<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
@font-face
{font-family:Garamond;
panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Goudy Old Style";
panose-1:2 2 5 2 5 3 5 2 3 3;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:11.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif;color:#1F497D">I know this is probably a silly question, but what legal basis does the PTO have for changing the text of an application without anything on the record such as an examiner\u2019s
amendment? Sure, changing \u201cPat. App. No. nn/nnn.nnn\u201d to \u201cPat. App. Ser. No. nn/nnn,nnn\u201d is innocuous, but still, shouldn\u2019t there at least be something stating (and justifying) the change on the record?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN">Best regards,<br>
<b>Richard A. Schafer | Schafer IP Law</b></span><span style="font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN"><br>
</span><span style="font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif;color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:ZH-CN">P.O. Box 230081 | Houston, TX 77223<br>
M: 832.283.6564 | </span><span style="font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif;color:#1F497D"><a href="mailto:richard@schafer-ip.com"><span style="color:#0563C1">richard@schafer-ip.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Goudy Old Style",serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Patentcenter <patentcenter-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>David Boundy via Patentcenter<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 30, 2024 5:53 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> For bug reports, feature requests, and tips and tricks about Patent Center. <patentcenter@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq@gmail.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Patentcenter] Published version of us patent applications no longer identical to what was filed (experimental use of AI at PTO)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Theyve been editing / uniforming priority references for decades. If you think about it, they kind of have to. I long ago adopted the practice of using their conventions in my specifications so my proofreading would be easy.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">changing the chemical names -- thats another whole thing.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Apr 29, 2024, 11:48 PM Gerry Peters via Patentcenter <<a href="mailto:patentcenter@oppedahl-lists.com">patentcenter@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Looking at a recent published US patent application, I happened to see<br>
an obvious typo that was the fault of the PTO (filed app said<br>
"polyamide (PA)" but PTO printed this as "polyimide (PA)").<br>
<br>
This prompted me to look a bit more closely, upon which I noted that,<br>
at the first two paragraphs of this particular spec (Cross-Reference to<br>
Related Apps; Statement Under 37 CFR 1.77(b)(6)), the PTO has freely<br>
abbreviated months of dates that were written in longhand as filed and<br>
has made multiple "helpful" insertions such as "Ser.", presumably so<br>
that the reader will know that application numbers and patent numbers<br>
listed in the spec are in fact serial numbers as opposed to some other<br>
sort of number.<br>
<br>
My point is not to argue whether the PTO's alterations and insertions<br>
are helpful or unhelpful (changing polyamide to polyimide was decidedly<br>
unhelpful), but to point out that the PTO appears to experimenting with<br>
some sort of AI that is casually altering the text of what was filed in<br>
ways that at least I have not previously seen. <br>
<br>
This strikes me as major shift in the seriousness, vel non, with<br>
which the PTO views its duty to preserve and publish an accurate<br>
record of what was actually filed.<br>
<br>
When combined with the DOCX issue, this also places a further<br>
unjustified burden on the practitioner who now needs to proofread the<br>
PTO's work at multiple stages during filing and prosecution.<br>
<br>
---Gerry<br>
<br>
Gerry Peters<br>
U.S. Patent Agent & Japanese Translator<br>
<br>
JTT K.K. (OSAKA & TOKYO JAPAN)<br>
JTT PATENT SERVICES, LLC (NH USA)<br>
JTT TRANSLATION SERVICES, LLC (NH USA)<br>
--------------------------------------------------<br>
TEL +1 206 203 5010 EMAIL <a href="mailto:info@jttpatent.com" target="_blank">info@jttpatent.com</a><br>
FAX +1 206 203 5020 WEB <a href="http://www.jttpatent.com" target="_blank">www.jttpatent.com</a><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Patentcenter mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentcenter@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentcenter@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>