U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Information Products Division
Data Dissemination
Trademark Daily XML Migration

October 17, 2003

Trademark Daily XML Files - Weekly Status Report

New This Week:

There were 3 new inquiries since the last Weekly Status Report. Reference New Inquiries below.
~~~

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.

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 - 10/10/2003

Regarding the response to the Image file procedures as of 2 November:

I am unaware of any DTD or any other related documentation having been presented for these XML files. Neither has there been any test data. Will we receive documentation prior to 2 November? What is the naming convention to be for the cropped paper application image file?

The initial announcement was made October 3, 2003. Since that time DTD's, documentation and test files are being established and will be available October 24, 2003. In the meantime the trademark images currently being provided weekly on 3480 tape cartridges (B6, B7 and B8) will be available through Tuesday, December 30, 2003.
~~~

Inquiry - 10/14/2003

I am deeply concerned that the success of that effort is predicated on the delay of accurate data to Trademark search vendors. We are being placed at a severe disadvantage in our responsibility to provide our clients with the most accurate data available from the PTO.

To recap:

1. The Madrid daily XML files will not be available to vendors until 1 January 2004, two months after the PTO will be processing the data.

Production of the Madrid daily XML files will begin January 2004. Weekly test data of the production environment will be available beginning November 3, 2003.

2. Bug fixes in the production daily XML files, long scheduled for 10 October, were abruptly withdrawn, on 10 October, with no new release date given. This withdrawal came one week after the 3 October status reported.

"Work continues towards many achievements for October 10, 2003"

The Madrid Protocol is currently the driving force behind this entire effort to transition to a daily process including any software maintenance updates. Priority effort is being placed on meeting the deadline for this implementation, resolution of other problems will occur as soon as possible thereafter.

3. On 2 November, the weekly Image tapes we subscribe to containing images for Registrations, Applications and E-submissions will no longer be produced. In their place will be a series of XML files. To date, there is neither documentation about these XML files nor test data.

DTD's, documentation and test files for the appearance of the new Trademark 24 Hour Box are being established and will be available October 24, 2003. In the meantime the trademark images currently being provided weekly on 3480 tape cartridges (B6, B7 and B8) will be available through Tuesday, December 30, 2003.

I don't see that we will get any relief on the first two issues. I strongly urge that the decision to halt the weekly production of the B6, B7 and B8 image tapes on 2 November be reversed, and that those tapes be kept current through the end of 2003. I would expect this to be in parallel with the daily XML updates, so that we can transfer our production systems to that Image data once we have finally seen the new data format.

See answer to 3 above.
~~~

Inquiry - 10/16/2003

I think the following change is necessary to the Trademark-Applications-Daily DTD as the international-registration section can't be mandatory. I have also made <first-refusal-in> non-mandatory based on your sample data file.

<!ELEMENT international-registration (international-registration-number, international-registration-date, international-publication-date, international-renewal-date, auto-protection-date, international-death-date?, international-status-code, international-status-date, priority-claimed-in, priority-claimed-date?, first-refusal-in?)*>

To be investigated and reported in next week's Status Report October 24, 2003.
~~~

Outstanding Inquiries:

Inquiry-10/9/2003

I have checked the Trademark Applications DTD v0.8 and have found a what I feel to be a definition error for the following element:

<!ELEMENT international-registrations (international-registration-number*)>
<!ELEMENT international-registration-number (international-registration-date*)>
<!ELEMENT international-registration-date (#PCDATA)>

Should be defined as:

<!ELEMENT international-registrations (international-registration-number , international-registration-date)>
<!ELEMENT international-registration-number (#PCDATA)>
<!ELEMENT international-registration-date (#PCDATA)>

You also have a comment problem in the Trademark Applications DTD which needs to be fixed:

<!-- **** START REVISION HISTORY ****
2003-03-05
1) Renamed element classes to classifications; and element class to classification. Change requested by Java users since "class" is reserved word. By Marva Dubar
2) Changed the "0 or 1 times" reoccurrence of element "assignment-name-change" in case-file-owner, to "0 or more times" reoccurrence. By Marva Dubar
3) Renamed element assignment-name-change to name-change-explanation. Change requested by program manager. By Marva Dubar
**** END REVISION HISTORY **** -->
2003-08-26
1) Added group element for international-registrations and associated individual elements
-->

