Public Comments

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

Download: pdf

Re: 0651-0089 DOCX Submission Requirements
Docket ID PTO-P-2026-0331
Dear Sir or Madam:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has significantly underestimated
the time burden for filing a patent application in DOCX format--30 minutes--as shown
in the Notice.
Although some small number of applications might require only 30 minutes of
additional time to file in DOCX format, that is almost certainly a best-case estimate,
and many other applications will require much more time--perhaps several hours.
The actual time burden for filing an application in DOCX format varies by the subject
matter, length, and complexity of the application, the authoring software (e.g., word
processor) used by the filer, and whether the application as drafted by the filer
conforms to the PTO's preferences as to style and word-processing document
structure, which preferences are arbitrary, neither required by nor defined in statute or
rule.
There are at least two factors of the PTO's electronic filing system that create
additional time burdens in connection with filing in DOCX format. ("Additional" here
refers to the alternate electronic filing format, PDF.) A first is the time burden imposed
by the PTO's arbitrary stylistic and document structure preferences. A second is the
time burden of comparing the rendering of the document--as it appears on the filer's
computer-- with the rendering of the document on the PTO's computers.
To put those additional burdens in context, it is useful to consider some differences
between filing in PDF format and filing in DOCX format, as those alternatives have
been implemented in the PTO's patent electronic filing systems.
Historically, the PTO accepted electronically-filed documents in PDF format, and
converted the document supplied by the filer into an image representation. The PDF
format is highly standardized, and, in practice, standards-compliant documents are
rendered the same way by a wide variety of PDF viewing software on a wide variety of
computing platforms. Thus, when rendered, the documents appear identical to the
human eye when displayed on a screen or printed on paper. In particular, the image
representation of the characters is the same, and the pagination is the same, across
variations in rendering software, operating system, and hardware platforms.
Moreover, not only has the PTO's workflow of converting the PDF document to the
image representation been inherently reliable and faithful, filers who question whether

Comment of Neil R. Ormos
0651-0089 DOCX Submission Requirements
Docket ID PTO-P-2026-0331

P. 2

the conversion from PDF to image is faithful can efficiently compare the PTO's
computer's rendering of the document as an image to the rendering of that document
on their own computer, either by human eye, or using image comparison tools which
highlight any deviations. Using image comparison tools, 100 pages can easily be
checked for deviations by a human reviewer in less than five minutes. Pagination is
expected to be identical. The words and characters on each line are expected to be
identical. Deviations are instantly visible.
Further, for applications filed in PDF format, the PTO does not purport to inspect the
text, nor impose its stylistic and document structuring preferences, of an electronicallyfiled application during the filing process. And the PTO is generally unaware of the
particular word processing software features used by the filer in drafting the
document.
ADDITIONAL BURDEN--CONFORMANCE WITH
PTO'S DOCUMENT PREFERENCES
Filings in DOCX format, on the other hand, are subject to inspection by the PTO's
electronic filing system, where conformance with the PTO's arbitrary preferences as to
document style, document structuring, fonts, and use of word processor features are
enforced, such that the document will not be accepted until the alleged nonconformance is corrected. For example, in complex documents, some users employ
the field feature of word processing software to maintain consistency of terminology
throughout the document. The PTO's electronic filing system does not accept
documents in which that feature is used. The PTO has published an extensive list of
"errors" that apparently make a DOCX document unacceptable for filing, including at
least a dozen relating to word processing features that the PTO's system does not
support.[1] For another example, the PTO's system also rejects DOCX documents
containing references to certain fonts.
For simple applications drafted from scratch, it may be feasible for the drafter to
simply omit using the forbidden features, and to structure the document in the way the
PTO prefers. However, the prohibition of using the features in more complex
applications can increase the time required to draft the application. The document
automation features were added to word processors, and users have adopted them,
because their use saves time or improves accuracy and consistency, etc., and
foregoing them increases the time and cost of drafting the application. The user might
draft the application using the feature, and later, just before filing, replace the
document automation instances with plain text. But this takes additional time,
especially in long, complex application. The process is error-prone if done manually,

