Posts

Posted on

Patentcenter developers continue to violate their own rules big time

click to enlarge

The Patentcenter developers continue to violate their own rules about how filers are supposed to format their documents.  They do not just violate their own rules a little.  They violate their own rules big time.  The violations by the Patentcenter developers make life more difficult for applicants because it makes acknowledgement receipts nearly unreadable in IFW.  (The Image File Wrapper (IFW) is a date-stamped, electronic record of the documents in the file and it is the primary source for viewing the entire history of a patent application.  Integrity of IFW is essential.)  The violations by the Patentcenter developers make life more difficult for the filer of a third-party submission of prior art, because by the time the Examiner sees the third-party submission, it is nearly unreadable in IFW.   It means the Examiner is unlikely to give full consideration to the third-party submission.  Continue reading “Patentcenter developers continue to violate their own rules big time”

Posted on

Why a “presentation copy” from the USPTO is no good

click to enlarge
click to enlarge

As I explain in this blog article,  “presentation copies” from the USPTO are not very good from a “suitability for framing” point of view.  But what is much worse is that “presentation copies” are going to cause harm to the trademark community.  The Trademark Office’s recent spotlight on “presentation copies”, and indeed the Trademark Office’s recent program of giving them away for free, will very predictably embolden some trademark owners in overstating the breadth of their trademark rights.  The Trademark Office will be aiding and abetting the intimidation of parties who are not actually doing anything wrong but who are the target of overly broad cease-and-desist letters.  Continue reading “Why a “presentation copy” from the USPTO is no good”

Posted on

US trademark applications that lack an Examining Attorney

(July 11, 2022.  Updated to provide a TSDR link for each application number.  Still none of the applications has been given to an Examining Attorney.)

The USPTO reports a pendency of around six to seven months for newly filed US trademark applications.  But there are quite a few trademark applications that were filed a lot longer ago than that, that still do not have an Examining Attorney.  Here are some examples:

Application
Number		 Filing date
88704832 November 25, 2019
88729476 December 17, 2019
88729463 December 17, 2019
88729452 December 17, 2019
88729389 December 16, 2019
88794834 February 12, 2020

As you will see, the oldest one on this list was filed more than 2½ years ago and still does not have an Examining Attorney.   I hope and trust that some reader of this blog article who works in the Trademark Office will pass along these six application numbers to whoever it is that is responsible for assigning Examining Attorneys to trademark applications.

It strikes me that this is the sort of thing that computers are supposed to be good at.  How can it possibly be that the Trademark Office does not already have some automated process that runs, say, once a month, and generates a report like this?  Such a report would permit the appropriate Trademark Office person to take corrective action (see 37 C.F.R. § 2.23(d) and TMEP § 108.03) by assigning an Examining Attorney.

Posted on

One hundred six practitioners write to the Acting Commissioner for Patents

Today a letter got sent to the Acting Commissioner for Patents, Andrew Faile.  It was signed by one hundred six patent practitioners.   You can see the letter here.  USPS delivered it as you can see here.  A courtesy copy of the letter was send by email to Acting Commissioner Faile and to Director Kathi Vidal.

The purpose of the letter is to help Acting Commissioner Faile appreciate the two major failures in the USPTO’s Federal Register notice dated April 28, 2022 entitled Filing Patent Applications in DOCX Format (87 FR 25226).

 

Posted on

What is in the “yearlong study” that supposedly says DOCX is the right path?

The USPTO published a Federal Register notice entitled Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees during Fiscal Year 2020, dated August 2, 2020 (85 FR 46932).   This is the FR notice that communicates the USPTO’s conclusion that if we are going to force applicants to change from what they were doing in the past, and in particular if we are going to force them henceforth to hand in some particular format for US patent applications, then we at the USPTO know what’s best, and what’s best is not some particular flavor of PDF.  What’s best (according to the USPTO) is Microsoft Word DOCX format. 

The Federal Register notice said, in four places:

The USPTO conducted a yearlong study of the feasibility of processing text in PDF documents. The results showed that searchable text data is available in some PDFs, but the order and accuracy of the content could not be preserved. 

As soon as we saw this, many members of the practitioner community wondered what was in the “yearlong study”?    What was there in this “yearlong study” that led to a conclusion that Microsoft Word DOCX format was supposedly the better format to try to force applicants and practitioners to file, rather than some particular PDF format?

One member of the practitioner community filed a FOIA request at the USPTO, asking for a copy of the “yearlong study”.  This was ten months ago.  The people at the USPTO whose job it is to fight FOIA requests comply with the FOIA law have fought tooth and nail to keep from having to hand over the “yearlong study” and have not handed it over even now after ten months.  And indeed almost everything about the USPTO’s way of forcing the Microsoft DOCX format upon applicants and practitioners has led to an adversarial relationship between the USPTO and a substantial portion of the practitioner community.

So it was very much a breath of fresh air when, earlier today, at my request, Acting Commissioner Andrew Faile sent me a copy of the “yearlong study”.  I think Acting Commissioner Faile is trying to be more open and candid with the practitioner community now in recent months.

I have done a quick read of the yearlong study and you can read my initial conclusions here.

Posted on

Just released — a new version of “Guide to the Madrid System”

Many readers of this blog are frequent users of the Madrid Protocol system.   Some probably qualify as “power users” of the Madrid Protocol system.  What some might not be aware of, however, is that WIPO provides what is called its Guide to the Madrid System.  You can see the book’s front cover at right.  This is a 260-page book, and the big news is that this book just got re-released today in its 2022 version.  Continue reading “Just released — a new version of “Guide to the Madrid System””