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

June 20, 2003

Trademark Daily XML Files - Weekly Status Report

There was one new inquiry for the week of June 16, 2003. Reference New Inquiries below.

Many inquiries received have been resolved as reported in earlier announcements/status reports. Once resolved and reported that information will not be repeated in subsequent weekly status reports. All previous inquiries that have been resolved will be maintained in their appropriate announcement/status report date.

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 outstanding items and new inquiries.

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 items and will appear in red and italicized.
~~~

Outstanding Items:

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.

We must look into the use of an entity declaration standard.
~~~

Inquiry - 6/03/2003

We have been noticing in many older records that the <published-for-opposition-date> is zero filled; however previously we did receive a published date for the record. During your conversion or change to XML feeds have you lost this date?

Using the latest file ap030602.zip here are two Serial Numbers 72406756 and 71444772 (in this file there were only about 6 records where the published date was missing).

After further research it was determined that the “published for opposition date” for some older trademarks was not maintained once the trademark became registered. In subsequent renewal transactions the registered trademarks will contain a zero filled <published-for-opposition-date>.
~~~

Inquiry 6/04/2003

Documentation

Our review of the "Trademark Trial and Appeal Board XML DTD Element Mapping Documentation [v .8]" (the most recent version that we are aware of) has found the following problems:

XML Elements - At least four elements that are included in the DTD and in the files that we have received -- <code-type>, <data-available-code>, <day-in-location>, and <int-attorney-number> are not listed as XML Elements and are completely excluded from this document.

TWTF Elements - Despite the use of the word "mapping" in the title, there is none. Most of the items/terminology in the "TWTF Elements" bear no relation to the TWTF document whatsoever. The TWTF includes none of the following terms or equivalent data elements or many others -- Proceeding Information, Proceeding Entry, Proceeding Type, Role, or Country. What appears in the second column of that document is merely an explanation of the XML tag.

Descriptions -- This column contains the only explanatory information in the document. Unhappily much of it is incorrect or incomplete, making it generally unreliable.

• <status-text> is described as the literal that corresponds to the <status-code>. It is, in fact, nothing of the sort, but rather a variety of notes and notations like the following:

  
  A IS 124817
  ADDRESS NOT CHANGED; NEED REV & P/A
  cl 9, 45, 41, 35
  CONSOL W/91125739 & 91152596. NOT PARENT.
  EXHIBIT IS ATTACHED TO THIS PAPER AS EXHIBIT A.
  EXHIBITS
  GRANTED UNTIL 01/26/03
  HOLD 30
  KL
  PARENT
  PLEASE PREPARE COMMISSIONER'S ORDER
  READY FOR FINAL DECISION
  SERVICE BY PUB

• The stated maximum length of data bears no resemblance to the data that actually appears. For example <name> data that is described as "250 position" field is truncated at 40 characters.
• The <country> codes in use are not the 2 position WIPO Standard ST.3 codes that were previously furnished us, but the 3 position FIPS codes that have always been used in the TWTF.
• The definition for <orgname> includes two elements (appearing below in bold type) that simply do not exist.
• Organization and orgname are overflow fields for the Party Name. Instead of saying Party Name Line 1, Party Name Line 2 and Party Name Line 3, we use Name, Company, and Organization to help our users divide/organize party names the (sic) are extremely long.

The documentation for TTAB will be properly updated and will also include the proper mapping back to the TWTF process.
~~~

Inquiry - 6/05/2003

We have been analyzing the most recent set of daily XML files, and have
found the following problem in address field mapping. From initial
observations, it seems to be consistent for all Assignees when both the
Address-1 and the Address-2 fields have values.

Please investigate :

After analyzing the most recent Trademark Daily XML Assignment DTD related
data files, we have some issues with the way the ADDR-1 field and the
ADDR-2 field, which are both located in the TWTF ASGN record, are being
mapped to their appropriate fields located in the <assignee> (assignees)
tag.

We understand that the content of the ADDR-1 field should be mapped to the
<address-1> field (which is part of the <assignee> field), while the
content of the ADDR-2 field should be mapped to the <address-2> field
(which is also part of the <assignee> field). But this does not seem to be
the case when both the ADDR-1 and the ADDR-2 fields have values. When both
of these fields have values, it looks like the ADDR-1 field is being
incorrectly mapped to the <address-2> field, while ADDR-2 field is being
incorrectly mapped to the <address-1> field. Here are some examples of
this issue:
a. For the Assignment record where the Reel Number is 2658 and the Frame
Number is 0663, which can be found in Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file, there
is one assignee related ASGN record. Here are the values of the ADDR-1
field and the ADDR-2 field for this ASGN record where the NAME-1 field is
equal to "EMRYS TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.":

Field	Value
ADDR-1	SUITE 350
ADDR-2	100 N. CENTRAL EXPY.

