<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">One of the missions of this Director appears to be to increase the number of pro se applicants. This mission can be promoted as a means to help with diversity, equity, and inclusion of inventors, another if the Director’s missions. <span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ms-outlook-mobile-signature">
<div><br>
</div>
Get <a href="https://aka.ms/o0ukef">Outlook for iOS</a></div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Suzannah K. Sundby via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 22, 2024 7:21:16 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Suzannah K. Sundby <suzannah@canadylortz.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Patentpractice] USPTO welcome letters</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>The question to be asking is WHY ARE THE LETTERS NEEDED NOW after how many years the USPTO went without.<br>
<br>
Seems to go against the Paperwork Reduction Act...<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Neil R. Ormos via Patentpractice<br>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 7:07 AM<br>
To: Patent Practice Mailing List <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Cc: Neil R. Ormos <ormos-lists@ormos.org><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] USPTO welcome letters<br>
<br>
Dan Feigelson wrote:<br>
> Suzannah K. Sundby wrote:<br>
<br>
>> Agreed.<br>
<br>
>> Imo, the Welcome Letters are Vidal trying to justify herself... "But <br>
>> we're nice and welcoming... <shows letter>... even if our software <br>
>> 'improvements' are not user friendly..."<br>
<br>
> How difficult would it be for the system to determine if the ADS is <br>
> signed by a practitioner, and to not send the letter in such a case?<br>
<br>
> Too difficult for the PTO, apparently.<br>
<br>
The letter mentions that the "Office action includes a 'rejection'".<br>
<br>
If the PTO has "business logic" automation that recognizes that the action that triggers the letter includes a rejection, it would seem trivial to also recognize that the applicant is not /pro se/, either from the ADS (as Dan F suggests) or from the presence
of a Customer Number in an address field. <br>
<br>
(Am I giving the PTO too much credit? Do they send Welcome Letter TWO even upon first actions that do not reject any claims?)
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<br>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</div>
<br>
<font face="Arial" color="Gray" size="1"><br>
This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error,
please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>