Date: February 10, 2019 [ http://www.Intelledoc.Com/USPTO/ ]

From: John Lewis Guymon Jr, 1635 E 7080 S, Salt Lake City, Utah 84121

[To:] The People; United States Senators and House Representatives

[Cc:] Andrei Iancu, Director United States Patent and Trademark Office [Cc:] Mr. Donald J. Trump, President Of The United States

[Re:] United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Greetings and good day! Correspondence comes today, 'pro bono publico', regarding concerns with the operations at the United States Patent And Trademark Office (the 'Office'). Provisions of our Nation's Constitution, those of 'Inventor's Rights', first adopted September 17, 1787 are now in a critically perilous state fraught with complete arrogation. Author, after several years of in-depth research, has acquired details and now presents herein, stated and sworn truthfully, with declaration under oath pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ￿1001, said details illuminating and alleging improper behavior and actions of the Office that demands attention and warrants absolute change!

Author has acquired evidence in support of questionable behavior by various Office employees from the Office's own data sets supplied by various datasets released for economic study for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016, various Office 'PAIR' & 'PED' bulk XML downloaded datasets, the Global Dossier exchange link and the Office's FOIA petition decision's web site. All supporting evidence, is/was available as public domain and is available for download. Note: The eData???.txt dataset files contain the DVER transactions that were purposely omitted from the 2016 economic data sets.

Download subsets, PDF's and more at: http://www.Intelledoc.Com/USPTO/ .

Recent additions, marked '*NEW*' throughout are summarized here. [02/10] Finally! OPPT decisions and their delayed MOPP mailings! Two files (MOPP1of2.csv & MOPP2of2.csv) help to show improper decision workflows.

Author has been unsuccessful in getting help from the office. Requests for assistance have went without resolve. Correspondence with many department directors stalled when issues were presented. Email replies from Director Iancu were spoofed and further unanswered.

The trail of misguided assistance is hard to prove/show. Author's application #12316699 includes previously alleged activity. Many other opinions of the office present the need for changes with some opinions written within their application for patent, such as that of application #12382759. With fail safe backup duplication environments, additional findings and reports are underway and available.

The different departments or individuals include the Office of the Commissioner For Patents, Pro Se Assistance Program, Inventors Assistance Center, Ombudsman Program as well as a multitude of 'SPE' individuals, having all transfer me to different people when confronted with issues that they can't speak of or otherwise offer solution. Eventually I was told my only recourse was to talk to the attorney advisor involved, Mr. Douglas Ian Wood, as he was the only person that could help me. Assistance from the Office has gone and goes without written record or tracking information not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.2.

The underlining issues for most applications can be found - if involved in disputes or otherwise in need of answers to questions presented. As a software engineer of many years it remained a bit tough to get through the large file sets and their many areas of concerns. Today's technology is what allowed the review as systems of only a few years ago were too slow or not robust enough to handle the many facets of the data perspectives.

The Office has recognized implementation of a program that monitored the activity of a number of filed applications. Author has found indications of similar implemented systems or procedures showing signs of the program's continued operations. These operation's show action relating to application files having the 'DVER' event code included. This transaction event code, included in the first two economic year data sets was removed in the 2016 set release.

There are certain items in an application file that are apparent and are always legit. A filing receipt for example will have that OC barcode and the date the filing receipt was mailed always, regardless of the filing date that was stuffed. When the OC barcode number is out of sequence on a receipt that has a date in sequence then possible indication here of altered operation.

Some applications, obvious for their issues, will give a page loading error when the PDF download is requested in the IFW tab of PAIR. Another run through the CAPTCHA and a reload of the application in PAIR will usually allow the PDF to be retrieved. However, if your research inquires of the Office's PAIR website is anything like Author's, you will virtually never escape those endlessly verifying CAPTCHA screens!

Substantial time focused with meticulously confirmed results with expectations of acceptance and demand of resolution. Reporting results, stored in duplication remotely are materialized from the offices publicly available pair PED global Dossier systems and eData sets, Allow an independent discovery. Changes tried by myself to contact the Director having only interception. Restore of the system must be done by US - the United States, before being demanded by global counterparts.

As a result of the tremendous workings with an official signing as an attorney 'Advisor' my application became close to if not the number one application file having the most dismissed petitions by way of OPPT decisions. Four turned into many more, having a total of twenty-eight (28) dismissed petitions over a four year period since 2014.

Author believes there are multiple departments within the Office involved which work in various different ways including database management, data entry and/or other data input positions.

Author did an initial assessment of the data pre-verifying the eventual legally found liability scope of the improper actions of the Office that was, in Author's opinion, to be 'realized' in final proceedings of the Huntington case and eventually harnessed the more realistic liability of the enormous range of application of patent accounts affected that has become, Author believes, a liability range of damages much more true to the extent than those depositionally 'discovered' during the case's litigation.

The Office presents a new openly changed operational behavior but in fact continues it's previous inappropriate way of action and discourse.

