[Patentcenter] USPTO timestamp

Tue Nov 7 14:36:22 UTC 2023

Hi, all

When the USPTO mails a paper, they add 2 days to the date the paper is processed for mailing.  The status date is the date the paper is processed for mailing, which in Rachel's example is November 2, 2023.  The mailing date would normally be November 2 + 2 days = November 4, which is the date the paper is actually put in the physical mail or transmitted electronically.  But that was a Saturday, so the actual mailing date was set to the next business day, which was Monday, November 6.  If Monday had been a holiday, the mailing date would have been set to Tuesday, November 7.

It also appears that if a paper is processed for mailing after a certain cut-off time on a given day, 3 days are added to the status date to obtain the mailing date.  So, if Rachel's paper had been processed later in the day on November 2, they would have added 3 days to obtain a mailing date of Sunday, November 5, which again would have been moved to Monday, November 6.

I'm not sure if they process papers for mailing on weekends, or how they set the mailing date if they do.

This allows for the delay between when an LIE processes a paper for mailing, and the time it takes for a contractor to print out the paper, stuff it into an envelope, and put it in the mail.  Of course, many people receive Office communications electronically now, but the USPTO needs to have one procedure that covers both USPS and electronic delivery.

Why do they use the date the paper was processed for mailing as the status date, rather than the actual mailing date?  One guess is because maybe it makes their pendency look better somehow.

Fun times.

Best regards,

Randall S. Svihla
NSIP Law
Washington, D.C.

From: Andrea R. Jacobson <arj at mcgarrybair.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 7, 2023 9:13 AM
To: patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com; Randall Svihla <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com>
Cc: Watt, Rachel S. <Rwatt at hodgsonruss.com>
Subject: RE: [Patentcenter] USPTO timestamp

I believe the status date has been different for quite a while –I know that I have noticed it’s a very different date related to issued patents because it has tripped me when doing intake of transferred files.  On active matters it seems to quite often use the imaging date and not the mailing date. Some example:

A patent issued today shows a status of “Patented Case 10/18/2023” which is the mailing date of the issue notification.

A non-final OA has a status of “Non Final Action Mailed 11/02/2023” which is the imaging date of the non-final action.

[cid:image002.png at 01DA115D.DD27E160]

From: Patentcenter patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Watt, Rachel S. via Patentcenter
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 5:43 PM
To: patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com; 'Randall Svihla' <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com>
Cc: Watt, Rachel S. <Rwatt at hodgsonruss.com>
Subject: Re: [Patentcenter] USPTO timestamp

Thanks 😊

I’ve checked Word and my date and time are set to my time zone. So I don’t know what is going on.

With your issue, unfortunately, I’ve noticed the “status” date has mostly differed from the last action in documents and transactions.

From: Patentcenter <patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Sandra L Etherton via Patentcenter
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 5:22 PM
To: patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>; 'Randall Svihla' <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com<mailto:rsvihla at nsiplaw.com>>
Cc: Sandra L Etherton <sandra at ethertonlaw.com<mailto:sandra at ethertonlaw.com>>
Subject: Re: [Patentcenter] USPTO timestamp

External Email - Use Caution

________________________________
Don’t feel silly. Patent Center is making us question a lot of stuff. Today I looked up a just-issued office action for a pending patent application in Patent Center. The office action was emailed today, Nov 6, 2023, but the “status” says it was mailed Nov 2, 2023. Obviously this affects the due date for the response. And there was zero activity in documents or transactions on Nov2.

However, I checked PAIR and it too showed the same inconsistent status date (once I finally got in after getting the “search limit reached” error message – twice).

So, has the “status” date always differed from the last action in documents and transactions? I don’t know, but it’s Patent Center that made me wonder.

Sandra

______________________

Sandra L Etherton
Registered U.S. Patent Attorney

ETHERTON LAW GROUP, LLC
tel: (602) 681-3331 | fax:  (602) 681-3339
email: sandra at ethertonlaw.com<mailto:sandra at ethertonlaw.com>

www.ethertonlaw.com<http://www.ethertonlaw.com/>

From: Patentcenter [mailto:patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com] On Behalf Of Watt, Rachel S. via Patentcenter
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 3:09 PM
To: Randall Svihla <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com<mailto:rsvihla at nsiplaw.com>>; patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Watt, Rachel S. <Rwatt at hodgsonruss.com<mailto:Rwatt at hodgsonruss.com>>
Subject: Re: [Patentcenter] USPTO timestamp

EBC doesn’t know, maybe that’s new. But now I’m wondering if that is my version of Word that inserted the timestamp. I feel a bit silly.

From: Randall Svihla <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com<mailto:rsvihla at nsiplaw.com>>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 5:03 PM
To: patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Watt, Rachel S. <Rwatt at hodgsonruss.com<mailto:Rwatt at hodgsonruss.com>>
Subject: RE: USPTO timestamp

External Email - Use Caution

________________________________
Hi, Rachel

Obviously they are using GMT.  Why are they using GMT?  The system they are using to check the DOCX document for errors must be running on GMT.  Maybe it's in the UK or Ireland?  Although I would think foreign export laws would prevent that.  As far as how does it affect the filing date, who knows?  Call the EBC and ask them.

Good luck.

Randall S. Svihla
NSIP Law
Washington, D.C.

From: Patentcenter <patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Watt, Rachel S. via Patentcenter
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 4:48 PM
To: users of Patentcenter <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>>
Cc: Watt, Rachel S. <Rwatt at hodgsonruss.com<mailto:Rwatt at hodgsonruss.com>>
Subject: [Patentcenter] USPTO timestamp

I’m filing an application in docx format. Looking at the USPTO feedback document, their timestamp on their comments is 5 hours ahead (I’m in EST).

[cid:image003.png at 01DA115D.DD27E160]

Is this an issue? What if I was filing at 11:00 pm EST?

    This message may contain confidential information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege or otherwise. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If this message has been received by you in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you.

    This message may contain confidential information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege or otherwise. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If this message has been received by you in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you.

    This message may contain confidential information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege or otherwise. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If this message has been received by you in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231107/6b7545cd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 21229 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231107/6b7545cd/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5764 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20231107/6b7545cd/attachment-0001.png>