<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
On 3/25/2024 3:21 PM, Kevin Grierson via E-trademarks wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:MN2PR12MB4127F37EB01A02A30A00E8ADD2362@MN2PR12MB4127.namprd12.prod.outlook.com"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt">Additional charges for descriptions
over 1K characters per class.<o:p></o:p></span></blockquote>
This is the part that frosts me. I've had refusals where the ID is,
for example, Communication services, namely, transmission of voice,
audio, visual images, and data." You get an office action that says
"not good enough, what are the actual transmission service types?"
So you list everything you can think of because it's all of them -
cellular networks, wireless networks, POTS, "the Internet,"
bluetooth, whatever, all the ways one computer can talk to another,
both describing it as the actual technology or the layperson's terms
for it ("<a
href="https://idm-tmng.uspto.gov/public-view-record.html?referrer=public&recordId=38927">the
Internet</a>" - WTF, how is that a transmission medium?). God
forbid you miss one, because then it's an ah-hah moment for your
opponent. So you just added 200 characters to your ID because of a
requirement that adds exactly zero information and doesn't change
the scope, just a lot of words. And you'll probably have to add it
to each item, getting you past 1000 characters per class in a
heartbeat.<br>
<br>
It is, for sure, a tax on tech because of the excruciating detail
they require.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
300 Fayetteville St.<br>
Unit 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
</body>
</html>