![[Skip standard page navigations] United States Patent and Trademark Office](http://www.uspto.gov/images/uspatop.gif){kind=small}
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Information Products Division
Data Dissemination
Trademark Daily XML Migration
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Information Products Division Data Dissemination Trademark Daily XML Migration |
September 12, 2003
Trademark Daily XML Files - Weekly Status Report
New This Week:
There are 2 new inquiries since the last Weekly Status Report of September 5, 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 – 9/05/2003
Note: This new inquiry was received at the USPTO on September 3, 2003 but not forwarded in time to be included in the Weekly Status Report dated September 5, 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 – 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. At this point the USPTO is not accepting technical questions regarding these DTD’s. Inquiries concerning the Madrid Protocol will be maintained and addressed at the appropriate time.
Outstanding Inquiries:
Inquiry – 9/03/2003:
The following differences are present between the 4 systems, can you explain why the status date is different for TARR
Application No.: 76-522127
XML Applications
Transaction Date: 28-August-2003
Status Date: 17-June-2003
Filing Date: 18-August-2003TWTF TRMK
After September 2nd, 2003Status Date: 17-June-2003
Filing Date: 18-August-2003Before September 2nd, 2003
Status Date: 17-June-2003
Filing Date: 22-May-2003TARR web server
Status Date: 18-August-2003
TESS web server
Filing Date: 18-August-2003Filing Date: 18-August-2003
The Monthly Status File for August 2003 did not include this serial number.
TARR displays the filing date in the “Date of Status” field for cases with a status code of 630 (New Application – record initialized not assigned to examiner.
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?
After discussing this matter with the appropriate trademark area, these trademark full-page TIFF images are being cropped for internal use. The full-page TIFF image will remain in the 24 hour box. The cropped images will be subsequently provided as a subset to the 24 hour box. All procedures must be worked out and furnished.
~~~
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)
The Trademark Assignments XML Documentation to be updated and available September 27, 2003. The completion date had to be changed due to the effort required for the Madrid Protocol.
~~~
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 & 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>
<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</postcode>
</proceeding-address>A correction has been presented to the data management area. Upon approval it will be implemented.
~~~
Inquiry - 7/02/2003
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 problem was investigated and owner information is maintained in the application file/application DTD. The plaintiff name and address, defendant’s name and address is maintained in the TTAB file/TTAB DTD. If the transaction does not meet the selection criteria for the application file, the application record will not be pulled.
~~~
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.
~~~
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.
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
~~~
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.
The Trademark Assignments XML Documentation to be updated and available September 27, 2003. The completion date had to be changed due to the effort required for the Madrid Protocol.
~~~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:
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