Applications are being favored and assisted unfairly. (Helping some)

Applications are being affected and hampered unfairly. (Hurting others)

The Office ('government') has nothing to lose whereas 'the People' have their particular inventions at risk of lost patent enforcement. Attorneys can be intimidated, having the risk of suspension or revocation of the license or other sanction of practice, and will handle things differently and possibly succumb to the Office's ways or otherwise condemn or condone events in parallel with those of the Office. Attorneys are getting paid regardless of their ways of representation and will not take the risk to go against or otherwise challenge the Office. People are at a disadvantage because of the Office's upper hand of control.

The filing system of the office appears to be a more of a programming language than a simple entry system. An typical application can appear one way and be comprised totally different, allowing 'COMMAND' control of the application rather than a simple entry ordered system. Major areas of control allow the application to appear one way while having content composer totally different.

Details of the alleged areas are described below with additional specifics listed in this document. The references included in this letter are supplied for downloading and are accessible at the URL listed above. Further data analysis can be accomplished using several easy to use command line utilities included in the various computer operating systems readily available.

Listed below are the said respective OS tool utilities and their use syntax that can further generate and sort data supersets from specifically chosen data subsets available for download from the URL listed above. (*Note: 'eData415.txt' = input file & 'MyOutput' = output file)

For a Windows OS environment the 'findstr' and 'sort' commands can be

instantiated within a command interpreter process ('CMD.EXE'). Additional

help instruction can be obtained by typing 'HELP' or 'HELP command'.

FINDSTR "OPPT" eData415.txt >MyOutput

(Finds '415 subset 'OPPT' events and copy them to 'MyOutput')

SORT /+16 MyOutput (Sorts all '415 subset events and copies results to 'MyOutput')

For a Linux OS environment the 'grep' and 'sort' commands can be

instantiated within a shell command interpreter ('bash','sh','ksh'). Additional help instruction can be obtained by typing 'help' or 'man'.

grep "OPPT" eData415.txt

(Finds '415 subset OPPT events)

sort -k3 -o MyOutput.txt eData415.txt (Sorts all '415 sunset events and copies results to 'MyOutput')

Therefore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ￿1001, Author, with respect, truthfully states and swears under oath in declaration and further alleges therein that individuals employed by or otherwise associated with the United States Patent And Trademark Office have committed willful acts of improper action, pronounce and discourse upon 'The People' wherein the recipients of these said unduly unjust actions have experienced harmfully injury and deprivation of their constitutional right, as written:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Henceforth, as these said actions are grouped accordingly, Author alleges the Office has partaked in inappropriate actions in the follow five (5) areas:

1. Providential / Indefensible Handling

2. Petition / Prosecution Control 3. Event Handing Transaction Processing

4. Data Control / Manipulation 5. Manipulated Incomplete And Misleading Data

(PROVIDENTIAL / INDEFENSIBLE HANDLING) *****************************************************************************

* ALLEGED: Applications have been allowed improper pretenured filing dates. *****************************************************************************

Author used a PAIR BULK data set download dated 2017-09-18 to determine the issues in regard to the application filing date comparison. This PAIR XML bulk data set is no longer available on the Office's web site as it has been decommissioned as of October 16, 2018, two weeks after the initial October 3, 2018 dated draft release of this report. Previously dated bulk data sets (7) are available for download from the above listed URL.

It is obvious in it's appearance that many applications were given preferred attention having filing dates given for dates that were earlier than the actual application filing occurred. Further the applications that where predated where worked with to ensure it was not obvious that malicious dating or other improper paperwork handling had occurred.

Applications that are filed with earlier dates seem to have 'Fee worksheets' and 'EFS Acknowledgement Receipt' documents as some of the first documents in the file whereas normally dated filings do not. Further the 'Fee worksheet' documents have 'Approved for use through ...' dates specifying earlier revisions than normal and are filled out with typed text and not the normal hand written script.

The first data set year reviewed, that of 2007, has at least twenty-seven (27) unique areas of precedent application serial numbering. This year was chosen after statistical analysis was done which in turn presented the enormous filing date problematic issue. This year is a mess with regard to application serial number distribution and was a bit of work to make a conclusionary review. I am sure the Office thought of it as a bit of work in distributing the serial numbers accordingly as well, as it had to have been a convoluted interlaced task. The issuance may have been based on the art unit or examiner involved. It is hard to report details in this year and the years that follow as the convolution is further smeared.

A report on the art units with the highest count of out of dated sequenced applications are in process and will be delivered as soon as possible.

A simple review of the numbering boundaries will show the out of sequence applications. There are many minute details within the different applications that help show the altered filing process. (More to be listed): Fees appear to be posted to a strange account.

Author's application #12316699, filed 12/15/2008 has a serial number less than many applications filed with an earlier date. When the PAIR data set was reviewed for applications dated November 25, 2018 to December 31, 2008 there was a total that included design and provisional type applications of 43,302, having the utility count totaling 35,422. This utility application subset is available for download.

The downloadable CSV file is available using the following URL:

http://www.Intelledoc.Com/USPTO/08NovDec.csv .

The following two different source sites is/was the Author's source for the seven listed ZIP files available for download from the previously listed URL, having the PAIR data sets recently 'decommissioned' by the Office October 2018.

