January 23, 2004

Trademark Daily XML Files - Weekly Status Report

Inquiries can be made to: Ed Johnson at Ed.Johnson@uspto.gov - (703) 306-2621 or Marva Dubar at Marva.Dubar@uspto.gov - (703) 305-1669 or sent to OEIP@uspto.gov.

The following is a status update on new inquiries and outstanding items.

There were 2 new inquiries since the last Weekly Status Report. Reference New Inquiries below.

Inquiries that were previously considered outstanding and have been resolved will have the resolution in black and bold.

Any inquiries that require additional research and/or response are considered outstanding inquiries and will appear in red and italicized.

~~~

New Inquiries:

Inquiry – 01/20/2004:

We have been watching most carefully for the first arrival of these Madrid Protocol applications in the XML version "B" in order to test our programs and although we are aware there have been quite a few TM applications filed
designating US via Madrid Protocol since November 2003, we have received nothing so far from the USPTO.

The USPTO processes Series 79 (IB) applications as they are received from the International Bureau (IB).

Since November 2, 2003, 3 batches of IB, Series 79 applications have been processed and provided to customers receiving the Trademark Daily data files. The 3 batches accounted for 148 applications. 90 additional applications are currently in the pipeline Not sure where the 1600 figure is derived.

*The first batch appeared on the daily files the week of December 23, 2003.
*The second batch appeared on the daily files the week of January 12, 2004
*The third batch appeared on the daily files the week of January 19, 2004.

~~~

Inquiry – 01/20/2004:

In the apb040120 and apb040121 there is a new type-code included in the case-file-statement section -- it is TNSF. Can you tell us what this is?

This inquiry is being investigated.

~~~

Outstanding Inquiries:

Inquiry – 11/12/2003:

1. Using the Serial Number 78244966 as an example, this application has made a request for extension under Madrid Protocol to another country. Out on TARR you have the following Madrid Protocol Information:

USPTO Control Number: Z1230001
International Registration Number:
International Registration Date: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
Original Filing Date with USPTO: 2003-11-02
Priority Claimed: No
Date of Section 67 Priority Claim: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
International Registration Status: Application For
International Registration Certified
Date of International Registration Status: 2003-11-03
International Registration Renewal Date: (DATE NOT
AVAILABLE)
Date of Automatic Protection: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
Date International Registration Cancelled: (DATE NOT
AVAILABLE)
Date of Last Irregularity: (DATE NOT AVAILABLE)
First Refusal: No

Will we be receiving this information on an existing application/registration that has requested protection outside the U.S.? If so when and where?

Will the IB Update the information that states (DATE NOT AVAILABLE) with the appropriate information? and will that then be received in the daily feeds?

There appear to be three fields listed here that are not included in the Applications DTD v0.10 -- they are USPTO Control Number, Original Filing Date with USPTO, and Date of Last Irregularity. And the last issue with this particular Serial Number, have you sent this record to WIPO yet, as it is not on the WIPO's Madrid Express database?

Available resources do not currently permit the necessary software changes at this time. Continued evaluation will be taken for possible future enhancement.

2. In the TICRs (24-hour Box) DTDs, there are several new (legal-entity-type-code) listed that have not been added to the Applications Element Table but we have seen this in our regular Daily Application feed (apYYMMDD.zip). As well there are new (type-code) that are also not included in the Applications Element Table. Also in the Base Application v2.11 DTD the is included in the Specimen Section, while all others are included in the Goods and Services Section. In all v2.11 DTD with the exception of the Base Application DTD, within group the sequence-number is missing, as well the order of the various flags are different.

3. In the actual TICRs feed, the 78 series JPEG images can be multiply occurring. Using the hr031110.zip file, SN78322221 has three JPEG images. Which image will be the one of record?

All inquiries concerning the 24 Hour Box remain under investigation.

~~~

Inquiry – 11/12/2003:

In the Trademark-Applications "B" DTD, are there any plans to include the Country of Origin field as part of the new <international-registration> field? Or will there be some type of link between the fields that are found in the <international-registration> field and the fields related to the appropriate <foreign-application> field?

The Country of Origin is not being provided from the International Bureau (IB).

~~~

Inquiry – 10/31/2003:

Correspondent and owner information are provided.

It is requested that the telephone number, the fax number and email address, if available information, for the correspondent and owner be provided.

The daily application process is being modified to allow for this information. Notification will be made when it becomes available.

~~~

Inquiry – 10/27/2003

Regarding the Trademark 24-Hour Box.

