<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Thank you for noting that "<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px">The USPTO only allows one </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px">AUX.pdf</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px"> submission per application, and each subsequent one you file overwrites the previous one."</span></div><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px">That processing <u>contradicts the PTO's public statements</u> in its Notice at "</span>Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No.: PTO\u2013P\u20132022\u20130002] Filing Patent Applications in DOCX</div>Format," at 82 FR 25226, and in its notice at "Extension of the Option for Submission of a PDF With a Patent Application Filed in DOCX Format," 88 FR 37036. <div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div> See 87 FR 25227, left column:</div><div><br></div><div>The USPTO continues to work with <br>its stakeholders to transition to the <br>DOCX format. Through this notice, the <br>USPTO is providing applicants with the <br>option to submit an applicant-generated <br>PDF of the application along with the <br>validated DOCX file(s) when filing an <br>application in Patent Center, from the <br>effective date of this notice through <br>December 31, 2022 (the temporary <br>period). This option will not be <br>available for applications filed via EFS- <br>Web. This will allow applicants to gain <br>confidence in the reliability and <br>accuracy of the USPTO system when <br>filing applications in DOCX format, and <br>safeguard the applicant should any <br>conversion discrepancies have taken <br>place.<br></div><div><br></div><div>and see 88 FR 37036, at 37036 (Duration)</div><div><br></div><div>The option to submit <br>an applicant-generated PDF of a patent <br>application along with the validated <br>DOCX file(s) when filing an application <br>in Patent Center, as discussed in this <br>notice, is being extended until further <br>notice.</div><div><br></div><div> and at 37037, left column:<br></div><div><br></div><div>In April 2022, the USPTO announced <br>that, for a period of time ending <br>December 31, 2022, it was providing <br>patent applicants with the option to <br>submit a back-up, applicant-generated <br>PDF version of the application along <br>with the DOCX file(s) when filing an <br>application in Patent Center. See Filing <br>Patent Applications in DOCX Format, <br>87 FR 25226 (April 28, 2022) (April <br>2022 Notice). The goal of providing <br>such an option was to encourage more <br>applicants to begin filing patent <br>applications in DOCX format. In <br>particular, the USPTO anticipated that <br>allowing applicants to submit a back-up <br>PDF version of the application\u2014without <br>incurring additional fees\u2014for a <br>temporary period would encourage <br>applicants to file in DOCX while <br>ensuring that if any discrepancies were <br>discovered, the back-up version could <br>be used to correct the discrepancies.</div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><div>and at 37037 spanning left and center columns:</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>However, in view of stakeholder <br>requests, the USPTO will now keep <br>copies of the applicant-generated PDF as <br>part of the permanent record, regardless <br>of whether a petition is filed. For <br>example, for granted patents, the <br>USPTO will keep copies of the <br>applicant-generated PDF for at least 25 <br>years after the patent grant before <br>transferring it to the National Archives <br>and Records Administration. <br>With the changes detailed above, <br>patent applicants choosing to submit an <br>applicant-generated PDF with the <br>validated DOCX file(s) when filing an <br>application in Patent Center will have <br>an ongoing safeguard should any <br>unexpected conversion discrepancies<br></div><div>occur during the filing process. ...<br></div><div>As discussed in the April 2022 <br>Notice, patent applicants who choose to <br>submit an applicant-generated PDF with <br>the validated DOCX file(s) when filing <br>an application in Patent Center will not <br>have to pay additional fees, such as an <br>application size fee, as a result of filing <br>the applicant-generated PDF and, on <br>petition, will be able to rely on the <br>applicant-generated PDF if a <br>discrepancy occurs during the filing <br>process.<br></div><div><br></div><div>There is no reasonable interpretation of this guidance that is consistent with your indication that that the PTO actually does is, with "<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px">each subsequent one [SIC; AUX.pdf] you file [Patent Center] overwrites the previous one." </span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px">BR, Rick</span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.6667px"><br></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 2:11\u202fPM Randall Svihla <<a href="mailto:rsvihla@nsiplaw.com" target="_blank">rsvihla@nsiplaw.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>
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Hi, Rick<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">You wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">3.