For the PAIR XML bulk dataset's the following URL was navigated: (**Decommissioned: Tues Oct 16, 2018**)

**Note: The XML schema for the PAIR set is named: 'PatentBulkData.xsd'.

The following ZIP file downloads are for the PAIR XML bulk data sets. 2016/09/12 3:32 AM 5,084,260,447

2016/12/24 1:17 AM 5,261,942,330 2017/09/23 10:49 PM 5,712,903,951

2018/04/19 2:07 AM 4,997,483,512 2018/08/18 4:30 AM 5,030,973,087

For the PED XML bulk dataset's the following URL was navigated. (This is the Office's 'new' interface.) **Note: The XML schema for the PED set is named: 'PatentData_V.xsd'

The following ZIP file downloads are for the PED XML bulk data sets.

2018/07/15 7:01 AM 7,012,351,693 2018/08/26 05:00 AM 7,036,226,593

Author's application #12316699, filed 12/15/2008 has a serial number less than many applications filed with a date earlier, especially with the correspondence id of '22850' , that has many applications filed with this type of filing date issue. Many application file 'PDF' documents (34 or so) available for download, having serial numbers starting with '123...', such as #12308037 or #12328456, show such filing date/application serial number variance examples. A review of the EFS document on #12327972 shows a receipt #4390413 that is out of sequence with others of the same date or the day earlier. Further it is interesting to note that #12328098 has a time earlier than others having a receipt number close to later receipt times.

Many applications that are of this correspondence 'id' that seem to be filed properly have fees and payments made substantially later within the application file. A few of the properly filed applications are as follows: #12323003, #12323145, #12329980, #12329987 and #12330054. There are 668 applications filed with this 'id' between the dates of November 25, 2008 and December 31, 2008 (36 days).

The following is a small list of the many applications of the 22850 correspondence number showing the filing dates, numbers and times accordingly.

App# Date Rcpt# Time

12327444 2008-12-03 4390354 16:46 12327530 2008-12-03 4390939 17:21

12327537 2008-12-03 4390992 17:24 12327674 2008-12-03 4391645 18:37

(next day) 12327954 2008-12-04 4394420 11:45 (ID out of sequence rel to next)

12327972 2008-12-04 4390413 12:09 (ID out of sequence rel to prev) 12327980 2008-12-04 4394808 12:21

12328021 2008-12-04 4395396 14:23 (Time out of sequence rel to next) 12328098 2008-12-04 4396088 14:19 (Time out of sequence rel to prev)

12328109 2008-12-04 4396185 14:25 12328125 2008-12-04 4396311 14:33

12328174 2008-12-04 4396724 14:56 12328178 2008-12-04 4396773 14:58

12328179 2008-12-04 4396790 14:59 12328201 2008-12-04 4397030 15:13

12328224 2008-12-04 4397173 15:21 12328226 2008-12-04 4397196 15:22

12328234 2008-12-04 4397253 15:25 12328347 2008-12-04 4398077 16:09

12328456 2008-12-04 4399016 16:55 (ID / time out of sequence rel to next) 12328474 2008-12-04 4398880 17:04 (Time out of sequence rel to prev)

12328549 2008-12-04 4399166 17:42 12328676 2008-12-04 4400560 19:11

It should be noted that there are instances where the EFS event is not listed in the eData event transaction lists. There are other codes that coincide with such missing events but are limited and are of a correspondence purpose rather than a receipt acknowledgement. Honestly this one is a bit tough and has yet to be fully discovered as it is difficult to cross synchronize these multiple event/date/document items.

Receipt verifications are needed and will become available as quick as possible. Author remains cautious and asks for understanding in his reluctance in suggesting for sure the possibility for sure that these verifications may cross perpetrate other EFS acknowledgements that are in the system, perhaps of other transactions in other application files. The problem is that these events are not necessarily sequenced in the transaction lists and are very difficult to track. With a complete set of transacted event codes the process of positive deduction is possible. Author reserves the right to further correction of these proposed allegations in this paragraph with the completion of research to clarify such possibilities.

***************************************************************************** * ALLEGED: The Office is miragically renovating its unilinear database.


The differences between the Office's 'PAIR' and 'PED' offered data sets is both none and all. The same database table record elements are used to generate the two different data set outputs while at the same time the said generated output's are entirely different. With a mixture of XML schemas that include many overlapping data elements the Office has presented their 'acclaimed' new data set that is the exact same as their 'old' PAIR set except for it's presentation and the inclusion of superfluous data together with a large omission or disillusion of other critical elemental data items.

A detailed differential report between the PED and PAIR data sets will be available soon.

In addition to the PED/PAIR data system transformation many of the interfaces that present the Office's same principle operating database data in various different ways such as the PAIR transaction ('Trans') tab, Image File Wrapper ('IFW') tab and Patent Term Adjustment ('PTA') tab as well as the Global Dossier interface incorporates purposeful alteration of output, omission or otherwise transformed data by the Office.