Should be:

<!-- **** START REVISION HISTORY ****
2003-03-05
1) Renamed element classes to classifications; and element class to classification. Change requested by Java users since "class" is reserved word. By Marva Dubar
2) Changed the "0 or 1 times" reoccurrence of element "assignment-name-change" in case-file-owner, to "0 or more times" reoccurrence. By Marva Dubar
3) Renamed element assignment-name-change to name-change-explanation. Change requested by program manager. By Marva Dubar 2003-08-26

1) Added group element for international-registrations and associated individual elements

**** END REVISION HISTORY **** -->

You have a problem in the Trademark Assignment DTD with the following lines:

<!ELEMENT property (serial-no? , registration-no ?, trademark-law-treaty-property?, international-registration-number?)>

Should be:

<!ELEMENT property (serial-no? , registration-no?, trademark-law-treaty-property?, international-registration-number?)>

Correction should be present in the Application DTD v0.9 “B” version place on the TDXF DTD's, Documentation, and Sample Data Page October 10, 2003.
~~~

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-10/8/2003

While cruising your web site and ftp site for the sample data I was wondering where you are going to post it? Will it be on the TDXF DTD's, Documentation, and Sample Data page?

Sample data for the “B” versions of the DTD’s will be posted on the TDXF DTD's, Documentation, and Sample Data page. Today October 10, 2003, an updated version of the Application “B” DTD and supporting sample data will be present. Information, updates and sample data for the Assignment “B” DTD, the TTAB “B” DTD and supporting sample data will be forthcoming.
~~~

Inquiry - 10/7/2003

1. A critical issue has come up as a result of last Friday's answers. I've heard from three companies who buy TM data. Their concern -- which they express as extremely critical -- is as follows:

"Based on the timeline that was provided, until the end of the year, the current daily A DTDs are In Production. It would appear that we only get weekly test data on the Madrid B files until 1 Jan when they are frozen and shift to production. Further, the B DTDs will likely change week to week (that's implied by the inclusion of a change status documented weekly). That indicates that the PTO will be updating their database as of 2 November, but we won't have daily data for two months, nor will we have a stable feed even if we wanted to try to use the B files.

The question as stated by this customer is accurate as a summary of what the USPTO has been stating about implications of the Madrid Protocol transition process. The USPTO has related this position for several months, first reported in the weekly status report of June 6, 2003, which stated the following:

"...Whenever possible, the USPTO strives to provide customers with an adequate change notification period regarding the introduction of new, or changes to existing, information dissemination products or services. However, given the ongoing system developments pertaining to the introduction of the Madrid Protocol in November 2003, the USPTO may not be able to provide such notification for the new Trademark Daily XML file."

In addition, the transition milestone schedule first released on July 18, 2003 indicated that regarding the B DTD:

"...Updates [will be] provided weekly to the FTP site. Version "B" formatted test data will also be provided weekly to customers for comment."

Again on August 8, 2003, in response to a customer query dated August 1, 2003:

... The "B" version [DTD] will be released as soon as possible, but will remain in flux during the time period leading to implementation of the Madrid Protocol (November 2, 2003) as late-breaking international agreements and technical decisions are incorporated.

All outstanding items in this status report that require a DTD change would be applied to the "B" version of the DTD's.

Every effort is being made by the appropriate areas to bring closure to all outstanding items in the status report. The implementation of the Madrid Protocol, however, is the driving force in getting many of these outstanding items resolved. It is likely that many of these issues will remain active throughout the Madrid Protocol implementation process.

The USPTO will continue to work with customers to provide a stable data flow for the Madrid Protocol implementation as soon as possible, but again within the parameters that have been reported over the last several months.

2. "The closure of the Image question (8/25 on his report) was just a cut-and-paste from his letter of 8/11. Basically we're going to have to crop all paper application images. His earlier answer indicated that the PTO would crop them for its "internal" database, so again we're at a disadvantage."

