Posts

Posted on

“Signed-in” status in Patentcenter disappears frequently and without notice

PAIR has two modes — “Public PAIR” and “Private PAIR”.  EFS-Web has two modes as well, a signed-in mode and a not-signed-in mode.  So it is more or less to be expected that the USPTO developers of Patentcenter set it up so that there is a signed-in mode and a not-signed-in mode.  The user interface of Patentcenter does an extremely poor job of letting you know if you have shifted from signed-in mode to not-signed-in mode and vice versa.  But after one has used Patentcenter for some time one eventually picks up that one can figure it out by closely watching the blue menu bar at the top of the page.  If you see five choices in that blue bar, it means one thing:

click to enlarge

If you see eight choices in that blue bar, it means something else:

click to enlarge

Can you guess which blue bar means which?  Yes, you would probably guess that whichever menu bar has more choices, probably that is the menu bar that means your status is “signed-in”.  And that is indeed the situation.

The main point of this blog article is that there is something defective in Patentcenter, probably at some very deep level, in the way that Patentcenter keeps track of whether you are signed in or you are not.

If you are signed in, this status is supposed to last a minimum of some period of time.  If I recall correctly, that period of time is thirty minutes.  So for example if you just e-filed something in Patentcenter, and less than thirty minutes have passed, you should be able to click around in the workbench in Patentcenter and you should be able to see the applications in your workbench.

But what many in the Patentcenter listserv have noticed is that the signed-in status in Patentcenter often disappears long before the end of the 30-minute timeout period.  When it does so, this happens without notice.  No pop-up asking you if you wish to continue being logged in.  

I imagine this defect in Patentcenter is at some very deep level in the system, given how important it is for Patentcenter to keep track of which files each logged-in user is permitted to see.

This is a big problem in Patentcenter.  It has trouble ticket number CP35.

Posted on

Six months after bug report, USPTO fixes priority claim to EP applications in Patentcenter

Patentcenter, it is recalled, is the system that USPTO intends will replace PAIR and EFS-Web.  Eventually USPTO will shut down PAIR and EFS-Web.  USPTO has said from the beginning that one of its design imperatives for Patentcenter has been and is that every function and feature of PAIR and EFS-Web will be replicated into Patentcenter.  One of the important features of EFS-Web is the web-based ADS.

In December of 2019, I noted that the web-based ADS feature of Patentcenter was defective.  I was astonished to see that in Patentcenter, the drop-down list of Offices in which a priority application might have been filed omitted the European Patent Office.  I reported this to the Electronic Business Center (“EBC”) and the EBC opened a “trouble ticket”.

Some fifty thousand times per year, an applicant files a patent application at the USPTO that claims priority from an EP application.  If you use EFS-Web to file such an application, you can pick EPO from the appropriate drop-down list in the web-based ADS.

But as I say, astonishingly in Patentcenter the exact same drop-down list failed to include EPO as one of the choices.

USPTO says that one of the ways that beta testers of Patentcenter can report bugs in Patentcenter is by reporting the problem to the EBC.  In my case, in December of 2019 I not only reported this problem to the EBC, but I took the extra step of opening an EBC trouble ticket.  But it is clear that this bug reporting path does not work.  In six months I never heard back from the EBC about this trouble ticket.

Then USPTO made Patentcenter open to all users.  I launched the Patentcenter listserv and one of the earliest topics discussed was this defect in Patentcenter.  I launched the Patentcenter trouble ticket page and this bug got listed as CP9.  I blogged about this bug here.

Now the USPTO has quietly fixed this bug in Patentcenter.

I have three reactions to this development.

First, my first reaction is yes, of course it is a good thing that the Patentcenter developers finally did get around to fixing this defect in Patentcenter.  Fifty thousand times per year an applicant in the USPTO claims priority from an EP application.

Second, and I mean this as a very serious question, why did it take six months for the Patentcenter developers to get around to fixing this bug?  It speaks poorly for the USPTO that even though USPTO says one of the ways to report Patentcenter bugs is by reporting them to the EBC, the fact is that reporting a bug to the EBC seems to go into a black hole and the bug does not get fixed.    It is unfortunate that what it took to get the Patentcenter developers to take this seriously was the formation of a listserv of 150 power users, and for the listserv to apply pressure at a very high level within the USPTO.

Third, and I also mean this very seriously, I feel it is very poor customer relations that I had to find out completely by accident that the USPTO finally got around to fixing this bug.  It would be a matter of common courtesy for the USPTO to respond to the listserv to let the listerv know that the USPTO had gotten around to fixing this bug, and thus that CP9 could be closed.  I learned of this only because one of the listserv members stumbled upon the newly corrected bug, and brought it to my attention.

Posted on

Anosmia

click to enlarge

Okay three’s a pattern.  Now we are up to the third time in recent days that I am writing a blog article directed to some particular word that I think is interesting.  We talked about “regolith” and we talked about “orthostat“.  Today’s word is “anosmia”. Anosmia is a word that we sort of wish we did not need to be reminded of in these difficult times the summer of 2020. But that can’t be helped.  And it is a word that relates to the thing that is in the box in the image at the right.  Here we go … Continue reading “Anosmia”

Posted on

Two years after we asked for it — Patentcenter now has “last 40 ack receipts”

(Update:  I spoke too soon when I said USPTO finally got around to bringing the “last 40 ack receipts” feature of EFS-Web into Patentcenter.  See blog article and blog article.)