1. The IB v1.0 DTD does not match the sample record included.
2. The sample record file name is where the 79 series code is found, there is no reference within the sample of this number; nor a file date.
3. Do you have a Mapping Table or Element Definition for the IB v1.0 DTD elements?

This inquiry has been represented to the appropriate trademark area for resolution.

~~~

Inquiry – 10/9/2003:

The TTAB daily file continues to contain illegal characters. I thought this issue would be resolved by now. Here is an excerpt from my log: 2003-10-09 02:09:14 tt031008.xml error: Parse error occurred - An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was found in the element ...

A correction is awaiting official authorization to be implemented and will not require a change to the DTD’s and should take place during the next maintenance update release.

~~~

Inquiry – 9/17/2003:

All the XML files are supposed to be in UTF-8 format.

The following file TTAB tt030701.xml has ASCII value 146 twice in the following line.

ADMIN</charge-to-employee-name><status-update-date>20021008</status-
update-date><status-code>9</status-code><party-
information><party><identifier>260024</identifier><role-code>D</role-
code><name>PAT O'BRIEN'S BAR, INC.</name><property-
information><property><identifier>245280</identifier>

The single quotes being sent to us are not in UTF-8 format.

This type of error can also be found in other TTAB xml files:

tt030515.xml
tt030711.xml

This is brought up because the TTAB files are still being produced with invalid
characters

This has been presented to the appropriate area for investigation.

~~~

Inquiry – 9/05/2003

We have noted some discrepancies between the weekly text files and the daily XML files. The following is a case in point.

In the weekly text files Serial Number 78102397 (ASPEN) appeared in the TKAB section of the wt030805.txt, wt030812.txt and wt030826.txt files. (See attachment, weekly.txt, for excerpts of this record from these 3 files). The last file (wt030826.txt) shows that the TTAB status is 009(Terminated) and the decision code is 803 (Board's Decision: Dismissed w/ Prejudice).

In the daily XML files the last TTAB update for this record was in the tt030801.xml daily file with a <status-code> of 2 (pending) and a<status-update-date> of 20021223. No further TTAB updates were received for that record since that file. (See attached file, tt030801_78102397.xml, which is an excerpt from tt030801.xml file showing this record.)

It seems that this record slipped through the cracks in the daily xml updates.

We've found cases where some records are more up-to-date via the xml files, and others which are more up-to-date via the weekly text files. If a record is updated via the weekly text file, shouldn't we expect that same record in the xml files during that same week? In general, how soon after a record is updated by the PTO should we see that record in the xml daily files?

This has been presented to the appropriate area for investigation.

~~~

Inquiry – 8/01/2003

The XML for the proceedings 76186764-EXT and 76186764-EXA do not match the USPTO Board Information System Index (BISX) online system (http://bisxext.uspto.gov/).

The USPTO BISX system shows 2 prosecution entries for 76186764-EXT while in the XML there are 8 <prosecution-entry> entries.

The USPTO BISX system shows 6 prosecution entries for 76186764-EXA while in the XML there are 8 <prosecution-entry> entries.

The <prosecution-history> entries for these TTAB records seem to have been merged in the XML generation.

This was determined to be an error in the software that maintains the data prior to the xml conversion. A correction will take place October 10, 2003.

NOTE: Due to additional changes the maintenance update release has been
extended beyond October 10, 2003.

~~~

Inquiry - 7/16/2003:

Here is some more information/errors....

Processing XML File ==> xml\030620\tt030620.xml
start:: Wed Jul 16 12:05:31 EDT 2003
[Fatal Error] tt030620.xml:145:67181: An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12)
was found in the element content of the document.
error: Parse error occurred - An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was
found in the element content of the document.

[Fatal Error] tt030621.xml:144:390195: An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was found in the element content of the document.
error: Parse error occurred - An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was found in the element content of the document.

Processing XML File ==> xml\030625\tt030625.xml
start:: Wed Jul 16 12:14:58 EDT 2003
[Fatal Error] tt030625.xml:141:728318: An invalid XML character (Unicode:
0x12) was found in the element content of the document.
error: Parse error occurred - An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was
found in the element content of the document.

Processing XML File ==> xml\030626\tt030626.xml
start:: Wed Jul 16 13:05:46 EDT 2003
[Fatal Error] tt030626.xml:143:292294: An invalid XML character (Unicode:
0x12) was found in the element content of the document.
error: Parse error occurred - An invalid XML character (Unicode: 0x12) was
found in the element content of the document.
All of the characters 0 through 31 and character 127 are nonprinting control
characters. With the exception of characters 09, 10, and 13, (Ox09,
Ox0A, and Ox0D) the others may NOT appear anywhere in an XML document.

A correction is awaiting official authorization to be implemented and will not require a change to the DTD’s and should take place during the next maintenance update release.

