicants”

Back in the early days of EFS-Web and Private PAIR, I could e-file a new patent application and within just a few minutes, I could look in IFW (Image File Wrapper) and see what the USPTO had received.  If there had been some problem, say an illegible drawing, then this would permit doing a corrective filing the same day.

And in those early days, if I were to e-file a follow-on document (for example a response to an office action), the newly filed document would be visible immediately in IFW.

All of this was consistent with USPTO’s stated performance standard for IFW which was (and is) that a newly e-filed document should be visible in IFW no later than one hour from when it was e-filed.

But not nowadays.  Very often, USPTO comes nowhere close to meeting its own stated performance standard.  I will describe some typical examples of performance failures for IFW.

Continue reading “Big delays in recent months in the Image File Wrapper”

(After I blogged on November 22 about how USPTO could do better in receiving updated bib data, on December 21 USPTO announced a new system for receiving updated bib data.  Please see my blog article about USPTO’s new system.)

About once a week in our office we find the need to update, change, or add bibliographic (bib) data in a pending patent application at the USPTO.  In general what we find is that the USPTO does not follow its own rules for such changes.  The USPTO’s procedures are ill-conceived, making poor use of the time of applicant and Office personnel alike.  In a later blog post I will describe what USPTO should do instead.  But for this blog post I will detail what the USPTO rules actually say about how to accomplish bib data changes, in the hope that this might be helpful to others.   Continue reading “How to change bib data at the USPTO”