|
|
|
|
|
|
| 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}
July 18, 2003
Trademark Daily XML Files - Weekly Status Report
There were 2 new inquiries since the last Weekly Status Report of July 11, 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 §.
In XML, there are only five predefined character entities, as follows:
Character Entity Reference Decimal Hexadecimal
< < < <
> > > >
& & & &
" " " "
' ' ' '
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 notification to be implemented.
~~~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 PUBThe 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.
Also, if the 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 - 6/09/2003
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.
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 and a correction is planned.
~~~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?
After an investigation it has been determined that the Trademark Weekly Text File and also the Trademark Daily XML file extracts data according to: 1. What is present in the Trademark weekly OG. 2. New Applications and 3. Modifications to existing records.
TARR contains everything that pertains to all Trademark transactions. The criteria for excluding data from the Trademark Daily XML file must be further investigated.
~~~
Inquiry - 7/2/2003
In an email dated May 21, 2003 'TRADEMARK DAILY XML MAY 20, 2003 ANNOUNCEMENT' an issue was raised and answered about TTAB proceeding-address fields. The answer supplied by the PTO states that the address-information contained currently in the TWTF/PARC Correspondent Information would populate the address-information (proceeding-address).
So to clarify what this means is we will no longer receive address information for particular owners within the TTAB action. This seems like we may be taking a step backwards with the XML feed. Using Proceeding Number 92042153 which is included in the weekly TWTF of July 1 2003 and the daily file of tt030624 as an example:
In the TWTF full address information including the Correspondent for both parties included in this action.
In the daily XML file we only receive the (party) name and orgname for role-code = D (where the orgname is overflow of the name) and the address-information of the type-code = C. Also for (party) name for role-code = P and the address-information for type-code = C.
With XML we are loosing the address information of the specific parties involved.
This is indeed how it was stated that it would be, but we just wanted to point out that the TWTF contains more data elements which are being lost with the XML feeds.
This inquiry will be further investigated.
~~~
July 03, 2003
The PTO has indicated that the deficiencies (holes) in the selection of records for the dialy tapes and the monthly status files are unlikely to be corrected prior to the implementation of the Madrid Protocol system changes. In response to ta suggestion/request a complete status file be prepared prior to that time, you have responded that the office will "look into the possibility of a retrospective annual status file." We're not sure exactly what that means. What we would like is a single file that includes the status of every record in the database -- both active and inactive as of X date. Is that possible?
Previously the Monthly Status file only contained cases with live status and dead status.
Beginning with the Monthly Status provided on July 1, 2003 all cases regardless the status will be present.
Concerning your inquiry about a restrospective annual status file. The word annual as it pertains to trademarks means a file that contains retrospective data of the entire database. The word annual is used because the complete retrospective files are created once each year at the end of the calendar year.
The feasibility of a retrospective status file appears difficult and with the Madrid Protocol requiring much of the current resources research into a retrospective status file is not being done at this time.
~~~
July 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 & 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 & 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>
</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 & ZISSU, P.C.</orgname>
<address-1>866 UNITED NATIONS PLAZA AT FIRST AVENUE & 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 & 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</~~~
The above inquiry was presented to the appropriate area for investigation.
~~~
July 09, 2003
The response that was included in the June 13, 2003 document relating to the TWTF entry numbers in the 400-599 range is not understood. You've provided us with no information as to the entity numbers of the parties that were given "assignee" and "assignor" status. The single example also ignores the fact that a significant proportion of the records that have a 400-599 entry number also have two additional parties. Often A and B merged and the resulting entity is re-named. Unless a more detailed answer can be provided, it would seem that the elimination of an intermediate type causes loss of data.
This inquiry will be addressed again with the appropriate area.
~~~
July 09, 2003
We are seeing increasing issues in the timeliness of Trademark image delivery. For example, we have trademarks that have filing dates as of July 18 & July 19 and did not receive images on the image tape shipments on June 25 or July 2. Additionally, these images are available on TARR. Please review this issue.
Another example of this behavior are the following marks:
78267734
78266855
They have filing dates of June 26 and we did not receive the images in the July 2 or July 9 image tapes. Theses images are also available on TARR.
This inquiry is being investigated into why the images are not synchronized.
~~~
July 11, 2003
On April 29,2003 the Trademark 24 Hour Box (An electronic file containing applications filed for a 24 hour period) had a format change resulting in not all of the information being captured. This change was subsequently brought to our attention by an external customer.
Effective with the 7/16/2003 Trademark 24 Hour Box the file names have been restored to their original naming convention. Work continues to have all of the information restored.
OCIO staff are currently working to resolve the problems associated with the serial number and bar code image in the Trademark 24 Hour Box Image File. These problems are expected to be resolved by July 24, 2003.
~~~
New Inquiries:
July 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)
As also reported 6/5/2003 the Trademark Assignments XML Documentation to be updated with the correct Assignments DTD version number.
~~~
July 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.Processing XML File ==> xml\030621\tt030621.xml
start:: Wed Jul 16 11:46:32 EDT 2003
[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.
The above inquiry was presented to the appropriate area for investigation.
~~~
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
| HOME
| INDEX | SEARCH | SYSTEM STATUS | BUSINESS CENTER | NEWS&NOTICES | |