For the ASGN record described above, the value of the ADDR-1 field was
incorrectly mapped to the <address-2> field (which is part of the
<assignee> field), while the value of the ADDR-2 field was incorrectly
mapped to the <address-1> field (which is also part of the <assignee>
field). This was verified in the Assignment data file called AS030529.xml
that contains the most up-to-date version of this Assignment record (which
appeared in last Tuesday's TWTF file).

b. For the Assignment record where the Reel Number is 2658 and the Frame
Number is 0731, which can be found in Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file, there
is one assignee related ASGN record. Here are the values of the ADDR-1
field and the ADDR-2 field for this ASGN record where the NAME-1 field is
equal to "FOSTER PRODUCTS CORPORATION":

Field	Value
ADDR-1	WLB Law - Trademarks
ADDR-2	1200 Willow Lake Boulevard

For the ASGN record described above, the value of the ADDR-1 field was
incorrectly mapped to the <address-2> field (which is part of the
<assignee> field), while the value of the ADDR-2 field was incorrectly
mapped to the <address-1> field (which is also part of the <assignee>
field). This was verified in the Assignment data file called AS030529.xml
that contains the most up-to-date version of this Assignment record (which
appeared in last Tuesday's TWTF file).
c. For the Assignment record where the Reel Number is 2659 and the Frame
Number is 0007, which can be found in Tuesday's (June 3) TWTF file, there
is one assignee related ASGN record. Here are the values of the ADDR-1
field and the ADDR-2 field for this ASGN record where the NAME-1 field is
equal to "IMAGEWEAR APPAREL CORP.":

Field	Value
ADDR-1	3411 SILVERSIDE ROAD
ADDR-2	201 BAYNARD BUILDING

For the ASGN record described above, the value of the ADDR-1 field was
incorrectly mapped to the <address-2> field (which is part of the
<assignee> field), while the value of the ADDR-2 field was incorrectly
mapped to the <address-1> field (which is also part of the <assignee>
field). This was verified in the Assignment data file called AS030529.xml
that contains the most up-to-date version of this Assignment record (which
appeared in last Tuesday's TWTF file).

The above inquiry is being investigated and a resolution will be forthcoming.
~~~

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.

The Trademark Assignments XML Documentation to be updated with the correct Assignments DTD version number.
~~~

Inquiry – 6/06/2003

An issue has recently come to our attention. It appears the Supplemental
Register Flag is not getting set in the weekly file nor in the daily XML
feed.

If you take a look at the following Serial Number 72101593 in the weekly
file received on June 3rd and the daily file ap030603 -- you'll see that the
flag is not turned on. But when we look in the OG from 1962 it was
published in the Supplemental Register.

It appears that this older trademark registration no longer identifies that it was originally published in the Principal Register and then amended to transfer to the Supplemental Register. It appeared on the daily file of June 3, 2003 because the trademark was cancelled on April 19, 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

This difference has been presented to management and a decision to adhere to theWIPO Standard ST. 3 should be implemented with the Madrid Protocol.
~~~

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.

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.

This inquiry is being investigated and proper corrections will be applied.

~~~

New Inquiries:

Inquiry – 6/20/2003

The following analysis was conducted by our Database Maintenance staff.
It's conclusion, that updates have been made that are reflected on TARR but were never
included as updates on the weekly tapes is disturbing. Please respond as to how this
discrepancy came to pass, and if possible, some estimate of how frequently this may occur:

We recently ran across a case of a Federal trademark record that contained
affidavit information (viewable on TARR) that was not present in our
record. Upon analysis, it was determined that the information on filing of
said affidavit was never supplied to us on our weekly tape. The record in
question was registration. 2139349. When viewed in TARR, the record
indicates that a Section 8 and 15 has been filed. Our record does not
contain such an indication.

Normally, these filings are indicated via flags in the TWTF GENX record .
The flags in question (FS8F and FS15F) should indicate T when a filing has
occurred. Indications are that although the Sec. 8 & 15 were filed in March,
we have not received a record update from the PTO for this record since
February of 1998, when the status was changed to Renewed. In the
prosecution history in TARR, the filing is indicated (2003-03-20) We have
inferred from this discrepancy that not every entry in the PTO's record
'prosecution history' is recorded in our data.

For purposes of equivalency between TARR/PTO data and our current data, it is important for us to ascertain why this filing didn't trigger a record
update in TWTF. Is there a reason why we didn't receive this filing?

This inquiry is being investigated.

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