Comments on DOCX

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: pdf

NEIFELD IP LAW PLLC
9112 Shearman Street, Fairfax VA 22032
Mobile: 7034470727; Fax: 571-281-0045
Email: [email protected]

June 26, 2026
Re: 0651–0089 comment on 91 Fed. Reg. 22526 (Apr 27,
2026) request for comment on DOCX Submission
Requirements

To:
Justin Isaac and Raul Tamayo
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria VA 22313-1450
From: Richard Neifeld
Neifeld IP Law, PLLC
9112 Shearman Street, Fairfax VA 22032
Tel: 7034470727;
Dear Mr. Isaac and Mr. Tamayo:
WHY THE USPTO’s DOCX FILING SYSTEM IS UNRELIABLE
The USPTO’s DOCX filing software cannot not work reliably because it does not rely
upon an immutable and publicly available file format for saving word processing documents.
Instead, it requires a document be in any unspecified "DOCX" format to be uploaded to the
USPTO filing server. And then the USPTO filing server runs an unpublished algorithm to
convert that uploaded "DOCX" file to a new file, and requires the user to accept the new file for
submission.
WHY ITS BURDENSOME
The process is inherently unreliable and unnecessary burdensome on the public. Because
it necessarily requires the user to review and download the converted file, during the process of
filing a document, against the uploaded document, to ensure the USPTO server has not
introduced errors into the information contained in the file as a consequence of the unpublished
algorithm applied to the uploaded file.
1

WHY THE USPTO PROMULGATED A RULE IMPLEMENTING AN UNRELIABLE
AND BURDENSOME REQUIREMENT
Unfortunately, the USPTO either failed to recognize this problem, or actively tried to hide
this problem, during the regulatory process enacting the requirement to pay a fee for filing in
other than "DOCX." There, it stated that "DOCX" is a standard. DOCX is definitely note a
standard. The actual standard is Office Open XML, which to my knowledge, the USPTO has
never claimed it implements.
THE USPTO DOES NOT CONTROL THE DOCX FILE FORMAT ON WHICH IT
DEPENDS
To make matters worse, the USPTO likely does not even control the unpublished
algorithm it must use to convert that uploaded "DOCX" file to the new file format it requires a
user to accept for submission into the official file of a patent application. This is because the
USPTO does not and cannot control the "MS-DOCX" Word Extensions to the Office Open XML
file format. That "MS-DOCX" Word Extensions is controlled, instead, solely by Microsoft
Corporation.
WHAT A FILE ENDING IN ".DOCX" DEFINES
To be clear, files ending in ".DOCX" are not data saved a single unitary standard file
format. Instead, they only define one of dozens of file formats. Consequently, a user cannot know
if a file they prepare and save with a file extension ".DOCX" and then upload to the USPTO
server with information defining their filing will have the information changed because (1) the
mere file extension ".docx" does not specify the file format in which the data is saved and (2) the
USPTO's unpublished algorithm converts such an uploaded "DOCX" file to a new file in a
manner a priori unknowable by the user.
THERE ARE DOZENS OF DIFFERENT FILE FORMATS USING THE FILE
EXTENSION ".DOCX"
The fact that files ending in ".DOCX" are not a single unitary standard for file format, but
instead only define one of dozens of file formats is incontrovertible, as shown by the dozens of
file formats identified as "MS-DOCX" Word Extensions that Microsoft has rolled out, since the
year 2009, shown in the subsections titled "Published Version" and "Previous Versions" on the
web page titled "[MS-DOCX]: Word Extensions to the Office Open XML (.docx) File Format".
That page is currently available at the URL:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/office_standards/ms-docx/b839fe1f-e1ca-4fa6-8c265954d0abbccd
To avoid doubt, most users are unaware of the diversity of file formats that a "*.docx" file
may have. This is clear from the functionality of the Microsoft word processor programs referred
to as Microsoft Word.
When a user opens any version of Microsoft Word, clicks "Save As" and then selects the
"Save as Type" drop down box, they are presented with a drop down list of file formats in which
to save their document. This list includes the default option which reads "Word
Document(*.docx)" and then near the bottom of this list an option which reads "Strict Open
XML Document (*.docx)". Note that BOTH options result in a saved document having the file
2

extension ".DOCX" but the two files are NOT the same. The file saved by default, or when
selecting the "Word Document(*.docx)" when using the "Save As" option applies whatever
version of the ".DOCX" file format the Microsoft Word has installed. That maybe the latest
version specified by Microsoft (as indicated in the foregoing web page as the "Published
Version", which as of this writing is dated 11/13/2025) , or some earlier version in case the
installed Microsoft Word program has not been updated to use the latest version.
WHY THE USER MUST REVIEW THE FILE GENERATED BY THE USPTO FILING
SYSTEM BEFORE CLICKING SUBMIT
Failure to review the file converted by the USPTO server risks accepting loss of
information intended for filing. The USPTO readily admits that it does not save the uploaded
".docx" file. In fact, the USPTO goes out of its way to provide no evidence the user can rely upon
to show what it actually uploaded. Specifically, the USPTO does not provide the filer the name
of the uploaded file and a corresponding HASH algorithm output of the uploaded file in an
electronic filing receipt. Such a receipt would be irrefutable proof of what the user attempted to
file, allowing the user to petition to correct a record of a patent application in which the USPTO's
unpublished algorithm mangled the uploaded information. Instead, the USPTO filing receipt
document provides the following information, which is utterly useless as proof of what the user
uploaded. It provides (1) the name of the uploaded file and corresponding number of pages,
description and file size. That information is utterly useless in proving the information contained
in the file. It provides (2) a "Digest" which contains the filename of a different document, which
filename is related to the originally uploaded document by including the originally uploaded
document name and appending to that name additional characters indicating this different
document is not the same document as the originally uploaded document, ... and SHA-512
HASH value for this new file. The SHA-512 HASH is irrefutable proof of what information the
different document contains, but it is no proof of what the original document contains. In effect,
the USPTO server "hides the ball" by implying there is proof of what the user uploaded, when in
fact all the USPTO provides is useless information, which is what the USPTO's revised
document contains.
The consequence of the USPTO failing to provide irrefutable proof that the USPTO
received the original document the user uploaded, and the well known fact that the USPTO will
not retain a record of what the user uploaded requires the user why recognizes these facts to
review the revised document the USPTO generates during the filing process to ensure the
information apparent in the revised document is the same as the information in their originally
uploaded document.
COST INCURRED BY THE PUBLIC
The cost of the USPTO's defective process is manifold. It affects the business process of
and time line for effecting a patent application filing, requiring the user to build in excess review
time to cross read an uploaded document against a USPTO generated document, deal with any
inconsistencies identified in the comparison. That introduces substantial uncertainty in the time
required to file, and adds at least one more an additional round of review. It also introduces to
patent practitioners and additional source of liability wherein once their client has approved the
information in a patent application, the practitioner can incur liability because the USPTO server
mangled the uploaded information or delayed the practitioner from completing the filing until
3

after a critical "BAR DATE" deadline.
A conservative estimate of that cost is in time is 1 hour of professional time. The cost of
inadvertent loss of rights due to the USPTO mangling critical information in a patent application
is immeasurable.
Very truly yours,
/RichardNeifeld/
Richard Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PLLC

Printed: June 26, 2026 (10:38am)
Y:\Pubs\letters\2026-06-26_CommentsOnDOCX.wpd

4