~~~

Inquiry - 7/14/2003

Is it possible to put in more line breaks into this file. The file is unable to be loaded into a normal text editor due to the line lengths (this is not true for the other xml files). Here is an example:

tt030701.xml, length of the longest line: 1309721, new line count: 252

A correction is awaiting official notification to be implemented.

~~~

Inquiry - 7/03/2003

Poorly formatted addresses in XML

You are trying to fit unstructured data into a structured format, I propose you add an address-2 tag to hold the data in cases like this.

<proceeding-address>
<identifier>357358</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>DOUGLAS W SPRINKLE</name>
<orgname>GIFFORD KRASS GROH SPRINKLE ANDERSON & C</orgname> THIS
WAS CUT OFF SHOULD BE

<orgname>GIFFORD KRASS GROH SPRINKLE ANDERSON &amp; CITKOWSKI, P.C.</orgname>

<address-1>280 N OLD WOODWARD SUITE 400</address-1>
<city>BIRMINGHAM MICHIG</city>
<state>AN</state> THIS IS THE TAIL END OF THE ABOVE TAG
<postcode>48009</postcode>
</proceeding-address>

<proceeding-address>
<identifier>384315</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>EDGAR A. ZARINS</name>
<orgname>MASCO CORPORATION</orgname>
<address-1>21001 VAN BORN ROAD</address-1>
<city>TAYLOR MICHIG</city>
<state>AN</state> THIS IS THE TAIL END OF THE ABOVE TAG
<postcode>48180</postcode>
</proceeding-address>

<proceeding-address>
<identifier>387621</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>JOHN R GARBER</name>
<orgname>COOPER &amp; DUNHAM LLP</orgname>
<address-1>1185 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS</address-1>
<city>NEW YORK NEW YO</city>
<state>RK</state> THIS IS THE TAIL END OF THE ABOVE TAG
<postcode>10036</postcode>
</proceeding-address>

<proceeding-address>
<identifier>367755</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>STEVEN A. GIBSON</name>
<orgname>SANTORO DRIGGS WALCH KEARNEY ET AL</orgname>
<address-1>400 S FOURTH ST 3RD FL</address-1>
<city>LAS VEGAS NEVA</city>
<state>DA</state> THIS IS THE TAIL END OF THE ABOVE TAG
<postcode>89101</postcode>
</proceeding-address>

You aren't validating the state code field.

<proceeding-address>
<identifier>292989</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>SALLY M. ABEL</name>
<orgname>FENWICK & WEST LLP</orgname>
<address-1>TWO PALO ALTO SQUARE</address-1>
<city>PALTO ALTO</city>
<state>C</state> INVALID STATE CODE
<postcode>94306</postcode>
</proceeding-address>

<proceeding-address>
<identifier>298457</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>KRISTI A. ZENTNER</name>
<orgname>FAFINSKI AND WALLRICH, P.A.</orgname>
<address-1>STE. 100 DUNNE MANSION 337 OAK GROVE STREET</address-1>
<city>MINNEAPOLIS</city>
<state>M</state> INVALID STATE CODE
<postcode>55403</postcode>
</proceeding-address>

What code list are these from?

<proceeding-address>
<identifier>391698</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>SUSAN UPTON DOUGLASS</name>
<orgname>FROSS ZELNICK LEHRMAN &amp; ZISSU, P.C.</orgname>
<address-1>866 UNITED NATIONS PLAZA AT FIRST AVENUE &amp; 48TH
STREET</address-1>
<city>NEW YORK</city>
<state>N7</state> INVALID STATE CODE
<postcode>10017</postcode>
</proceeding-address>

<proceeding-address>
<identifier>369899</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>PETER L. COSTAS</name>
<orgname>PEPE &amp; HAZARD LLP</orgname>
<address-1>225 ASYLUM STREET</address-1>
<city>HARTFORD</city>
<state>CN</state> INVALID STATE CODE
<postcode>06103</postcode>
</proceeding-address>

<proceeding-address>
<identifier>386393</identifier>
<type-code>C</type-code>
<name>ROLAND W. BAGGOTT III</name>
<orgname>THE BAGGOTT LAW OFFICES, L.L.C.</orgname>
<address-1>1316 CHRISTOPHER COURT</address-1>
<city>METATRIE</city>
<state>LO</state> INVALID STATE CODE
<postcode>70001-3804</postcode>
</proceeding-address>

A correction has been presented to the data management area. Upon approval it will be implemented.

