[Patentpractice] Feedback document mis-placing comments

[Rick Neifeld]

Carl - That ( sic; filed in "DOCX ... in the first place,") is not so.
 Although my post was long and detailed (in order to convey all relevant
facts), I stated "In this case, I had filed the original application *in
pdf format*, for both spec and figs."

And I stated that, in response to the requirement to file a substitute
specification, I filed - - Clean Copy of the substitute spec, *in DOCX
format*, also with document description "Specification".- -  - .  A reason
for filing the clean copy of the Substitute Specification in "DOCX" format
was my presumption that the PTO would use the clean copy (contrary to the
rule specifying the marked up copy "is" the substitute specification) for
subsequent processing. And my belief that PatentServer mangles submitted
PDF documents, decreasing their fidelity. In this case, a tensor math
heavy specification, fidelity is very important.. While not mangling DOCX
documents.  For the DOCX documents, I think character fidelity remains
high.  Our concern with DOCX is directed to the PTO's file specification
interpreting the data in the DOCX file to mean something else, like showing
a summation sign, where our DOCX shows an integral sign. But not making
the character edges blurred.  So that is why I chose DOCX format for the
clean copy of the substitute specification. And knowing that I could rely
upon the orginally submitted PDF version of the specification in case
dispute arose later in time.
.
In any case, I find it problematic that PatentCenter has no Document
Description to distinguish a follow on portion of a specification, or a
substitute specificaiton submission, from the original submission of the
specification.  And I find it problematic that PatentCenter has no Document
Description providing the PTO a means to distinguish a rule required "clean
copy" from the rule required official substitute specification, the marked
up copy.

And (David Boundy will appreciate) that the ASU agent's response identified
a requirement not existent in the rules for the contents of a Clean Copy,
specifically that the PTO rejects a filed "Clean Copy" of a substitute
specification because it does not state - - within the document
constituting the clean copy, that it is a "Clean Copy".

BR, Rick





On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 1:07 PM Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com> wrote:

> Not to put too fine a point on it, but it looks to me like if you had
> avoided any use of DOCX (that is, if you had filed in PDF in the first
> place, incurring the $400 penalty) then the USPTO would have been deprived
> of the opportunity to provide all of this poor service.  Is that so?
> On 12/19/2024 10:48 AM, Rick Neifeld wrote:
>
> Follow-up on my post below.
>
> 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.
>
> 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."
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
> Filename: [Troubleshooting_AgentRedacted_XXXXXX.txt]
> 10:12 AM, Called EBC
> Agent ___, agent number 59
> Given case number 2-00092400.
> Agent indicates he cannot address whether a marked up copy is present in
> the official file in Patent Center for this application.
> Agent indicates only "Application assistance unit: 571272400" can address
> my questions.
> Agent transferred me to Application assistance unit: 571272400
> Application Assistance Unit Agent ___, given number 2-00092412
> Agent indicates he cannot see the documents in Patent Center identified in
> the "Documents & transaction history", "Documents" tab.
> 10:31 AM, Agent has put me on hold.
> 11:01 line has hung up (call ended).
>
> 11:03 Calling back. 571272400, Agent ___, answered.  Call dropped.
>
> 11:06 Calling back. 571272400,
> 11:07-11:08, approximately 2 minutes of recorded voice message.
> 11:08 Agent ___ answers, provides reference 2-00092412
> 11:09, agent placed me on hold while agent reads notes from  2-00092412.
> Discussion with Agent, identify problem.
> 11:15 Agent Response. I cited rule 1.121 requirements. Agent unclear
> regarding rule requirement.  Agent places me "on hold".
> 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."
> 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.)
> 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.
> 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"
> 11:22 Agent places me on hold, again.
> 11:__[??] Agent Clarified: The "marked up copy" does not require any
> additional marking showing it is the "marked up" copy.
> 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."
> *******************
> 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.
> I asked for clarification on the following additional questions regarding
> file format, and AUX pdf.
> Regarding "DOCX" or "PDF" for clean and marked up copy of substitute
> specifications:
> 1. What are the appropriate file formats for a clean copy of a substitute
> specification?
> 2. What are the appropriate file formats for a marked up copy of a
> substitute specification?
> 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.
> 11:35 call continuing at this time.
> 11:__[??] Call concluded. Agent stated she intends to call me back within
> 24 hours.
> ***********************************
>
> Rick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 2:25 PM Rick Neifeld <richardneifeld at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Agree. And I will break from ongoing work to add a couple comments and
>> questions.
>>
>> 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.
>> 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.
>>
>> Second, I recently had to respond to a Notice of informalities requiring
>> me to formally revise the Figs and spec.
>> 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.
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> 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:
>>
>> 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.)
>> Marked Up copy of the substitute spec, in pdf format, with document
>> description "Specification".  (I found no document description for
>> "substitute specification.")
>> Clean Copy of the substitute spec, in DOCX format, with also with
>> document description "Specification".
>> 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.)
>>
>> 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.)
>> I also included this note in the Transmittal Letter
>> "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.
>> 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."
>>
>> In my response, at the end, I included this DOCX centric statement:
>>
>> " 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."
>> 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."
>>
>>    So, comments?
>> Thanks, RICK
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 1:13 PM Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <
>> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/17/2024 10:48 AM, William Slate via Patentpractice wrote:
>>>
>>> A comment read:
>>>
>>> “This claim appears to not end with a period.”
>>>
>>> The area highlighted by the comment was a hard return between claims 7
>>> and 8.
>>>
>>> I found a period missing at the end of claim 9.
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>>> Let's sort of summarize where we are on this.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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".
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> But see
>>> https://blog.oppedahl.com/maybe-uspto-will-clarify-the-docx-safeguard/
>>> .  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.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Patentpractice mailing list
>>> Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>>>
>>> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241219/6cc9b28e/attachment.html>