Having the data the same for the two bulk sets makes the PAIR decommissioning a highly questionable action on the part of the Office. The differences in the data set layouts is clear and apparent as well as is the API functionality in which the data could be obtained, having the PED system extremely limited! With the Office's presentation that the PED output is the 'new' way', the decommission action seems reasonable, if indeed hiding the past improper actions and data elements of said actions something 'one' would want to do, having, indeed, that which the Office wanting, no needing indeed to want, no need to do.


* ALLEGED: The Office has issued pretenured 371C based filing dates *****************************************************************************

National stage time limits (30 months from a PCT priority date) where exceeded in many circumstances but the office worked the applications so that the dates were within the required guidelines.

Applications or their provisional applications where awarded dates sooner than had actual happened. The application serial numbers are out of sequence with regard to the pretenured dates assigned in order to satisfy required time frame periods, mainly the 30 month deadline. On such applications the SCAN events are done out of order relative to normal application entry processing times. Many application transactions are out of order and have dates that reposition the events towards the application's beginning entries. These events are sequenced by way of database key indexes and therefore show up out of date order in the eData event transaction lists. Additionally, these out of order events are noticeable in the PAIR interface's Transaction ('Trans') and Patent Term Adjustment ('PTA') tabs. There are instances where dates on inventor oath document's, power's of attorney and other filed entries, making it more than obvious that such actions transpired. This I am sure was done for a variety of reasons too numerous to mention here.

In the Bulk XML files for the 371C cases

the IEXX event will be missing, and the 'Filing date' will be the actual filing date, and

the event sequence "0.5 Initial Filing Date" replaces the IEXX event.

In many applications transaction #1 IEXX is missing from PTA and PED XML bulk outputs that have a 371C filing date issue.

For instance in #12312424 the Oath and power of attorney, signed Dec 6, 2009 has an event transaction date of 10-21-2009, having 35 USC 371 completed on the 21st having notice made of DO/EO acceptance mailed 12/1/2009. Further the IPRE report was not available until May 12, 2009 but the 371 completion was, well, complete.

Application #10258345 IN 2009 XML says filed 10/23/2002 - 'Fee Worksheets' are dated 2009 with reference to 2002 as well as to the application # itself, with the same fee worksheet in 2002 as in 2009. Also, application data sheets filed 11/03/2009 are dated 11/29/2002. Many of the applications have request for withdrawal of abandonment and then present that paperwork was misplaced or otherwise was never mailed by Office.

Take for instance the XML data sets in the bulk PAIR and PED download files.

The XML elements can be in many different orders and have been distributed from the Office accordingly. With regard to: 'Application number' - The application serial numbering would be ordered but the dates would show if out of order; 'Filing Date' - Application file 'elements' would be ordered based on initial filing/entry dates; 'Database table record primary key order' - This would have application number / date with some kind of natural order based on entry time. The two different bulk data sets are ordered differently in these two ways, having the PED set which is considered the 'current' set showing an ordered filing date therefore hiding the database keyed 'mis-ordered' application number that is easily realized in the now 'decommissioned' PAIR bulk XML data sets.

The 2017 BULK PAIR data was dumped in application serial number order - this allows the dates to be quickly scanned and a determination made to the fact that the applications were not sequentially and were specifically picked based on previous unused numbers that where placeholders to allow an application to have a desired filing date and have such number/date picking obvious, having the internal transactions of the file predated so that events eventually would show 'normal' prosecution without the earlier filing date allocation noticed.

The 2018 PED XML files, for instance 2009, where build with elements ordered on the initial filing or other initial date manually set. Care was done to list the properly allocated applications first and then the predated earlier ones.

If the first dozen elements of the 2009 XML PED file were reviewed one would see the initial entries with a beginning of the year date, and a few are listed in order as they were given out in this way and then the specifically placed predated applications follow.

The filing dates for the 'stuffed' applications occur on all days of the week whereas normal filing days are on normal business days.

There are multiple interfaces to the multiple database tables that have multiple fields for the same element types - for instance the event codes in the table they offer show differently in the other tabs or BULK data sets.

From the Office's publicly supplied data, including the bulk PAIR XML data sets that were 'decommissioned' just recently in October, available for download, evidence of inappropriate actions can be realized with various publicly domain tools or system supplied applications when the specially generated subsets are used that are supplied for download either from the Office's PED bulk XML site or, due to the Office's decommissioning of said same data, here from the above listed URL.

A series of first PDF file page multiple dependent claim fee calculation sheets present unusual patterns of filing date concerns.

In the PAIR sets the applications were listed by number - the dates, when out of sequence, were easily noticed. In the PED sets, applications are listed by different methods, perhaps file dates then application numbers. It is safe to say that the following could be better accumulated and will be done for all the years specified in the PAIR XML bulk data sets.

2000 21356 2001 54228

2002 52277 2003 27711

2004 39000 2005 42000

2006 44219 2007 28171

2008 27559 (Review '08NovDec.csv' for 11/25/08 to 12/31/08 dated items.) 2009 19074

2010 87301 2011 25863

2012 18000 2013 14886

2014 25102 2015 7947 (This count due to the incomplete review by the Author.)

