[Patentcenter] Published version of us patent applications no longer identical to what was filed (experimental use of AI at PTO)?

[Dan Feigelson]

 Wow. Nice catch, but wow.

Years ago, when studying the file history of a particular patent, I found
that counsel had changed "N" to "Na" (viz. changed nitrogen to sodium) in a
response. That was incorrect, and the examiner jumped on the amendment for
being unsupported. It was changed back in the next response. (I've always
wondered if the office - a huge general practice firm with a large IP
department - charged both for the original amendment and for fixing it.)
But that, at least, was human error, and such things will happen from time
to time, even in cases prosecuted by people on this listserv :-).

But what the USPTO appears to have done is unconscionable.

Why can't the USPTO simply do like WIPO and publish the document *as filed*
as a pdf? If it then wants to publish a supplemental document that's
searchable, that's fine. But to take what we file and CHANGE it, and then
publish that as if it's the actual application? Or the actual patent?

Dan

On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 6:49 AM Gerry Peters via Patentcenter <
patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Looking at a recent published US patent application, I happened to see
> an obvious typo that was the fault of the PTO (filed app said
> "polyamide (PA)" but PTO printed this as "polyimide (PA)").
>
> This prompted me to look a bit more closely, upon which I noted that,
> at the first two paragraphs of this particular spec (Cross-Reference to
> Related Apps; Statement Under 37 CFR 1.77(b)(6)), the PTO has freely
> abbreviated months of dates that were written in longhand as filed and
> has made multiple "helpful" insertions such as "Ser.", presumably so
> that the reader will know that application numbers and patent numbers
> listed in the spec are in fact serial numbers as opposed to some other
> sort of number.
>
> My point is not to argue whether the PTO's alterations and insertions
> are helpful or unhelpful (changing polyamide to polyimide was decidedly
> unhelpful), but to point out that the PTO appears to experimenting with
> some sort of AI that is casually altering the text of what was filed in
> ways that at least I have not previously seen.
>
> This strikes me as major shift in the seriousness, vel non, with
> which the PTO views its duty to preserve and publish an accurate
> record of what was actually filed.
>
> When combined with the DOCX issue, this also places a further
> unjustified burden on the practitioner who now needs to proofread the
> PTO's work at multiple stages during filing and prosecution.
>
> ---Gerry
>
> Gerry Peters
> U.S. Patent Agent & Japanese Translator
>
> JTT K.K. (OSAKA & TOKYO JAPAN)
> JTT PATENT SERVICES, LLC (NH USA)
> JTT TRANSLATION SERVICES, LLC (NH USA)
> --------------------------------------------------
> TEL +1 206 203 5010     EMAIL   info at jttpatent.com
> FAX +1 206 203 5020     WEB     www.jttpatent.com
>
> --
> Patentcenter mailing list
> Patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/bcc9d182/attachment.htm>