Yesterday, after Europe had gone to bed, a subscriber to Carl Oppedahl's PCT listserv asked a question: what does one do when filing a PCT application when one of the inventors has a single name, if ePCT gives a warning when there's no second name?
One response was, "No inventor name is required on a PCT application, so just file without the inventor name, and then afterward send WIPO a letter explaining the issue and asking them to add the name."
This morning, after Europe woke up, Ann Bardini from WIPO wrote a response and explained what to do in this situation in ePCT.
"In ePCT please fill in the portion of the name that applies for the person in question, in your case the first name, and leave the last name field blank. When you confirm with the OK button, ePCT will display an error message that requests that you add a dash “-“ in the last name field in place of the name: [screenshot] The equivalent applies if it the person is providing only a last name. "
The fact that she responded was in itself a great thing. But then she added, "We have taken this approach in an attempt to steer users towards typing the same value in the case of a missing portion of a natural person’s name. It might not be the best way of doing it, as users such as yourself do not necessarily attempt to click on the ‘Add’ button with a mandatory value missing in order to see that validation message. We might improve this in the future by putting more explicit information in the GUI itself, although this remains a very rare scenario as far as we are aware to date."
So they not only listen to users, but let users know they're listening, and try to address users complaints. And even say when a particular issue might be so rare as to not warrant further adjustment.
Wow.
A few weeks ago, Michael Richarson from WIPO similarly responded to ePCT user questions on the listserv, including suggesting a workaround for a particular problem - twice in the same week!
Meanwhile, the USPTO remains tone-deaf and obstinate when it comes to fixing Patentcenter, which has many problems, some of them since alpha-testing more than three years ago; and when it comes to its plan to force users (as of this coming January) to file in "docx" format, which isn't a single format but which the USPTO claims is.
This is why, as someone based outside the USA (and thus not constrained to using the PTO in the absence of a "foreign filing license"), I invariably file PCT applications at WIPO via ePCT.