Total: 534694 Average: 33418

Author gave up on the manual determination of the 2015 XML data set - sometimes it's possible for there to be too much fun for one guy to have. A code sequence could more easily please the count. The allocation patterns are more blended making it harder to notice the clumps of back filled applications. Definitely so is in place layered scatter patterns making it significantly harder to realize, having the review of the previous 15 years laborious for sure in order to keep the scattered pocket groups managed. All the years have a slight different scatter pattern used. Application serial number boundaries highlight the different patches allocated. I imagine that 2016, 2017, and 2018 XML data is also this way - there are ways to determine which applications are in this category - mainly the timing between the event transactions in a particular application file will show a fairly sure determination as to the alterations to the particular file.

The PED bulk XML sets are harder to realize than the PAIR bulk XML sets. An earlier version of the PAIR data set was used in that this version included event code transactions, something not done now in PAIR sets; in PED, further, they are prettied and include fewer codes. It is very surprising the different data elements that are presented in the two different XML bulk formats..- For the most part the same XML schemas are used but the data is populated in different tags that allow different information to be included or excluded to minimize data items more easily.


***************************************************************************** * ALLEGED: Decisions are unjust, improper, biased, and thwart liability.


There are so many obvious examples of improperly handled decisions that prove true the inappropriate actions of the Office.

Most obvious to the different decision types are those of application #12147991 and #08328382. These application files contain multiple decisions by the same official that are of different types, that being 'valid' and OPPT decision types. Notice the 'Miscellaneous Internal Document' pages, event code 'IMIS' that are included in all the OPPT type decisions.

Application #12147991 has decisions dated 12/08/2015 and 09/25/2015, three (3) months of one another, with the same 'Advisor' Douglas I. Wood as the official signing said decisions, having the two different decisions totally different with regard to the title art, date/no date stamp and other anomalies! Notice the 09/25/2015 is an 'official' valid decision with a valid date stamp and correspondence address at the top whereas the 12/08/2015 decision is an OPPT 'what the hey' type that looks terrible and does not have the correspondence address included or any date stamp.

Application #08328382 ('08328382.pdf ') has decisions dated 02/25/2014 and 10/02/2014 eight (8) months of one another with the same 'Advisor' Nancy Johnson as the official signing said decisions, having the two different decisions again totally different in the same ways as mentioned above.

When there is manual alteration/manipulation to an application file the follow indicates are readily apparent when attention is made.

a) Fee stamps are different than normal b) Dated documents applied by Applicants / Representatives/ Agents are

pre-dated in some cases to show an earlier sequence of dates. c) Dome events have to happen in a file and the date pattern durations

differ from normal application processing d) Transacted events have indexes that can't change because they are 'key'

to database management even though the events are entered with dates backfilled.

e) Date stamps are missing or obvious in the transposed graphic manipulation.

f) The barcode applied to receipts and notices sent from the office have had number id's duplicated for later correspondence. Further the indexed

number has appeared out of sequence from other correspondence sent on the same day. The out of order sequenced numbers don't line up with

the date on the documents.

Improper OPPT type decisions of substantial quantities are distinguishable in the eData subset files, specifically in regard to the numbered file ranges of '700' and above, that are construed and issued by the Office of Petitions for various special or unique situations.

Properly rendered decisions are delivered by other departments appropriately such as International Patent Legal Administration or particular Technology departments.

For valid decisions: P003: #14950236, #14950297, #15000920, #15317813

P005: #15049274, #15050597, #15053967, #15056591, #15061698

For the OPPT type decisions: P003: #14950288, #14950293, #15000928, #15317761, #15317769

P005: #15048773, #15051288, #15054822, #15073113

The table below show the event code transactions count for the 7?? series of eData sub sets. (Notice the OPPT type at 31%.)

Total OPPT Per Code Description 15935 5433 34% P003 Rec. Pet. Dec./ Make Special

2605 365 14% P005 Rec. Pet. Dec./ Accept Delayed Payment 436 115 26% P006 Rec. Pet. Dec./ Withdraw from Issue

36 4 11% P007 Rec. Pet. Dec./ Withdraw from Issue ----- ---- ---

19012 5917 31%

On OPPT decisions FOIA allows some - in a list via art work (with app and pat num - both PDF's, list in this file, and some via example.

The inappropriate decision actions allows manipulation and control and removes any true power of prosecution. Applications can be helped or hindered at the discretion of the office that presents an unfair and unjust environment of all applicants!

It seems that anyone is signing as an attorney advisor. We all are advisors, everyday, whether to our family or friends or, occasionally perhaps to an attorney. Petition decisions need to have more signature weight and confirmation - the attorneys involved as officials in decisions need to sign as such attorneys.

The Office has a program in place that allows petitions to be worked in such a way as to be in a vantage to some and a disadvantage to others for the more activities allow mail locations to be altered. Any decision action can be ruled allowed without any attached liability.

Decisions never finalize and therefore prevent proper file prosecution thereby using up an application's term of the patent protection.

Generated PDF's that include text used for searches often include extra random characters therefore making key terms unable to be found. This is done purposely on improperly generated documents.

