<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/17/2024 10:48 AM, William Slate
via Patentpractice wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DM8PR08MB7320E4295FD4F2DE5A7EB930D8042@DM8PR08MB7320.namprd08.prod.outlook.com">
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">A comment read: <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">\u201c<span class="cf01"><span>This claim
appears to not end with a period.\u201d</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="cf01"><span>The area
highlighted by the comment was a hard return between
claims 7 and 8. <br>
</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span class="cf01"><span>I found a period
missing at the end of claim 9.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Will</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Let's sort of summarize where we are on this.</p>
<p>Anybody who chooses to (incur the risks of using) use DOCX as
their filing method is putting himself or herself at the mercy of
the USPTO's proprietary DOCX rendering engine. Which as of some
months ago was up to version 18, something like that. <br>
</p>
<p>What we see here is an example of that engine being flaky at
application-filing time. And yes I have seen many other instances
of the DOCX rendering engine being flaky at application-filing
time, in other ways.</p>
<p>What stares me in the face is that this same engine is presumably
the black box that will typeset the patent application for
issuance, at some later time down the line. By then it might be
version 24 or version 36. And it might render a square root sign
as a smiley face or might render a Greek letter mu as a "u".</p>
<p>Meanwhile I imagine there are many practitioners who have been
ducking the DOCX risks, assuming that the "ongoing safeguard" of
the auxiliary PDF will somehow permit the practitioner to avert
what would otherwise be a malpractice claim. <br>
</p>
<p>But see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://blog.oppedahl.com/maybe-uspto-will-clarify-the-docx-safeguard/">https://blog.oppedahl.com/maybe-uspto-will-clarify-the-docx-safeguard/</a>
. The USPTO has not answered that letter yet, despite almost a
year having passed. I suggest that it would be a mistake, given
the USPTO's deafening silence in response to questions about the
"ongoing safeguard", to assume that the auxiliary PDF will protect
against malpractice claims.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>