Please reference an update to the inquiry of 8/25/2003. All of the information was not included when the inquiry was closed on October 3, 2003.
~~~

Inquiry-10/2/2003

As of the Weekly status report of 26 September, there are 15 inquiries
being tracked. Of these 15:

3 are listed as Under Investigation
1 was too early (DTD B related)
1 "procedures must be worked out and furnished"
3 to be corrected 10 October
5 waiting on various management decisions
2 documentation updates

Are the three listed for 10 October still on target?

The 5 management decision items appear to have been carried for at least 2 months - no decisions yet?

Are any of these items planned for correction within the DTD B definitions, still to be defined, and if so, will they be tracked within the DTD B change document?

The Madrid Protocol is the driving force behind any changes and outstanding inquiries. As the Madrid Protocol implementation date (November 2, 2003) draws closer resources are focused meeting requirements for that project. The Madrid Protocol continues to be in a testing environment. Any changes and outstanding inquiries including management decisions will be made to the Madrid Protocol DTD “B” versions. When these “B” version DTD’s are available for dissemination a Condition Paper identifying all changes will be provided.

Work continues towards many achievements for October 10, 2003.

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

The updated Assignment DTD documentation has been included in the TDXF DTD's, Documentation, and Sample Data page October 3, 2003.

The appearance of the trademark images that will appear in the Trademark 24 Hour Box beginning November 2, 2003 has just been finalized. Reference the outstanding inquiry dated 8/25/2003.

Inquiry – 9/18/2003:

In the XML Trademark Applicants file dated August 28, 2003 (ap030828.xml) a problem has been found with the data.

The problem pertains to serial number 71555902 and the status-date element in the XML.

On the flat file we received the status date (DTSTAT) came thorough as 20030828, where as on the XML file it came in as <status- date>19920414</status-date>. On your web site, the date using the TARR system shows up as 2003-08-28. You can view the record with this link: http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=71555902

I am wondering why the difference in dates? Attached below is the case-file-header record from the XML file (the status-date is in bold):

<case-file-header>
<amend-to-register-date>00000000</amend-to-register-date>
<cancellation-date>00000000</cancellation-date>
<filing-date>19470912</filing-date>
<published-for-opposition-date>00000000</published-for-opposition-date>
<republished-12c-date>00000000</republished-12c-date>
<registration-date>19520318</registration-date>
<status-date>19920414</status-date>
<principal-register-amended-in>F</principal-register-amended-in>
<supplemental-register-amended-in>F</supplemental-register-amended-in>
<trademark-in>T</trademark-in>
<collective-trademark-in>F</collective-trademark-in>
<service-mark-in>F</service-mark-in>
<collective-service-mark-in>F</collective-service-mark-in>
<collective-membership-mark-in>F</collective-membership-mark-in>
<certification-mark-in>F</certification-mark-in>
<cancellation-pending-in>F</cancellation-pending-in>
<published-concurrent-in>F</published-concurrent-in>
<concurrent-use-in>F</concurrent-use-in>
<concurrent-use-proceeding-in>F</concurrent-use-proceeding-in>
<interference-pending-in>F</interference-pending-in>
<opposition-pending-in>F</opposition-pending-in>
<section-12c-in>F</section-12c-in>
<section-2f-in>F</section-2f-in>
<section-2f-in-part-in>F</section-2f-in-part-in>
<section-8-accepted-in>T</section-8-accepted-in>
<section-15-acknowledged-in>T</section-15-acknowledged-in>
<renewal-filed-in>T</renewal-filed-in>
<section-8-filed-in>T</section-8-filed-in>
<section-8-partial-accept-in>F</section-8-partial-accept-in>
<section-15-filed-in>F</section-15-filed-in>
<supplemental-register-in>F</supplemental-register-in>
<foreign-priority-in>F</foreign-priority-in>
<change-registration-in>T</change-registration-in>
<status-code>800</status-code>
<mark-drawing-code>5U06</mark-drawing-code>
<intent-to-use-in>F</intent-to-use-in>
<intent-to-use-current-in>F</intent-to-use-current-in>
<filed-as-use-application-in>T</filed-as-use-application-in>
<amended-to-use-application-in>F</amended-to-use-application-in>
<use-application-currently-in>T</use-application-currently-in>
<amended-to-itu-application-in>F</amended-to-itu-application-in>
<filing-basis-filed-as-44d-in>F</filing-basis-filed-as-44d-in>
<amended-to-44d-application-in>F</amended-to-44d-application-in>
<filing-basis-current-44d-in>F</filing-basis-current-44d-in>
<filing-basis-filed-as-44e-in>F</filing-basis-filed-as-44e-in>
<amended-to-44e-application-in>F</amended-to-44e-application-in>
<without-basis-currently-in>F</without-basis-currently-in>
<filing-current-no-basis-in>F</filing-current-no-basis-in>
<color-drawing-filed-in>F</color-drawing-filed-in>
<color-drawing-current-in>F</color-drawing-current-in>
<drawing-3d-filed-in>F</drawing-3d-filed-in>
<filing-basis-current-44e-in>F</filing-basis-current-44e-in>
<drawing-3d-current-in>F</drawing-3d-current-in>
<mark-identification>CELOTEX</mark-identification>
<renewal-date>19920318</renewal-date>
<employee-number>00000</employee-number>
</case-file-header>

This has been presented to the appropriate area for investigation.
~~~