Workflow processing of correspondence can be dedicated to specific departments or individuals therefore removing involvement by others requested or otherwise dedicated to specific handling. Mailing processes or other post procedure actions can be manipulated in ways that are not officially designated.

Author has in his possession unopened reply correspondence that are stamped with incorrect post marks. Further proof of improperly mailed items can be found in the Office's PAIR system where a correspondence change generated return mail, having that return mail image available for review.

Decisions of the 'OPPT' type are composed with errors, graphical alterations, unofficial signatures and other mishaps, the title line is blurry, hyphen equal characters are elevated differently. Different 'USPTO' wordings have the S and T have different slants. Italic words show differences - Novartis AG v. Lee, the A as in #12607079 / 8,498,820, the 'e' and '1' characters in the title graphics are different, the section symbols throughout have different curves, parenthesis vertical position in relation to other characters #11971471, on 'draft' certificates of corrections the R in INVENTOR is straight and curved, certain letters have ending curves different, various other spacing and ending curves (letter g and x in #11971471 / 8,377,009), many of the graphically altered date stamps are similar, especially with regard to stray pixels, on real decisions date stamps match the dated transactions whereas inappropriate ones have stray dating.

The OPPT petition practice started January 7, 2014 with application #12931967. According to e2016 where the cut off date is August 8, 2017, there were a total of over 48,800. Patterns exist where valid petition decisions are appropriately worked on in a scheduled manner and invalid OPPT type petition decisions are erratically completed and done so to a particular schedule or desired order without consideration to proper order and priority or position.

There are OPPT decisions/actions done within range of included documents that don't necessarily include an IMIS type document, one that shows the name of the deciding official involved.

With the OPPT type petitions the graphics in the document header are messed up. All of the decisions are signed as advisors removing liability; there are random purposeful mistakes are throughout; and frequently will be of a status denied or dismissed and yet the actions are as if granted. Petitions are used with decision either helping or harming the patentee accordingly. For example, with Application #12/734,283, the petition is denied, however, the patent term adjustment is still made. Many patent term adjustments are done with the OPPT petition type.

*NEW* - OPPT decisions have date stamp 'artwork' rather than proper official 'stamp' markings that is obvious in copy and reuse. Originally a review of several decisions dated around Jun 28, 2016 having '_28jun2016' appended to the filename, available for download, clearly showed manipulated shared date stamp 'artwork'. Further subsequent review of ALL 'OPPT' and 'MOPP' events ascertain with certainty the improper decision's generation and workflow proceedings. The OPPT type decisions and their related 'MOPP' mailing events are presented in two downloadable 'Excel' importable '.CSV' files (MOPP1of2.csv & MOPP2of2.csv). The delays for many decision mailings proved improper decision group generations! You MUST see to believe! The 'Office of Petitions' ('OPET') should be acronymically 'OOPS' with this one!

A few of the decisions dated around Jun 28, 2016 can be downloaded in PDF form. Listed below are a few patents/applications that include decision artwork very similar if not identical to others. It appears that the proper stamp image of 13470696 or 13447441 may have been used for the manipulated stamp graphics, having various 'dots', missing areas, 'E' lettering or the 'T' graphical 'tag' reduplications obvious!

8410035/11886960 similar to 8753646/12311365 8753646/12311365 similar to 9028521/12128752

9161757/12825709 similar to 9101329/12677601 8765813/11012723 similar to 9072871/13126721

8926638/12938398 similar to 8846693/12746231

Notice the delay length in days of the mailing event 'MOPP' from when the 'OPPT' event occurred. Ironically these entries represent some of the same decisions that are available in PDF form downloaded from the Office's FOIA website or from the URL previously listed. The decisions are dated Jun 28, 2016 and match entries in the similarities table above.

The data below comes from MOPP2of2.csv. Review this report file to see more grouped decision allotments that present lists of application's where the copied artwork and deciding officials can be reviewed! Notice the 'IMIS' documents included in each application file that present the deciding official related to each 'OPPT' decision event.

[Subset file] [App] [Seq] [Type] [TxDate] [Delay] eData460s.txt 12734283 122 MOPP 7/1/2016 17

eData470s.txt 12825709 142 MOPP 7/1/2016 18 eData461s.txt 12746231 133 MOPP 7/1/2016 18

eData454s.txt 12677601 111 MOPP 7/1/2016 18 eData359s.txt 11792360 96 MOPP 7/1/2016 23

eData395s.txt 12128752 108 MOPP 7/1/2016 30 eData277s.txt 11012723 153 MOPP 7/1/2016 32

eData369s.txt 11886960 96 MOPP 7/1/2016 34 eData414s.txt 12311365 116 MOPP 7/1/2016 35

eData488s.txt 12991191 97 MOPP 7/1/2016 51 eData482s.txt 12938398 94 MOPP 7/1/2016 78

**The 'MOPP' event mailing delays are quite possibly due to the 'OPPT' decisions awaiting artwork manipulation. (It seems further possible, but one never really knows, that the recent report on the Office's 'hours worked' accountability could be explained by the demands of the excessive graphical artwork task workload requirements of the work done by the 'Artoony Advisors' at the Office.)