<span> </span>Regarding <span>AUX.pdf</span> submissions, whether Patent Center stores all
<span>AUX.pdf</span> submissions? <span> </span>That is, whether subsequent submission with document description "Specification" overwrite or otherwise result in Patent Center discarding prior "<span>AUX.pdf</span>'
submissions.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">The USPTO only allows one
<span>AUX.pdf</span> submission per application, and each subsequent one you file overwrites the previous one.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Randall S. Svihla<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">NSIP Law<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Washington, D.C.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-weight:bold">From:</span></font></b><span> Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">On Behalf Of </span></b>Rick Neifeld via Patentpractice<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Thursday, December 19, 2024 12:48 PM<br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span></b> Rick Neifeld <<a href="mailto:richardneifeld@gmail.com" target="_blank">richardneifeld@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Patentpractice] Feedback document mis-placing comments<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Follow-up on my post below. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Yesterday, I received a Notice of Incomplete Reply to the Notice To File Corrected Application Papers. And I filed a response to that Notice of Incomplete Reply. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">The Notice of Incomplete Reply asserted that the Reply to the Notice To File Corrected Application Papers failed to include "a clean version without markings." <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">My reply to that Notice was a traverse, asserting that a clean version without markings had been filed as part of the Reply to the Notice To File Corrected Application Papers,
and provided proof from the EAR of the name of the file, and the SHA-512 hash value associated with the name of the file. And that the file name included "CleanCopy" and the transmittal letter and remarks specified that file was the required clean copy. And
including the exact same DOCX file identified by its unique Hash value, as a submission, but with the Document Description "Transmittal Letter." And in the filing process, I was given an option to include an AUX.pdf, so I saved the DOCX file as a pdf, and
also submitted that as (yet another) AUX.pdf. And the EAR for this filing shows, of course, a DOCX document to which PatentCenter appended "-DOCX" and the AUX.pdf document, to which PatentCenter did nothing to the filename.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Today, I called the PTO, repeatedly, as shown in my contemporaneous notes below (filename "Troubleshooting_AgentRedacted_XXXXXX.txt"), to obtain clarification, and to ensure the
PTO does not hold the application abandoned, for failure to respond. I raised some interesting questions that neither EBC nor the ASU representatives could answer. And I await a call back after the ASU agent confers with her supervisor. See my questions
at the end of the record below. My real time notes, the record of these calls, with the agent names and my reference number redacted, appears below:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Filename: [Troubleshooting_AgentRedacted_XXXXXX.txt]<br>
10:12 AM, Called EBC<br>
Agent ___, agent number 59<br>
Given case number 2-00092400.<br>
Agent indicates he cannot address whether a marked up copy is present in the official file in Patent Center for this application. <br>
Agent indicates only "Application assistance unit: 571272400" can address my questions.<br>
Agent transferred me to Application assistance unit: 571272400<br>
Application Assistance Unit Agent ___, given number 2-00092412<br>
Agent indicates he cannot see the documents in Patent Center identified in the "Documents & transaction history", "Documents" tab.<br>
10:31 AM, Agent has put me on hold.<br>
11:01 line has hung up (call ended).<br>
<br>
11:03 Calling back. 571272400, Agent ___, answered. Call dropped.<br>
<br>
11:06 Calling back. 571272400,<br>
11:07-11:08, approximately 2 minutes of recorded voice message.<br>
11:08 Agent ___ answers, provides reference 2-00092412<br>
11:09, agent placed me on hold while agent reads notes from 2-00092412.<br>
Discussion with Agent, identify problem.<br>
11:15 Agent Response. I cited rule 1.121 requirements. Agent unclear regarding rule requirement. Agent places me "on hold".<br>
11:16 Discussing "clean copy" requirements. Agent agrees there is no rule requirement to place markings on the "clean copy" of a substitute specification stating it is a "clean copy."
<br>
Agent states that, at the "top of" clean copy of specification, pages must include the phrase "clean copy" on each page, upper top right corner, of each page. Upon repeated requests for clarification, agent specifies that should be in "a header" (as opposed
to inside the margins where text of the specification resides.) <br>
11:19 Discussing "marke up copy" requirements. Agent agent is unclear about requirements for a "marked up copy". Agent does not see the marked up copy in [whatever she is looking at corresponds to the Patent Center] the official file.<br>
I identified to agent the name of the file that is the marked up copy, as including "MarkedCopy" in filename, as shown in the EAR and in the actual file named "2024-12-15_SubSpec_MarkedCopy_CSfiling2811USfiling_ANJA0024-SPEC.pdf"<br>
11:22 Agent places me on hold, again.<br>
11:__[??] Agent Clarified: The "marked up copy" does not require any additional marking showing it is the "marked up" copy.<br>
Regarding questions about "Document descriptions" for clean and marked up copies of a substitute specification: Agent stated that appropriate "Document Description" in Patent Center submissions for both clean copy of a substitute specification, and for a marked
up copy of a substitute specification, is "Specification."<br>
*******************<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">After I identified the markings in the submitted marked up copy, Agent indicated she needed to speak with a supervisor before providing advice on how to resolve Patent Center's
lack of recognition of the presence of a marked up copy. <br>
I asked for clarification on the following additional questions regarding file format, and AUX pdf.
