petepupalaikis / uspatent Goto Github PK

When the first figure is set to landscape mode, a blank page appears before it in the pdf that is outputed. This can be easily tested with the template tex document by moving the exemplar landscape figure to being the first figure, and a blank page will appear before it in the pdf. I first experienced this issue on a document derived from the template.

I'd like to be able to add content headings underneath the existing main headings (for separating sections of the main headings) that would still show up in the PDF bookmarks.

Hi Pete, I am going to add issues for each of the changes I've made use of, so hopefully we can discuss whether and how to include them. Seems to be the way to do it in GitHub.

I'd like to add a "strict" or "efile" mode that would bring the output file into compliance with the requirements for efiling listed here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/applying-online/efs-web-pdf-guidelines

This is generally easiest to achieve as a PDF/A compliant document. I have gotten a local version of uspatent.cls to output PDF/A using this guide: https://www.mathstat.dal.ca/~selinger/pdfa/

I think the easiest way to integrate this function with the existing setup might be to make an "efile" or "strict" mode alongside "draft" and "application".

Thoughts?

I like to use a 100, 102, 104, 200, 202, 204, etc. annotation style. I was able to get the annotations to be numbered the way I want to by setting the anno number before each definition, but the annotation list only goes until it finds an invalid number. I was able to solve this by keeping track of the maximum number used for an annotation and looping up to that number. I set up the annotationDefinition to take a second argument to set the annotation number, since that is defined at definition time. I don't know if that's the best way or not, but it worked out for what I was doing.

It's not terribly backward compatible, though, at least the way I was doing it. It could probably be made so with an optional argument, but that might break the multi-definition macro that is there for defining the var name and anno name at the same time.

Thoughts?

Filing a new non provisional 111(a) application? Starting January 1, 2023, specification, claims and abstracts not filed in DOCX format will incur a non-DOCX surcharge of up to $400 for this filing type.

See USPTO: File patent application documents in DOCX

If you hate M$ Word as much as I do, writing the application in Markdown using the Vim text editor and converting it to DOCX using Pandoc and the provided USPTO DOCX template, might be a very viable option.

Add an option / set of macros for dependent claims that are indented under the independent claim. Per our conversation, this is probably a low priority feature, but I will forget if I don't put it here...

I would like to create an option that will output an annotation table (minus the variable names) in application mode, as the style I'm using suggests this.

Thoughts?

USPTO efiling can use separate files for drawings, claims, abstract, and specification. The research I did seems to say that the only way to really do this is through separating the input files. Perhaps an example of this and a little bit of testing would be all that would be required, perhaps using a separate drawings definitions file and a metadata definitions file.