Good petition decisions are found searching for the normal PTDI, PTDE or PTGR or the sub-event codes for petition decisions. These decisions of good practice mix with the OPPT petition types and further verify and prove of the phony petitions existence.

OPPT- The URL's have copied of the same petitions as in the application file but with a date stamp that for most causes is improper; the date stamp is not on the decision of the documents in PAIR, having the title graphics still in proof stage (dotted line).

**Note: Almost all decisions available for download with this naming structure are 'OPPT' type decisions and can be compared to the counterpart application PDF files also available for download.

Date stamps further the deceit of paperwork delivery. Phony date stamps of receiving to deceive the timing of the petitions - as in my case - notice the pages are the same and the initials and the stamp on the old one and the same title.

Two petitions of Author's application #12316699 dated August 24, 2015 had a cover letter and should have been handled by a different department but instead the two petitions and cover letter was filed as a 105 page Request for Refund. It wasn't until March 4, 2016 that the 'Inventorship petition was filed and done so as only a 5 page letter of cover. Correction Of Inventorship paperwork was improperly filed as a 'Refund' petition and was improperly stamped 'Received' by the Office Of Petitions.

One of the petitions, the refund request was entered on the 24th as the entire paperwork set. The other was entered in March 2016 as

'12316699,73,PET.,2015-08-24' after the later dated transaction '12316699,72,OPPT,2016-03-04'.

Decisions are of a OPPT event type, where graphics, text fonts and mail stamps differ from document in application file and documents on the Office's web site. Petitions are not signed by an official in capacity of determining decision with liability, having such signature in past decisions.

Fee's are said to be paid having fee stamps interesting questionable.


(The content's written data element facts remain alleged.)

PTA #10590265, #11925585 / 8,195,605 invalid #11629016 / 8,461,187 real Real and not genuine - John Cottingham sign and not sign within 1 month

Notice the correspondence address line in real notice the format of the numbering system on page 2

with regard to #11925585 the different dates between the transaction tab and IFW tab is disconcerting.

#12823007 Phony 3rd decision! A Jun 07 2016 dated decision but shows transactions dated in August 2016.

#11629238 John Cottingham VALID Mar 17,2015 #12607079 twice denied PTA extension

#13134675_HasOPPTFOIASep13.pdf Sept 13 decision (A 3rd decision one!!)



* ALLEGED: The Office manipulates event transaction processes and dates. *****************************************************************************

More editing will be done here. The following however show transactionary diversion.

#13959262 - inventorship split #10035637 has hidden transactions

#09501893 - appeal stuffed in where other transactions was.... 9/29/2004 was the wrong date anyway

this was not put in 2014 data

Individuals that appear not to be employed by the Office are allowed to handle, manipulate or direct prosecution of selected applications, specifically in regard to petition decisions. In cases of OPPT decisions many are decided by 'official advisors' only and not registered attorneys of other official employee's of the Office.

Event codes are used in the application file that are non-standard and of a custom purpose facilitating examiner, advisor or other users of interest. Many IMIS event coded documents show such personnel involvement.

The various environments available for viewing an application's contents display the transaction events differently allowing an application to contain items or operations such as that would be deemed improper or invalid or of unjust operation.

Transactions are omitted, not shown or displayed differently in the various data retrieval or viewing environments available for reasons for the application's contents. The different environments for the Application's file content display windows pair, glossier as well as XML and public released applications show or hide different items. Events show to be valid when shown in the PAIR IFW but are actually of an event code different than the standard code used for such event.

Transactions can be entered with codes different than standard therefore altering the action done or department used in its handling. The status of an application can be changed without having any transacted events, as in the case of my application. Other transactions change the entity type of an application

The system is built so that later entries show up earlier in IFW, therefore allowing a petition to appear elsewhere, as in the case of Authors August 24, 2015 'Correction Of Inventorship' petition. The transaction numbers index so much further than others that appear actually later on in IFW. This process has been done to delay many different petition entries of other applications of patent files in 2016 data.

A transaction event code of 'BCPA' are used in numerous files. This code, used in the past to signify a Continued Prosecution Application event, was once used for MPEP 201.06(D). The workflow creates open incomplete situation. No CPA at all should be in file, as the practice ended around July, 2001. This event code has suspicious resurfaced as of 2013, and manipulate file content.

The data sets appear numerous or contains tables for duplicated event transacting - different data appearing in different viewing environments.

It appears that there are multiple database 'data sets' where data is projected differently producing varying text labels, handling (hiding / showing) inconsistencies and other areas where handled data elements are obscurely transposed.

After the initial incidents of what happened are discovered, further reporting can be done to tie the actions to the different examiners, customers, attorneys, art units, company's, and technologies involved. The complete data set of the patent application file must be disclosed to allow all analysis of all activity spectrums. The results can be obtained and verified easily in many multiple facets and directions. These results presented from my review have been extensively cross verified to degrees necessary so as to allow presentation, understanding and a level of accuracy and truth needed so as to take these words and further run with them, having the data sets supplied to the public in it's completeness and without manipulation as to ordering, data filtering or other office manipulations, alterations or other transversals.