USPTO released Patentcenter for alpha testing in the summer of 2018.  Patentcenter, it is recalled, is the system that USPTO intends will replace PAIR and EFS-Web.  Eventually USPTO will shut down PAIR and EFS-Web.  USPTO has said from the beginning that one of its design imperatives for Patentcenter has been and is that every function and feature of PAIR and EFS-Web will be replicated into Patentcenter.  One of the important features of EFS-Web is “last 40 acknowledgment receipts”.

Our firm was among the first alpha testers of Patentcenter.  And one of the first issues that we raised with the Patentcenter developers in 2018 was that Patentcenter failed to provide “last 40 ack receipts”.  

On November 20, 2019 Jeff Ingerman pointed out this problem with Patentcenter in Ideascale.  You can see it here.  This was idea number 383.  It received two up-votes.  But that did not lead to USPTO providing that function in Patentcenter.  This offers a reminder of how useless Ideascale has been.

Then USPTO made Patentcenter open to all users.  I launched the Patentcenter listserv and one of the earliest topics discussed was the need for this feature.  I launched the Patentcenter feature request page and this feature got listed as FR4.  

On May 10, 2020 the USPTO took a step toward providing this feature, as I described here.  USPTO added an item in a drop-down list, an item that clearly was intended eventually to lead to “last 40 ack receipts”.  Back in May if you were to click on that link you would reach a “404 page not found” error.

But now USPTO has quietly turned on the “last 40 ack receipts” feature in Patentcenter.

I have three reactions to this development.

First, my first reaction is yes, of course it is a good thing that the Patentcenter developers finally did get around to replicating this EFS-Web feature into Patentcenter.  Many EFS-Web users rely on it and use it a lot, and this will help some of those users in their transition to Patentcenter.

Second, and I mean this as a very serious question, why did it take two years for the Patentcenter developers to get around to doing this?  It speaks poorly for the USPTO that the USPTO so directly ignored it when the alpha testers pointed out this omission in 2018, and it speaks poorly for the USPTO that the USPTO likewise ignored it when a beta tester pointed out this omission in autumn of 2019 in Ideascale.  It is unfortunate that what it took to get the Patentcenter developers to take this seriously was the formation of a listserv of 150 power users, and for the listserv to apply pressure at a very high level within the USPTO.

Third, and I also mean this very seriously, I feel it is very poor customer relations that I had to find out completely by accident that the USPTO finally got around to turning on this feature.  It would be a matter of common courtesy for the USPTO to respond to the listserv to let the listerv know that the USPTO had gotten around to releasing this feature, and thus that FR4 could be closed.  I learned of this only because one of the listserv members stumbled upon the newly turned-on feature, and posted to the listserv to report it.

Posted on

A Madrid Protocol thing that USPTO needs to do as Office of Origin

Hello, readers in the US.

You know those notifications that you receive from WIPO about your Madrid Protocol cases?  Those notifications from WIPO about your Madrid cases that do not tell you your attorney docket number?  

Don’t you wish that each such notice would tell you your attorney docket number?  Don’t you get very tired of having to go on a treasure hunt every time you receive such a Madrid notice from WIPO, to try to figure out what the attorney docket number is?

Maybe you wonder if there is some good reason why such notices do not tell you your attorney docket number.

There is a reason.  If you’d like to know, read on.  Continue reading “A Madrid Protocol thing that USPTO needs to do as Office of Origin”

Posted on

Another good word to save up: orthostat

I guess two is not quite enough for a pattern, we need three for a pattern.  But here is a second word that has something to do with rocks.  A good word to save up because someday, and I promise this, life will be back to normal and there will be cocktail parties and salon dinners and stuff.  We already talked about a word relating to rocks, namely “regolith” (blog article).  Here is another good word to save up: 

orthostat.

What is an “orthostat”? Continue reading “Another good word to save up: orthostat”

Posted on

A good word to save up: regolith

When I was in college, long before most readers of this blog were born, I was a double major in physics and mathematics.  There was a fairly predictable path of eight physics courses over four years for the physics major, and a fairly predictable path of eight math courses over four years for the math major.  Not much room for other things.  In my case I came within a couple of credits of also earning a triple major in philosophy.  But I did not quite get there.

Conspicuously absent from my four-year course of study was geology.  At the college that I attended there was a geology course that was part of the physics department.  There was never room in my packed course schedule for that geology course.  That course had a counterpart at many colleges and universities, I later learned, and at many schools it was somewhat condescendingly nicknamed “rocks for jocks”, the course that a student might sign up for as a way of satisfying a requirement for getting a certain minimum number of science credits if the student otherwise was not going to find it very easy to satisfy that requirement.

Decades have passed and over and over again I have been reminded how much I missed by never having taken that geology course, or any other geology course.  Pretty much all I knew was that there are three kinds of rocks:  sedimentary, metamorphic, and igneous.  That was it.  Which brings me around to the word “regolith”.  What does “regolith” mean? 

A chief reason why I think about words like this is that I keep hoping that life will eventually return to normal and there will be things like cocktail parties and salon dinners where people can talk about stuff and learn new things from each other.  Yes by now I have despaired that this return to normalcy would happen in 2020, but maybe in 2021?  2022?  Anyway, what does “regolith” mean?

Continue reading “A good word to save up: regolith”

Posted on

Austrian Patent Office joins DAS

I am delighted to be able to report not only that the Austrian Patent Office has joined DAS, but that it will be participating as an Accessing Office in every way that it is possible to participate, and it will be participating as a Depositing Office in every way that it is possible to participate.

This participation will commence October 1, 2020.