<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>What she said.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/8/2024 10:57 AM, Krista Jacobsen
via Patentpractice wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN7twq2LJ9c03cBGMK4LOZscQGuF+faoKiYP0j=vBDL5CLBTEA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Great letter, as always, Carl.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A related issue is exactly which of the various documents
in the DOCX cluster*$%@ is the authoritative document. I have
not been able to figure this out, and the USPTO has put out
inconsistent information.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Using Carl's terminology, there are potentially four
documents in the mix (as opposed to the single document in the
PDF filing path, which leaves no doubt as to the authoritative
version of the written description, claims, and abstract):</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>D1 = applicant-generated/uploaded DOCX file (discarded
during filing process)<br>
P1 = applicant-generated/uploaded auxiliary PDF file
(optional)<br>
D2 = USPTO-generated DOCX file ("validated DOCX file")<br>
P2 = USPTO-generated PDF file (presumably generated from D2,
but has the USPTO ever said this?)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Which one is the authoritative document?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is obviously not D1, which the USPTO discards during the
filing process.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is D2 the authoritative document? The USPTO said it is in
the Apr 28, 2022 FR Notice: "the USPTO considers the validated
DOCX file(s) submitted by the applicant to be the
authoritative document and that applicants may rely on the
validated DOCX file(s) as the source or evidentiary copy of
the application to make any corrections to the documents in
the application file."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Setting aside the planet-sized elephant in the room, namely
that what the USPTO sees on its computers using its word
processing software when it opens this file might be different
from what I see on my computer using my word processing
software when I open this file, the USPTO said in the Jun 2,
2021 FR Notice that D2 might disappear from the file wrapper
after a year: “the USPTO has a records retention schedule for
documents it receives, including new patent applications and
correspondence filed in patent applications. . . . In 2011,
the USPTO established a one-year retention policy for
patent-related papers scanned into the IFW or SCORE. . . . <u>After
the expiration of the one-year period, the USPTO disposes of
the paper</u> unless the applicant, patent owner, or
reexamination party timely files a bona fide request to
correct the electronic record of the paper in IFW or SCORE. <u>DOCX
submissions will be treated similarly</u>.”</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am not aware of any retraction of this policy, so I
assume it still applies.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If D2 is "disposed of" before the application has been
examined, how can D2 possibly be the authoritative document,
given that the application probably hasn't been examined one
year after filing? If D2 is gone from the record by the time
the examiner picks up the application, what does the examiner
look at? It seems to me that despite what the USPTO has said
on the subject, D2 cannot be the authoritative version, at
least not after a year from the filing date.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thus, we are left with P1 and P2 as the only remaining
options.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>P1 SHOULD be, but sadly cannot be, the authoritative
document because the applicant is not required to submit it. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This leaves P2 as the only remaining possibility. But after
saying that P2 is the authoritative version, the USPTO walked
it back in the Apr 28, 2022 FR Notice and explicitly said P2
is not the authoritative version: "The USPTO previously stated
that for applications filed in DOCX, the authoritative
document would be the accompanying PDF that the USPTO systems
generate from the DOCX document. In response to public
feedback, however, the USPTO now considers the DOCX document
filed by the applicant to be the authoritative document."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What a mess.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Hello, USPTO: </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(1) If D2 is the authoritative document, it MUST remain
in the file wrapper for the life of the patent plus the PTA
period plus the entire post-expiration enforcement period.
Also, please acknowledge that what USPTO personnel see when
they open D2 is not necessarily what I see when I open D2,
and that is a key reason why essentially nobody in the
practitioner/applicant community thinks DOCX filing is a
good idea.<br>
</div>
<div>(2) If P2 is the authoritative document, the USPTO needs
to reverse itself again and say so.</div>
<div>(3) The way out of this mess is to make P1 the
authoritative document and ask nicely for applicants to
submit a DOCX file.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div>Krista<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>------------------------------------------<br>
</div>
<div>Krista S. Jacobsen<br>
</div>
<div>Attorney and Counselor at Law</div>
<div>Jacobsen IP Law</div>
<div><a href="mailto:krista@jacobseniplaw.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">krista@jacobseniplaw.com</a></div>
<div>T: 408.455.5539</div>
<div><a href="http://www.jacobseniplaw.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.jacobseniplaw.com</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 2:50 AM
Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <<a
href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p><span
style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"Libre Franklin","Helvetica Neue",helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none">The
urgent question outstanding for those who file utility
patent applications at the USPTO is, are they stuck with
no choice but to pay the $400 penalty to preserve the
safe and trusted legacy PDF filing path, or is there any
chance that the “DOCX with auxiliary PDF” path might
present an acceptable level of professional liability
risk so that the client could avoid the $400 penalty?
Maybe the USPTO will clarify this. <br>
</span></p>
<p><span
style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"Libre Franklin","Helvetica Neue",helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none">See
<a
href="https://blog.oppedahl.com/maybe-uspto-will-clarify-the-docx-safeguard/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://blog.oppedahl.com/maybe-uspto-will-clarify-the-docx-safeguard/</a>
.<br>
</span></p>
<p><span
style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:"Libre Franklin","Helvetica Neue",helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline;float:none"><br>
</span></p>
</div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a
href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>