***************************************************************************** * ALLEGED: Office's manipulated, hidden or unjustly processed transactions.


The actions of the Office with regard to data manipulation and event transaction alterations allow the hiding and/or future 'living' of the commandeering of the patent system and said annexation lessens or removes the people's proper ability of prosecution and prevents his or her natural right to invent.

Improper handling of petitions and/or other prosecutional processes by the Office is directed inappropriately and should be processed by other departments that are properly assigned to handle such and are therefore processed in a way that is biased, unfair and unjust and allows unwanted party control.

The PDF's generated by the Office's PAIR's IFW tab at times have table of content entries that hide indexed transaction paper entries by having the table of contents pinpointing other particular items. However when a PDF is made for #12316699, the application mentioned herein, the PDF entries point to incorrect papers.

Data is purposely omitted from the transaction files, event code files and other files accordingly. These missing data elements and omitted event codes are in the Office's data repository and is selectively omitted before distribution.

Date manipulation - Data transactions are dated improperly or otherwise allowed filing out of sequence fir application prosecution filing manipulated or tampered with.

The process flow for petitions allow inappropriate control, having date stamps pretended/word for put on later and as if always there, missing, altered or otherwise out of date

The process flow for petitions allow inappropriate control, having date stamps pretended/word for put on later and as if always there, missing, altered or otherwise out of date

PED not allowed, error when certain applications are requested, hidden applications, delays during retrieval.

There is web site script for the PAIR IFW page that hides the last activities of file prosecution, especially those related to patent term adjustments. Further, there is script code for the transaction tab to have entries hidden. These areas that lack complete data elements are meant to deceive the user and make discovery more difficult

Phone numbers are different for the officials deciding petitions. Petitions are controlled in their routing.

Employee's of Office's Mailing Operations (both incoming and outgoing) engage in or otherwise allow improper document handling.

Applications become into particular status states and are locked accordingly - attorney change....

Favoritism is show in the data - more details to come



* ALLEGED: Data commissioned for public review is hidden or manipulated. *****************************************************************************

The OPPT event code was used in 2014 even though it was not officially listed as an event until the 2015 data release.

All of the transaction datasets have missing transaction event entries purposely withheld from the Office. The ending event count for the 2016 data should have been 402,292,551 but was delivered with 337,600,355 total transactions. An estimated count of the missing transactions, having surrounding events as determining placeholders, is approximately 64,692,196 transactions, equating to 16% missing.

Some event codes and their related transaction events are not presented within the publicly available data sets, intentionally left out or omitted during data set generation.

Some event transactions were part of data, having the event code not in the list or transaction data. OPPT, as example, was used in 2014 data but was absent in the event code database table for the year 2014.

The event code DVER was omitted from 2016 transactions but have been supplied in the eData sub sets available on - these are included in supplied data e2016 I have. This event code could very well show the favored applications Database alterations include event transaction entries 'DVER' & 'BIG.' and others inserted into the blank transaction event locations in older patents, dated 1990's and such, having these applications not using this event code, especially in the previously missing event code locations. Data has been backfield with erroneous event codes to sidetrack counts. There were a total of 1564 duplicated event entries within the 2016 data set.

The three bulk data sets for 2014, 2015 and 2016 are available at:

These eData sets will be available here as well as soon as possible.

The following attributes are for the files reviewed.

Year Size (Disk) Unzipped Zipped Date Time Checksum 2014 2,629,324,587 8,635,467,003 2,629,324,297 11/27/2015 7:09pm 68E5E2C4

2015 3,075,369,797 9,298,180,034 3,075,369,507 7/15/2016 5:45pm 3B926E62 2016 2,055,399,119 10,248,334,384 2,055,398,829 8/08/2017 6:00pm 72F9F6C2

The PAIR Trans, PAIR IFW, PAIR Bulk XML, PED Bulk XML and Global Dossier all had different event code symbols etc. - missing here/ different there / displayed differently based on the inputted date, primary key index or perhaps other date fields used for Database handling

Used PAIR BULK downloads of 2017-09-18 time period when the BULK XML for PAIR didn't change while the system was 'moving' to the PED interface.

***************************************************************************** * ALLEGED: The Office's illicitly 'cooperative operational interactions'.


The problem is relatively simple... the Office's PAIR system's transparency is "Trans-PAIR-aint".

The unfair biased prosecution, in support or against of a specific inventor is readily apparent. The lack of the Office to offer true 'open transparency' while depicting at the same time otherwise is down right appalling to say the least. The control that the office has on the system, application prosecution and the people is overwhelming, beyond rational, and portrays definite cogent need of extreme change.

The perilous state of the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, the power to the people for "Inventor Rights" is all but unwritten.

No more can this continue!

Author has spent time in long ago beginnings and opened the door and had to close it. The risk involvements under-carry the more important published discovery needs, research and review. Author will continue to find all the exact details involved and remains steadfast to the end to make a change for the people.

Assistance in this matter would be appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely,

John Lewis Guymon Jr.

Phone: (801) 930-8229 Admin@Intelledoc.Com

Subject: Our Nation's Constitution Article 1 Section 8