Products and Services >Subscriber Notices

October 3, 2003

Trademark Daily XML Files - Weekly Status Report

New This Week:

The deployment of the Patent and Trademark Assignments on the Web System on the USPTO web site has been postponed.  As announced in the Official Gazette dated August 26, 2003, the Patent and Trademark Assignments on the   Web System was originally scheduled to be available on or about September 29, 2003. As soon as a new deployment date is known, it will be published and also    posted on the USPTO web site at www.uspto.gov.

The Transition Plan Milestones and Dates released on July 18, 2003 will now  appear as a reference item in the TDXF DTD's, Documentation, and Sample Data page.  Note that the first test data for version "B" of the DTD’s to be available approximately October 8, 2003.

 ~~~

There was 1 new inquiry since the last Weekly Status Report of September 26,  2003.  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 - 10/2/2003:

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.

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.

Outstanding Inquiries:

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 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 – 9/02/2003:

Please note that there is an error in the applications DTD sent out in last week’s status report.  The DTD is malformed because it is missing closing elements.

Because this was a typographical error and not a logic error it has been corrected in the Trademark Application XML "B" DTD.

~~~

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 files for paper submissions of Trademark applications.  The TIFF files contain full-page drawing images and as amended full-page drawing images.  The TIFF images will only be black and white.

~~~

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.

~~~

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.   

~~~

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 - 7/11/2003

The following documentation still does not exist.  (problem discussed in June 13th status document).

Trademark Assignments XML DTD Element Documentation (Trademark-Assignments-v0.2-2003-05-19)

An updated version of The Trademark Assignments XML Documentation has been placed on the TDXF DTD's, Documentation, and Sample Data page October 3, 2003.

~~~

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 locatedin 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.

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 sho uld 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.   

~~~

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 6/05/2003

The Trademark Daily XML Process Documentation for Trademark Assignments XML DTD points to the old version (0.1) and not the current (0.2) version.

An updated version of The Trademark Assignments XML Documentation has been placed in theTDXF DTD's, Documentation, and Sample Data page October 3, 2003.

~~~

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