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 – 9/09/2003:

Questions about the Madrid DTD changes that were provided on August 29th, 2003.

1. According to the new Trademark-Applications-v0.7-2003-08-28.dtd file, a particular <case-file> record can have multiple International Registrations. Is it true that a particular Serial Number can have more than one International Registration Number?

2. Is it possible to have more than one Serial Number associated to the same International Registration Number?

The initial version of the Madrid DTD’s changes were provided on August 29, 2003 for information purposes only and are definitely subject to change. Inquiries concerning the Madrid Protocol version “B” DTD’s will now be accepted and be presented to the appropriate area for investigation.
~~~

Inquiry – 9/05/2003

We have noted some discrepancies between the weekly text files and thedaily 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 – 8/25/2003

Trademark TIFF image files for paper submissions of trademark applications contain full-page drawing images and as amended full-page drawing images in the Trademark 24 Hour Box.

Does that mean we will now have the responsibility for producing a final image, including cropping and scaling the image?

Beginning November 2, 2003, the USPTO will begin accepting electronic submissions of Trademark applications from the International Bureau (IB) and will continue accepting electronic submissions of Trademark applications from the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). The images received in electronic submissions of Trademark applications from the IB and TEAS will be in the JPEG format and can be black and white, grey-scale, or color. The USPTO will also continue to receive paper submissions of Trademark applications and will capture the black and white images in TIFF format.

After November 2, 2003, the Daily Trademark Application Image 24 Hour Box will contain the following:

1. Trademark XML files for electronic applications filed through TEAS. The XML files will contain text information about the application. If the application contains a drawing, a cropped image file in JPEG format will also be present. The JPEG images can be black and white, grey-scale, or color.

2. Trademark XML files for electronic applications filed through the IB. The XML files will contain text information about the application. If the application contains a drawing, a cropped image file in JPEG format will also be present. The JPEG images can be black and white, grey-scale, or color.

3. Trademark TIFF image (black and white) and JPEG image (color) files for paper submissions of Trademark applications. The TIFF and JPEG image files contain full-page drawing images and as amended full-page drawing images.

NOTE: The following information should have been included in the Weekly Status Report of October 3, 2003.

4. The Trademark TIFF and JPEG images containing full-page drawings for paper submissions of Trademark applications will reside in the Trademark 24 Hour Box as stated in 3. above.

These full-page drawing images will be subsequently cropped and provided as a cropped TIFF image for black and white and cropped JPEG image for color in a supplemental file to the next days Trademark 24 Hour Box.
~~~

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.
~~~

Inquiry - 5/23/2003

Problems exist over the use of the 'Section Sign' character inside the TTAB xml dated May 15, 2003. I did an UNIX command "od -hc" to dump the contents of the file so I could see what you are sending it as (247) which is causing the SAX parser to error. I think the character should be &#167.

In XML, there are only five predefined character entities, as follows:

Character	Entity Reference	Decimal	Hexadecimal
<	&lt	&#60	&#x3C
>	&gt	&#62	&#x3E
&	&amp	&#38	&#x26
"	&quot	&#34	&#x22
'	&apos	&#39	&#x27

Substituting a character entity reference for a character is REQUIRED by W3C for < and & in all cases where these characters are not markup. It's good practice to do it for the other three as well. That means, wherever these five characters are found in content or in comments, they should be replaced with the corresponding character entity.

Entity declarations will be made for other characters that are included in the trademark xml data according to the W3C Entity Reference recommendation.

Please Note: The above characters entities are awaiting official authorization to be implemented and will not require a change to the DTD’s.
~~~

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