<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div>My word processor doesn't emit DOCX at all. Not even unreliable DOCX. No DOCX at all. I have figured out a fairly painless "malicious compliance" approach, which I will send to individuals that ask for it.</div><div><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></font></div><div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">Part of the solution is the Transmittal Letter: I state "The
auxiliary PDF is incorporated by reference" (like Rick, I use transmittal
letters. There are several things you can do on a Transmittal Letter that
you can't do in an ADS, among them, a Certificate of Transmission, incorporating
all parents by reference, various statements about PCT Article 19 and 34
Amendments, and the like.)</span></font>
</div><div><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 dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div></div><div>An issue I am concerned with is compliance with rule 121, substitute specification, in this situation, given Patent Center's filing constraints. By rule, the markup is the de jure substitute spec. The clean copy is for the convenience of the examiner. That is what the rule states, right?. So how do you describe, and which form of file, is a best practice, for complying with the rules for the substitute specification and marked up copy, within the constraints of Patent Center submissions?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If the formatting is messed up, the
Notice of NonCompliant Application papers will excuse the markup version. So be sure to mess up the formatting in a way that will trigger that kind of Notice -- single space, no page numbers, or something like that.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I will update my Transmittal Letter with the raspberries Rick suggests. The Microsoft Word Extensions doc that Rick notes is at
<span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"">at <a href="https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/office_standards/ms-docx/b839fe1f-e1ca-4fa6-8c26-5954d0abbccd" style="color:blue;text-decoration:underline">https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/office_standards/ms-docx/b839fe1f-e1ca-4fa6-8c26-5954d0abbccd</a></span>
</div><div><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 dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>I also included this note in the Transmittal Letter</div><div>"The applicant notes that the USPTO server may revise and replace DOCX files the applicant uploads, with revised files, prior to entering them into the official file for this application.</div> The applicant notes that the USPTO has not specified exactly how the USPTO server does this, and does not always clearly specify what those changes are."<div><br><div>In my response, at the end, I included this DOCX centric statement:</div><div><br></div><div>" While the USPTO relies upon DOCX submission for the specification, there are in fact over 40 different versions of the "DOCX" specifications, and these file format specifications are generated and controlled by the Microsoft Corporation. See the publicly available specifications at "[MS-DOCX]: Word Extensions to the Office Open XML (.docx) File Format." <br> Therefore, what the USPTO displays, or what the USPTO examiner interprets a specification to contain, based upon a document submitted having a DOCX file extension, may differ from what the applicant submits. Accordingly the examiner is encouraged to review the originally submitted specification, which was submitted in pdf format, and therefore is definite and reliable as to what the applicant's application, as originally filed, discloses, when the examiner examines this application."<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div> <br></div>