Agenda

  1. Opening of the session
  2. Introduction of the agenda
    (document PCT/EF/TPTF/1/1 Prov.)
  3. Text Processing Task Force - Introduction and Background
    (document PCT/EF/TPTF/1/2)
  4. Text Processing Task Force Initiatives
    (document PCT/EF/TPTF/1/3)
    • Full text processing ‑ applicant and Office landscape
    • Full text processing requirements
    • Discussion on priorities and proposed outline of activities
  5. Summary of discussions and next steps
  6. Closing of the session

WIPO Document Converter demonstration site

The WIPO Document Converter is available fully integrated in ePCT filing for use when filing applications. 

It is also available for demonstration and testing purposes through the following standalone webpage. This  document converter standalone webpage must not be used in the preparation of a production filing when the document is still highly confidential.

Meeting Summary

The first session of a text processing task force was held from January 29 to 31, to help us understand and address some of the issues .  This was attended by delegations from 23 national Offices, 2 intergovernmental organizations and 7 non-governmental organizations representing user groups.

The task force reviewed the current landscape of electronic filing.  As a result of the China National Intellectual Property Administration converting all international applications filed with it as receiving Office to XML format, the International Bureau now receives over half of international applications in XML format and we have begun to publish international applications based on the XML not only where they are unchanged from filing, but also where corrections and rectifications have been made.

Delegations took a very positive approach, but recognized that many issues would need to be addressed. 

Some of the issues on the side of applicants and attorneys included:

  • the need to be able to submit a document as approved by the applicant;
  • to have a clear and reliable long term view of the application as filed;
  • to have consistency in formats accepted and processed across different Offices;
  • to be certain before filing that a document submitted is in a form that will be accepted;
  • to have clear processes and timelines for addressing any conversion issues without affecting applicants’ rights;
  • to reduce the number of formalities errors and conversion errors;
  • have effective ways of dealing with residual paper and image-based PDF filings;  and
  • to see real benefits for the applicant emerging from the process.
  • to see real benefits for the applicant emerging from the process.

From the Office side, there was a need to:

  • be able to plan and justify the investment in new processing systems;
  • deal with existing applications in any new processing environment;
  • have a clear understanding of what format is considered to have been filed and the formats used for processing and document exchange;
  • to be able to make lossless conversions between ST.36 and ST.96 application bodies;
  • to have a common approach for markup of amendments and corrections;
  • to be able to deal with drawings filed as a separate unit from the description and claims;  and
  • to be able to handle special features accurately, including chemical and mathematical equations.

Addressing these issues and requirements would involve a complicated set of legal issues, technical standards, new procedures and IT development that would need to be considered and coordinated.

As we need to break the work down into manageable sections that help us to move forwards, we propose the next session of the task force will deal primarily with the question of file formats, and what can be used for filing that is easily prepared by applicants to a well understood standard, how can a satisfactory long term archive of the application as filed be provided, and what formats can deliver optimal processing implementations.

Example Applications

Example types

Level 1 - PDF Filing, sheet processing, sheet master published

Level 2 - XML Filing, sheet processing, sheet master published

Level 3 - XML Filing, parallel XML, sheet processing, sheet master published

Level 4 - PDF Filing, converted to XML, XML processing, XML master generates sheet publication

Level 5 - XML Filing, XML processing, XML master generates sheet publication


Example typeIA NumberPublication dateFeatures
Level 1BR202005047503.06.2021

Formulae in description (see description tab (OCR))

Conversion delivers poor quality drawing images

R26 sheet markup

Level 1 (-)

RU2020000337

(paper original)

14.01.2021

Formulae in description (see description tab (OCR))

R26 sheet markup

Level 1 (-)

IB2020020012

(Contingency upload (question) 

17.09.2020Embedded image in description (see description tab (OCR))
Level 2


Level 3

IB2022052618

(DOCX Filing)

29.09.2022

WIPO docConverter created XML from DOCX uploaded in ePCT

Original had line numbered sheets

Amended claims sheet processed in parallel - see full text tab contains amended claims (XML), Official publication sheets contain stamps

Level 3

IB2022055678

(DOCX Filing)

29.09.2022

WIPO docConverter created XML from DOCX uploaded in ePCT

Original had paragraph numbered sheets

Color drawing - see figure 6B

Level 3IB202205549622.12.2022

WIPO docConverter created XML in French


Level 3IB202205001914.07.2022

WIPO docConverter created XML

Nested ordered lists (see paragraph 16 in full text tab)

Tables in XML (see paragraph 121 in full text tab)

Level 3JP2023014556
02.11.2023

XML application body from applicant (JPO-PAS i480)

R26 drawing markup in XML (e.g. Figure 21) and sheet stamps (e.g. sheet 21) based on parallel processing

Drawing texts listed in reference signs section (unfortunately another drawing was selected for the front page)

Level 4CN202308833711.01.2024

Chinese PDF to XML conversion

Rule26  markup in paragraphs 79, 82


Level 5CN202313066925.01.2024

Chinese XML Filing (English language) application body from applicant

Amended claims

Level 5CN202313067725.01.2024

Chinese XML Filing (English language) application body from applicant

Drawings rectified Rule91 (In Patentscope, see full text section in XML and see black-line markup on PDF rendered publication)


  • No labels