Comment of Neil R. Ormos
0651-0089 DOCX Submission Requirements
Docket ID PTO-P-2026-0331

P. 3

so the results of the replacement must be checked carefully, which is an additional
time burden. Alternatively, the user might forego the features and suffer the time
burden of performing manually what the word processor software could have done by
automation.
Moreover, not all patent application documents to be filed in the U.S. are drafted from
scratch. A patent practitioner may receive an initial document from an inventor or a
patent practitioner in another country, where the PTO's forbidden features, fonts, or
document structuring, have already been used. A filer may first become aware of the
use of the forbidden items when they attempt to file the application using the PTO's
Patent Center system. Removing the forbidden features from a DOCX document is not
always trivial and can impose a significant time burden. In a public report some
months ago, the PTO's Patent Center system was said to have rejected a DOCX
document for the alleged presence of font not acceptable to the system. The reporter
could not find any text to which the font had been applied. Even if elaborate
"workarounds" may be available reconstruct a document to surmount such problems,
they require care and error checking, which imposes an additional time burden. (It is
believed that about 25 percent of new U.S. utility application filings are first filed in
other countries, and so are not drafted from scratch by the U.S. filer.)
ADDITIONAL BURDEN--LABORIOUS COMPARISON
OF FILER'S VERSION OF A FILED DOCUMENT WITH
PTO'S RENDERED VERSION
The file format of DOCX documents is said to be subject to international standards
promulgated by ECMA and ISO. Although such standards exist, as best understood,
they do not constrain the rendering behavior of available software. Moreover, by
default, most word processing software produces files that do not conform to the
standards. (The user has to undertake extra steps to produce strictly standardsconformant files, and those files do not properly support some features of the word
processing software.)
That is, there is no guarantee that a particular DOCX document will appear identically
on two different computers, such as a first computer operated by a patent application
filer and a second computer operated by the PTO.
When the filer uploads the document, the PTO's Patent Center system (or systems
associated therewith) modifies the document in ways not fully and definitively
explained to the public. Even apart from the PTO's intentional modifications, there
have been a number of reported instances where the PTO's rendering of a DOCX file

Comment of Neil R. Ormos
0651-0089 DOCX Submission Requirements
Docket ID PTO-P-2026-0331

P. 4

differs from how that file appears on a filer's computer, where the appearance of
characters and mathematical formulae were changed in ways that altered their
meanings. The content of a patent application, as filed, is critical to the protection it
affords, so a dispute between an applicant and the PTO as to what was in the
application on filing day may be fatal to any patent that may eventually issue, or to the
patent's commercial value.
Even if the rendering deviations involved in those instances may be been corrected,
there is no guarantee that novel deviations will not occur. Moreover, the PTO changes
the behavior of its systems without notice. Filers simply cannot rely that the PTO's
computers will render a DOCX document exactly as it appeared on the filer's
computer.
Thus, in order to ensure the PTO has rendered their filed document the filer intends,
the filer is obliged to compare the filer's computer's rendering of the filed document
with the rendering performed by the PTO's computers in the Image File Wrapper
(IFW). For simple, short applications, this may involve relatively small effort.
Applications that involve only plain text, comprising regular American typewriter
characters, in standard fonts, are believed to be at low risk for errors in rendering. But
many patent applications are not that simple. Many applications involve the extensive
use of mathematical symbols and formulae, chemical symbols, Greek letters, and
other non-typewriter characters. According to a blog post by Prof. Dennis Crouch, the
size of published patent applications has increased from about 7,600 words in 2005 to
over 13,000 words in early 2025. [2]
The PTO's electronic filing workflow is poorly adapted to the use of automated
comparison tools, because the PTO's rendering does not always maintain the same
pagination. Subtle differences in word processing software, fonts, printer drivers and
the like, can change how the document is formatted, resulting in variations in the
number of words on lines, how paragraphs break across pages, and other pagination
discrepancies. These variations frustrate attempts to compare corresponding pages as
images, because the pages no longer correspond. (Local comparison of the
originally-filed DOCX document with the PTO-modified version does not solve the
problem because such comparison will not detect differences in how the PTO's systems
interpret and render the document.) Thus, a user may have to laboriously compare
their document with the PTO's IFW version of the document, page by page, line by
line, character by character, with special attention to formulae, chemical symbols, and
any other non-typewriter text. For a longer application full of special characters, this
comparison could take many hours.
The PTO allows a filer who files in DOCX format to file in the same session an

