[Patentpractice] I predicted this defect in Assignment Center

[Carl Oppedahl]

I cringe to imagine that it might turn out to be necessary to set up a 
counterpart to https://patentcenter-tickets.oppedahl.com/ that would be 
a bug list for Assignment Center.

One of the saddest things about the Patent Center bug list at 
https://patentcenter-tickets.oppedahl.com/ is that when I first created 
that site, I sort of naively assumed that there would never be more an a 
dozen active bugs, two dozen at most.  So I did not construct a massive 
underlying database or anything like that.  Just a simple unordered HTML 
list.  I sort of naively assumed that the USPTO developers would be 
correcting reported bugs more or less in real time.

I also sort of naively assumed that when the developers said they 
welcome feature requests, this actually meant they would implement some 
of the requested features.

It never crossed my naive mind that the number of unfixed bugs would 
grow seemingly without limit.  And that the number of unimplemented 
feature requests would forever be identical to the number of feature 
requests, likewise growing with time.

But anyway, for now the Assignment Center bug list, such as it is, may 
be seen at 
https://blog.oppedahl.com/some-of-the-defects-in-the-new-assignment-center/ 
.

While we are on the topic of Assignment Center, what is everybody's 
reaction to the claim, made by MC in the Assignment Branch (see 
https://blog.oppedahl.com/no-responsiveness-from-the-assignment-branch-on-defect-in-assignment-center/ 
) that there was supposedly customer-side beta testing going on at least 
as early as two weeks before the release of Assignment Center?

On 2/6/2024 4:12 PM, Richard Schafer wrote:
>
> While the Patent Center web page that lists known issues, etc. is 
> weak, at least it exists.  As far as I know, there is no corresponding 
> page for Assignment Center.
>
> <sarcasm> However, I’m pleased that the PTO is consistent with Patent 
> Cemter by wasting the top line of the page with a notice telling us 
> it’s an official government website. </sarcasm>
>
> 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:* Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On 
> Behalf Of *Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 6, 2024 5:23 AM
> *To:* For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek 
> legal advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentpractice] I predicted this defect in Assignment 
> Center
>
> What Randall said.  Folks, Randall is channeling the US Congress, 
> which in the year 1975 enacted 35 USC § 363 which says:
>
>     An international application designating the United States shall
>     have the effect, from its international filing date under article
>     11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly
>     filed in the Patent and Trademark Office.
>
> On 2/6/2024 3:39 AM, Randall Svihla via Patentpractice wrote:
>
>     Of course, the fiction is that a PCT application that designates
>     the U.S. filed in an Office that is not the US RO is in fact a
>     U.S. application.  Surely we should be able to file assignments
>     against all types of U.S. applications.
>
>     *From:* Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>
>     <mailto:patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf Of
>     *Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, February 6, 2024 12:09 AM
>     *To:* patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>     *Cc:* Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com> <mailto:carl at oppedahl.com>
>     *Subject:* [Patentpractice] I predicted this defect in Assignment
>     Center
>
>     On 1/29/2024 3:54 PM, Carl Oppedahl wrote:
>
>         */Blocks you from including an application number that they
>         can't find in their system. /*It looks like if your patent
>         application is not in Patentcenter, you will be blocked from
>         including it in your recordation submission.  I suspect this
>         means it will be impossible to record against a PCT
>         application filed in an Office that is not the RO/US.
>
>     Yes, I predicted this defect and sure enough, the USPTO developers
>     got this wrong.
>
>     It is impossible to record against a PCT application filed in an
>     Office that is not the RO/US.
>
>     See
>     https://blog.oppedahl.com/some-of-the-defects-in-the-new-assignment-center/
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240207/eb6731cc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4514 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240207/eb6731cc/attachment.p7s>