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

[Katherine Koenig]

This is bad. 

Best regards,

Katherine

Dr. Katherine Koenig
Registered Patent Attorney
Koenig IP Works, PLLC
2208 Mariner Dr.
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
(954) 903-1699
katherine at koenigipworks.com


Targeted Intellectual Property Strategy

The information contained in this communication, including any attachments, is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, do not read it.  Please immediately reply to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then destroy all paper and electronic copies.  Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Patentcenter <patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Gerry Peters via Patentcenter
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 11:48 PM
To: Patentcenter list postings <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Gerry Peters <gerrypeters at jttpatent.com>
Subject: [Patentcenter] Published version of us patent applications no longer identical to what was filed (experimental use of AI at PTO)?

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