|
|
|
|
|
|
| U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Information Products Division Data Dissemination Trademark Daily XML Migration |
![[Skip standard page navigations] United States Patent and Trademark Office](http://www.uspto.gov/images/uspatop.gif){kind=small}
June 27, 2003
Trademark Daily XML Files - Weekly Status Report
There was one new inquiry for the week of June 24, 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 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 §.
We must look into the use of an entity declaration standard.
~~~
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 is being 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 current address tags in the daily file are being populated with data exactly as filed by the applicant.
~~~
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
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 the WIPO 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.
The TTAB <filing-date> field error is corrected.
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.
~~~
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.
New Inquiries:
Inquiry - 6/24/2003
I seek confirmation or rejection of 2 Assumptions:
1. We should always expect 3 files daily.
I realize that sometimes stuff happens and for one reason or another not all files may be in place at 2:00am. However, in principle, can we assume that if there are not three files available, that the missing file(s) would be forthcoming? Are there any conditions or reasons that would cause you to deliberately not provide a Daily XML. I've observed that with assignment files issued over a weekend, although there are no reel/frame references, the files are still provided.
Although I don't recall it happening in the recent past, I recall one or two instances in the more distant past where one of the files was never made available. I won't stake my life on this because I can't prove it. It would be satisfying if you can state if something like this (file(s) not being made available) should or shouldn't occur.
Unless a technical glitch is encountered as explained in item 2 below a file will be present each day for all 3 components: Applications, Assignments and TTAB. When data is not present for a given component the following will apply:
The <data-available-code> element is optional and will occur zero or one times. When trademark data is NOT present. The <data-available-code> start tag and the </data-available-code> end tag will be present and contain a one-position “N” indicating that trademark data is Not present. This element will not be present when data is available.
2. If file(s) are not available at 2:00am, they won't become available until well into the morning daylight hours.
We're toying with the idea of scripting retries if not all three file are available.
To reiterate, the consistency is commendable, but on the occasion where the file is not in place and 2am, I observe that the files do not become available in the immediately ensuing hours. I get the sense that when stuff happens and causes unavailability, it usually requires human intervention during business hours to resolve. Would you say this is true?
We strive to have the files available via FTP each morning at 2 a.m. In most cases a technical glitch does require human intervention and will be responded to during the next business day.
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
Office of Electronic Information Products Systems Division
(703) 306-2621 (703) 305-1669
(703) 306-2737 Fax (703) 308-5164 Fax
| HOME
| INDEX | SEARCH | SYSTEM STATUS | BUSINESS CENTER | NEWS&NOTICES | |