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

[Richard Schafer]

I know this is probably a silly question, but what legal basis does the PTO have for changing the text of an application without anything on the record such as an examiner’s amendment?  Sure, changing “Pat. App. No. nn/nnn.nnn” to “Pat. App. Ser. No. nn/nnn,nnn” is innocuous, but still, shouldn’t there at least be something stating (and justifying) the change on the record?

Best regards,
Richard A. Schafer | Schafer IP Law
P.O. Box 230081 | Houston, TX 77223
M: 832.283.6564 | richard at schafer-ip.com<mailto:richard at schafer-ip.com>

From: Patentcenter <patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of David Boundy via Patentcenter
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 5:53 AM
To: For bug reports, feature requests, and tips and tricks about Patent Center. <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Patentcenter] Published version of us patent applications no longer identical to what was filed (experimental use of AI at PTO)?

Theyve been editing / uniforming priority references for decades.  If you think about it, they kind of have to.  I long ago adopted the practice of using their conventions in my specifications so my proofreading would be easy.

changing the chemical names -- thats another whole thing.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024, 11:48 PM Gerry Peters via Patentcenter <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto: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<mailto:info at jttpatent.com>
FAX +1 206 203 5020     WEB     www.jttpatent.com<http://www.jttpatent.com>

--
Patentcenter mailing list
Patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com<mailto: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/dd746aea/attachment.htm>