<br>
Regarding "DOCX" or "PDF" for clean and marked up copy of substitute specifications:<br>
1. What are the appropriate file formats for a clean copy of a substitute specification?<br>
2. What are the appropriate file formats for a marked up copy of a substitute specification?<br>
3. Regarding AUX.pdf submissions, whether Patent Center stores all AUX.pdf submissions? That is, whether subsequent submission with document description "Specification" overwrite or otherwise result in Patent Center discarding prior "AUX.pdf' submissions.
<br>
11:35 call continuing at this time.<br>
11:__[??] Call concluded. Agent stated she intends to call me back within 24 hours.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">***********************************<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Rick<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 2:25\u202fPM Rick Neifeld <<a href="mailto:richardneifeld@gmail.com" target="_blank">richardneifeld@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Agree. And I will break from ongoing work to add a couple comments and questions.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">First, I am concerned when I get a specification for filing that includes embedded image objects. Those objects normally include non ascii characters, and unconventional symbols.
For example, for communications modulation schemes or quantum computing algorithms. I cannot easily reproduce those things within a page, in case of a requirement to correct a portion of the specification. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">I get that sort of stuff from foreign colleagues. So I have notified my foreign colleagues. Hopefully they will teach their clients to do a better job at providing patent easy-to-use
disclosures. But I doubt it.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Second, I recently had to respond to a Notice of informalities requiring me to formally revise the Figs and spec. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">I found the process of responding to be more complex and time consuming than in the past, prior to Patent Center and the DOCX coercion. And as to the process, I solicit input
on what I did right, and what I did wrong, and what I did that was inconsequential (but perhaps made me feel better), in response to the Notice. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">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?<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">In this case, I had filed the original application in pdf format, for both spec and figs. However, I had in my possession the original DOCX from which the pdfs were created.
So I had options. What I ended up filing in response to the Notice were:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Replacement drawing sheets (figures) in DOCX format, with document description "Drawings, other than black and white line drawings" (At my end pdfs generated by conversion from
a DOCX are not fuzzy, like what you see on the PTO side, after filing a pdf via Patent Center.)<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Marked Up copy of the substitute spec, in pdf format, with document description "Specification". (I found no document description for "substitute specification.")<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Clean Copy of the substitute spec, in DOCX format, with also with document description "Specification".<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">But then also a Clean Copy of the substitute spec, in PDF format, as the AUX.PDF. (Because you get this option when you upload a DOCX and select document description "specification",
even after the application and its specification has been filed on some prior day.)<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">I also determined the SHA-512 for theAUX.PDF and included that value in my transmittal letter (Yes, I still file transmittal letters listing what I am filing.)<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">I also included this note in the Transmittal Letter<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">"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.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">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."<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">In my response, at the end, I included this DOCX centric statement:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">" 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."<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"> <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"> So, comments?<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Thanks, RICK <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 1:13\u202fPM Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">On 12/17/2024 10:48 AM, William Slate via Patentpractice wrote:<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">A comment read:
<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">\u201cThis claim appears to not end with a period.\u201d<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">The area highlighted by the comment was a hard return between claims 7 and 8.
<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">I found a period missing at the end of claim 9.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Will<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">Let's sort of summarize where we are on this.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">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. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">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.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">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".<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">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. <u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">But see <a href="https://blog.oppedahl.com/maybe-uspto-will-clarify-the-docx-safeguard/" target="_blank">
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.<u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Calibri"><span style="font-size:11pt">--
<br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><u></u><u></u></span></font></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div>
</div>
</div><div><br clear="all"></div><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Best regards</div><div>Rick Neifeld, J.D., Ph.D. <br></div><div>Neifeld IP Law PLLC<br></div><div>9112 Shearman Street, Fairfax VA 22032</div><div>Mobile: 7034470727<br></div><div>Email: <a href="mailto:RichardNeifeld@gmail.com" target="_blank">RichardNeifeld@gmail.com</a>; <br></div><div>This
is NOT a confidential and privileged communication. If you are not the
intended recipient, please delete this email and notify the sender you
have done so.<br></div><div><br><br></div></div></div></div>