<img width="1" height="1" src="https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/op/FFYVmJBS1GrKIUpxVRHQn_PJAxug89CAS3Tc_xhWGeCVKSLpCcXxMnB10bPJkCHrAYpghJD-uA3NE9J-4Isnnx2KjC8mG2_xlRmL4WZzsqluTZFNgCS5pUOaYO_DScQZRF3iVrSSOrkMLKSbxuPYQB0M5ANKnOz3o2kYwBTLD_QLkNLdePjXAdq1nMW4Mlj20Tassro5RLn0MSgR-732ald_nnCrHpLkxhIj" style="mso-hide:all"/><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>David, I have not looked at the form for verifying one's identity via paper since getting a USPTO account many years ago. So in response to your email, I looked at what the USPTO has to say about using PatentCenter, and found that the <a href="https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/02vK6Xi7vg4hsBxXE_VwtqsNA5eHoSg6GRN0sDclATfLErYJZ4C45-6Y-pYS3C7wb7bChd12NCuYPqcblplcDDZf79OE6DcJiCl9tE5NlXyQ2awOiUlFaaI6et4y_RC4TCWdiewkC9dghoP1q3LSAtxOxk4JSBF8jFHw6DcnEb-VrWFKEji3TL_1a_cdk8zpS-Y1KxEc-bXfnP9qAcl7l-wVsIIF3fYSUWXQSuXPOT41ELtMMrHA1Hwl64rkEv6IkFLMR3l52tu-p6E0I3dYEEekyuPp7xue2C61BMBq5AIp1ZXxo0DQxaBCxwJb8gAvL2jgtnWnWN8gNe_qi0fWEVBYZuSdPTrplEgfUGS1">instructions for new users</a> are themselves confusing. I also found that you appear to be correct: the <a href="https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/bAW6Is_8hHEWY_jeV0hh2Ya6VDZXjH48Yr0F5jdN2N5GwcjqKn6bkj_FpMPnGCDpXvikYQccDhmWlm3rrkYFlbOCbA222CiEcsBiykl3scA0fn-eStNd9Xt-U4mhh7aszbCwe8IlaTNiNpntuF9bHLfy6_aa6wPDL68cHx7ioTMOqMmqI0yGKr456kR48Go1aa_xCz9UPTeQkbNNTpKlv-ne-4yn6NSXpeHRWfvwMd_bMqO4zfrfMNaq9Phy0e17cEIDZjsjsovKoYpwLPU-UOAykEkkBDN6Pm05b9jOBzq5c0wve2WOgasXsluJzMPMTZ7EqfdgvC17Kpz8Ri5kjoLBlDs">paper form</a> for verifying one's ID with the PTO requires that one be a licensed practitioner, or a limited recognition practitioner, or a pro se inventor. If you're not one of those, you're not entitled to look at the USPTO records. Not only is that unbelievably stupid policy, but I'm certain that that position violates some federal statute, and even if allowed by statute, did not go through notice-and-comment rulemaking.</div><div><br></div><div>You could sue the PTO, but I suggest a cheaper course of action: think up a dumb idea that may be (but more likely is not) patentable, write a one-page description of that idea that includes at least one patent-type claim on the idea, and file the one-pager as a provisional patent application, listing yourself as inventor. That will make you a pro se inventor, which will allow you to register as a PatentCenter user under the PTO's current (indefensible) rules. I suggest filing a provisional because (a) it's a low fee compared to a non-provision and (b) with a provisional, there's no requirement for an oath/declaration averring that you consider yourself to be the original inventor of what is claimed.</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, I'm thinking it must be really nice to be someone like Kathi Vidal, on whose watch they decided to destroy private and public PAIR. You FUBAR the agency you're the head of and the people who need that agency, then leave for a nice private-sector gig without any repercussions for the mess you created. Nice work if you can get it.</div><div><br></div><div>Dan </div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:17\u202fAM David Hricik via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">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>Hi, all,<div><br></div><div>I doubt many of you need to use it, but the PTO recently (start of the month) changed patent center to only practitioners or \u201cindependent inventors\u201d can have permission to access it. For patent litigators or a lot of other people, that\u2019s not a good development. Anyone know why the change?</div><div><br></div><br>
</div></blockquote></div></div>