~~~

Inquiry - 6/09/2003

After analyzing the most recent Trademark Daily XML TTAB DTD related data files, we found the following issues:

1. The <filing-date> field (which is part of the <proceeding-entry> tag) does not always have the correct value. Here are some examples of this issue:

a. For the Proceeding Number 92042024, which can be found in last Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file, the value of the DT-FIL field (which is located in the TWTF TTAB record) is "20030310". In the TTAB data file called TT030529.xml, which contains the most up-to-date version of this TTAB Proceeding, the value of the <filing-date> field is "20030529". This is incorrect since this Proceeding was filed on March 10th, 2003.

b. For the Proceeding Number 92042025, which can be found in last Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file, the value of the DT-FIL field (which is located in the TWTF TTAB record) is "20030430". In the TTAB data file called TT030529.xml, which contains the most up-to-date version of this TTAB Proceeding, the value of the <filing-date> field is "20030529". This is incorrect since this Proceeding was filed on April 30th, 2003.

c. For the Proceeding Number 92042026, which can be found in last Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file, the value of the DT-FIL field (which is located in the TWTF TTAB record) is "20030424". In the TTAB data file called TT030529.xml, which contains the most up-to-date version of this TTAB Proceeding, the value of the <filing-date> field is "20030529". This is incorrect since this Proceeding was filed on April 24th, 2003.

This was reported in the 6/27/2003 Status Report as being corrected. A correction is planned to take place October 10, 2003.

NOTE: Due to additional changes the maintenance update release has been extended beyond October 10, 2003.

2. The <status-update-date> field (which is part of the <proceeding-entry> tag) does not always have the most up-to-date value after the value of the <status-code> field (which is also part of the <proceeding-entry> tag) changes. Here are some examples of this issue:

a. For the Proceeding Number 91154190, which can be found in last Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file, the value of the DT-STAT field (which is located in the TWTF TTAB record) is "20030529" and the value of the STAT field (which is also located in the TWTF TTAB record) is "9" (Terminated). In the TTAB data file called TT030528.xml, the value of the <status-update-date> field is "20030103" and the value of the <status-code> field is "2" (Pending) for this TTAB Proceeding. In the TTAB data file called TT030529.xml, which contains the most up-to-date version of this TTAB Proceeding, the value of the <status-code> field is changed to "9" (Terminated), but the value of the <status-update-date> field remains the same ("20030103") for some reason. Instead, this field should have the value "20030529" just like in last Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file.

b. For the Proceeding Number 91154593, which can be found in last Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file, the value of the DT-STAT field (which is located in the TWTF TTAB record) is "20030529" and the value of the STAT field (which is also located in the TWTF TTAB record) is "9" (Terminated). In the TTAB data file called TT030528.xml, the value of the <status-update-date> field is "20030122" and the value of the <status-code> field is "2"
(Pending) for this TTAB Proceeding. In the TTAB data file called TT030529.xml, which contains the most up-to-date version of this TTAB Proceeding, the value of the <status-code> field is changed to "9" (Terminated), but the value of the <status-update-date> field remains the same ("20030122") for some reason. Instead, this field should have the value "20030529" just like in last Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file.

The value of the <status-update-date> is in error. A correction is planned to take place October 10, 2003.

NOTE: Due to additional changes the maintenance update release has been extended beyond October 10, 2003.

~~~

Inquiry - 6/06/2003

In reviewing the country codes for each of the 3 XML files and discovered the following

*Trademark-Applications XML

Uses 3 digit code from TWTF file

*Trademark-Assignments XML

Uses no codes at all, they expand all codes (Spelling out countries)

*Trademark-Proceedings XML

Uses officially designated country as prescribed by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.3

Each DTD is currently maintained within the appropriate area of responsibility and uses country codes and names differently.

These differences have been presented to management and a decision to adhere to the WIPO Standard ST. 3 is being investigated.

If a decision is made to use the WIPO Standard ST. 3 changes would be required to have a separate field for the country code and a separate field for the state code.

~~~

If you have any questions or need additional information please contact one of the following individuals:

Ed Johnson	Marva Dubar
Information Products Division	Information Dissemination
Data Dissemination Branch	Systems Division
(703) 306-2621	(703) 305-1669
(703) 306-2737 Fax	(703) 308-5164 Fax
Ed.Johnson@uspto.gov	Marva.Dubar@uspto.gov