Comment of Neil R. Ormos
0651-0089 DOCX Submission Requirements
Docket ID PTO-P-2026-0331

P. 5

applicant-generated "auxiliary" PDF document on which the filer may rely if "a
discrepancy occurs during the filing process," i.e., between the PTO's DOCX rendering
and the PDF. That does not eliminate the need for comparison, but simply defers the
need for comparison until some time after filing. Moreover, the PTO has not explained
in detail what standards would be applied in a grantable petition to rely on the
auxiliary PDF document. (If the petition is required, that would add to the time burden
attributable to a DOCX filing.) In any case, creating the auxiliary PDF, and the
associated record-keeping, including maintaining the original DOCX file and the
auxiliary PDF file in coherence, docketing for later comparison, and performing the
comparison, all take time.
COMMENTER'S ESTIMATES
The undersigned provides these estimates of the additional time burden of filing utility
applications in DOCX format:
A. Best case (application drafted from scratch by filer, no auxiliary PDF; detailed
description is fewer than 10 pages and comprises only typewriter characters):
* 60 minutes.
(Includes comparing the PTO's preview PDFs with
filer's original document, and record-keeping to
preserve documents filed, filing confirmations,
PTO-generated preview and feedback documents,
etc.).
Additional time burden for cases with complicating factors:
B. Filer will accompany the DOCX filing with an applicant-generated "auxiliary" PDF
document:
* Add 30 minutes (typical).
(Includes generating the auxiliary PDF, coherent
recordkeeping of the word-processing document
and the auxiliary PDF, and docketing deferred
comparison of the PTO's IFW version with
applicant's auxiliary PDF. Does not include a
Petition to the Director to correct the record

Comment of Neil R. Ormos
0651-0089 DOCX Submission Requirements
Docket ID PTO-P-2026-0331

P. 6

if a discrepancy is found.)
C. Application to be filed is received as a word-processing document from the
inventor or non-U.S. patent counsel:
* Add 30 minutes (typical; reasonable range 15-90 minutes).
(Includes checking for and eliminating or
correcting forbidden fonts, word-processing
software features, and deviations from PTO style
preferences, that may block filing in Patent
Center.)
D. Complex specification with extensive use of mathematical symbols and formulae,
chemical symbols, Greek letters, or other non-typewriter characters. Length: 15 pages
of detailed description in typescript.
* Add 90 minutes (typical).
(Includes human comparison of PTO's rendered PDF
(preview or IFW).)
E. Complex specification with extensive use of mathematical symbols and formulae,
chemical symbols, Greek letters, or other non-typewriter characters. Length: 75 pages
of detailed description in typescript.
* Add 300 minutes (typical).
(Includes human comparison of PTO's rendered PDF
(preview or IFW).)
Respectfully submitted:
Neil R. Ormos

Dated: 26 June 2026

[1] USPTO, DOCX Feedback Errors and Warnings,
<https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DOCX_Feedback_Errors_and_
Warnings.pdf>, November 3, 2022.

Comment of Neil R. Ormos
0651-0089 DOCX Submission Requirements
Docket ID PTO-P-2026-0331

P. 7

[2] Crouch, "The Expanding Patent Document: Fewer Claims, More Words, and a Trend
That Predates Alice", <https://patentlyo.com/patent/2026/03/the-expanding-patentdocument-fewer-claims-more-words-and-a-trend-that-predates-alice.html>, March 9,
2026.