<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<div dir="ltr">
<div></div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"></div>
</div>
<div>
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 24px">I dont have the data re number of AFCP interviews granted but unfortunately filing an AFCP request only makes a modest difference in terms of improving chances of allowance
v not filing one. But, from what I understand, an examiner gets credit for conducting an AFCP interview either way. </span></p>
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 24px;"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 24px;">In case anyone is curious, below is the historical data for the different TCs.</span></p>
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 24px;"><br>
</span></p>
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 24px;">On average, the AFCP program </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 24px;">improves chances of allowance by only 8.7%
but - as Im sure many of you know - varies greatly between different TCs & examiners:</span><br>
</p>
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 24px"></span></p>
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 24px"> </span></p>
<span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: -apple-system, HelveticaNeue; display: block; overflow: hidden; width: 343px; height: 87px">
<table style="width: 283.25pt; border-collapse: collapse; margin-left: 0.15pt; transform: scale(0.382386); transform-origin: 0px 0px">
<tbody>
<tr style="height: 15pt">
<td style="background-color: rgb(217, 226, 243); width: 58.25pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border: 1pt solid windowtext">
<p style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<b><span style="color: black">USPTO Tech Center</span></b></p>
</td>
<td style="background-color: rgb(217, 226, 243); width: 49.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: windowtext">
<p style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<b><span style="color: black">AFCP Usage</span></b></p>
</td>
<td style="background-color: rgb(217, 226, 243); width: 85.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: windowtext">
<p style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<b><span style="color: black">Final Rejection Allowance Rate with AFCP</span></b></p>
</td>
<td style="background-color: rgb(217, 226, 243); width: 90pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: windowtext">
<p style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<b><span style="color: black">Final Rejection Allowance Rate without AFCP</span></b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15pt">
<td style="width: 58.25pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: windowtext">
<p style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
1600</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 49.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
10.7%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 85.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
58.3%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 90pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
40.1%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15pt">
<td style="width: 58.25pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: windowtext">
<p style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
1700</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 49.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
13.3%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 85.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
44.0%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 90pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
36.6%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15pt">
<td style="width: 58.25pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: windowtext">
<p style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
2100</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 49.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
14.4%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 85.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
32.6%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 90pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
21.3%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15pt">
<td style="width: 58.25pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: windowtext">
<p style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
2400</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 49.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
18.9%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 85.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
34.2%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 90pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
18.2%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15pt">
<td style="width: 58.25pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: windowtext">
<p style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
2600</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 49.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
13.5%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 85.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
39.5%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 90pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
30.9%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15pt">
<td style="width: 58.25pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: windowtext">
<p style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
2800</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 49.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
13.8%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 85.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
43.6%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 90pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
39.6%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15pt">
<td style="width: 58.25pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: windowtext">
<p style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
3600</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 49.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
15.4%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 85.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
46.9%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 90pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
37.2%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15pt">
<td style="width: 58.25pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: windowtext">
<p style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
3700</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 49.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
16.9%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 85.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
43.2%</p>
</td>
<td style="width: 90pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
35.3%</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height: 15pt">
<td style="width: 58.25pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-width: 1pt; border-style: none solid solid; border-color: windowtext">
<p style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<b>Total</b></p>
</td>
<td style="width: 49.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<b>14.6%</b></p>
</td>
<td style="width: 85.5pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<b>42.3%</b></p>
</td>
<td style="width: 90pt; height: 15pt; padding: 0px 5.4pt; border-style: none solid solid none; border-right-width: 1pt; border-bottom-width: 1pt; border-right-color: windowtext; border-bottom-color: windowtext">
<p align="right" style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; text-align: right; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<b>33.6%</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</span>
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 24px"> </span></p>
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 24px">Eli</span></p>
<p style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; margin: 0px; line-height: 22px">
<a href="http://www.VoiceOfIP.com">www.VoiceOfIP.com</a> </p>
<br>
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-ios-signature"></div>
</div>
<div id="id-ca61b18d-25c0-4ff9-b0fa-1908b15260c4" class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message">
<hr style="display: inline-block; width: 98%; font-family: -webkit-standard; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif"><b>From:</b> Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of patentpractice-request@oppedahl-lists.com <patentpractice-request@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 1, 2024 12:02 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Patentpractice Digest, Vol 7, Issue 1
<div> </div>
</font></div>
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Send Patentpractice mailing list submissions to<br>
patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<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>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
patentpractice-request@oppedahl-lists.com<br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
patentpractice-owner@oppedahl-lists.com<br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of Patentpractice digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: Interesting notice from USPTO re data breach<br>
(Katherine Koenig)<br>
2. Number of AFCP interviews granted each year (pbrisky@fujitsu.com)<br>
3. Re: Number of AFCP interviews granted each year (Jim Larsen)<br>
4. Re: Number of AFCP interviews granted each year (Timothy Snowden)<br>
5. Re: Interesting notice from USPTO re data breach (Richard Schafer)<br>
6. Re: Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
(pbrisky@fujitsu.com)<br>
7. Re: Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
(welched123@gmail.com)<br>
8. non-pub request for case claiming priority from abandoned<br>
foreign application (Dan Feigelson)<br>
9. Re: Number of AFCP interviews granted each year (Scott Nielson)<br>
10. Re: Number of AFCP interviews granted each year (Katherine Koenig)<br>
11. Re: non-pub request for case claiming priority from abandoned<br>
foreign application (Jeffrey Semprebon)<br>
12. Re: Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
(pbrisky@fujitsu.com)<br>
13. Re: non-pub request for case claiming priority from abandoned<br>
foreign application (Jeffrey Semprebon)<br>
14. Office Action Predictions (Karen Oster)<br>
15. Re: non-pub request for case claiming priority from abandoned<br>
foreign application (David Boundy)<br>
16. Re: Office Action Predictions (Karen S. Canady)<br>
17. Re: Interesting notice from USPTO re data breach (David Boundy)<br>
18. Re: Interesting notice from USPTO re data breach (David Boundy)<br>
19. Re: Office Action Predictions (Jeffrey Semprebon)<br>
20. Re: Number of AFCP interviews granted each year (Timothy Snowden)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:06:05 +0000<br>
From: Katherine Koenig <katherine@koenigipworks.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Interesting notice from USPTO re data<br>
breach<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<BN8PR15MB31404117AD5CEAF72C47F251BC1A2@BN8PR15MB3140.namprd15.prod.outlook.com><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
Another thing I noticed is that the communication is titled Notice of Potential Erroneous Release of Patent Application Titles.<br>
<br>
It wasn't a potential erroneous release, it was an actual erroneous release. Someone who didn't have authorization to view it may have, but it doesn't change the fact that, through USPTO error, the titles were made public.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Katherine<br>
<br>
Dr. Katherine Koenig<br>
Registered Patent Attorney<br>
Koenig IP Works, PLLC<br>
2208 Mariner Dr.<br>
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316<br>
(954) 903-1699<br>
katherine@koenigipworks.com<mailto:katherine@koenigipworks.com><br>
<br>
[cid:image001.png@01DA9AFF.284799D0]<br>
Targeted Intellectual Property Strategy<br>
<br>
The information contained in this communication, including any attachments, is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible
to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply
to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then destroy all paper and electronic copies. Thank you.<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Patent Lawyer via Patentpractice<br>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 3:44 PM<br>
To: Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Cc: Patent Lawyer <patentlawyer995@gmail.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Interesting notice from USPTO re data breach<br>
<br>
We should stop calling this a data breach. It was not.<br>
The PTO notice acknowledges that it was "a computer programming error."<br>
A data breach implies bad acts from someone outside.<br>
Maybe there were bad actors outside. Or maybe not. I'm not sure there were any.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Reply-To: Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 at 2:49 PM<br>
To: Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Cc: Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com<mailto:carl@oppedahl.com>><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Interesting notice from USPTO re data breach<br>
<br>
On 4/29/2024 12:14 PM, Carl Oppedahl wrote:<br>
On 4/29/2024 9:20 AM, Patent Lawyer via Patentpractice wrote:<br>
Part II:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I have received at least 6 of these notices.<br>
<br>
What should I tell my clients?<br>
<br>
(Because I feel like writing another letter in my abundant free time!)<br>
<br>
Here is what I wrote to one of our clients a few minutes ago ...<br>
<br>
Subject line includes "USPTO may have revealed your application title to a third party"<br>
<br>
Body of email includes:<br>
<br>
Now the USPTO reveals that it may have revealed the title of your patent application to some member of the public. See the attached Notice.<br>
<br>
Our title is "redacted". Our application is scheduled to be published on redacted, 2025. I'd guess your reaction to this would be that the title, taken alone, does not reveal the entirety of the invention. Of course the revelation of the title might nonetheless
be of interest to third parties who would thereby learn that the client is innovating in this technical area.<br>
<br>
As you may see, the USPTO commits to "confirming that the disclosure was erroneous and inadvertent".<br>
<br>
I am not able to think of any next step for the client to do about this, other than waiting for the publication to happen around sixteen months from now.<br>
<br>
Carl<br>
<br>
It seems to me that the reaction to this data breach ought to be very much a matter of case-by-case consideration.<br>
<br>
Imagine one extreme, where the case claims priority from something that has already been published. Or, similarly, the case is a US national phase of a PCT that has already been published. In such cases the revelation of the title would likely be a no harm
no foul. The revelation of the application number might, nonetheless, be of concern to the extent that it might reveal filing activity by the client that would otherwise not have been known to adversaries or competitors.<br>
<br>
Yet another element of the case-by-case analysis would be tied to the title itself. One extreme is the "tetrafluoroethylene polymers" case where the title literally reveals the invention. Another extreme is the innocuous title that reveals very little. "Method
and apparatus for data transmission." "Improved cat box."<br>
<br>
In the case quoted above, the client is player number 3 or so in a fairly small world where player number 1 has infinite amounts of money to spend on making trouble for players 2 and 3. Even the tiniest clue given to player number 1 about our client's filing
activities would be unfortunate. But my situation is that I think the CIO's notice to me is a "boy who cried wolf" situation. I think it's highly likely that the CIO sent the notice to me not because any actual data logging by the USPTO revealed that some
third party saw my client's invention title. I think it's highly likely that the CIO sent the notice to me for no better reason than that I recorded an assignment during the breach period.<br>
<br>
Yet another factor for the case-by-case analysis is the position in the time line for the US pub. In the case I quoted above, the filing that I did claimed no priority and no domestic benefit. So the US pub will be sixteen months from now. It's sad to think
of unnecessarily revealing something sixteen months early. On the other hand if the case you are looking at is going to be published in a week, maybe that is not so sad.<br>
<br>
<br>
-- Patentpractice mailing list Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com">
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/c6808145/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/c6808145/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image001.png<br>
Type: image/png<br>
Size: 7679 bytes<br>
Desc: image001.png<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/c6808145/attachment-0001.png">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/c6808145/attachment-0001.png</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:02:22 +0000<br>
From: "pbrisky@fujitsu.com" <pbrisky@fujitsu.com><br>
To: Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice<br>
<patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<BLAPR07MB757059D39617D9764F636BF6BF1A2@BLAPR07MB7570.namprd07.prod.outlook.com><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
The USPTO claims that 50% of all AFCP requests (out of the 60k annually) made by applicants have been granted interviews. Anecdotally this has not been our observation. I am wondering if anybody has numbers to either refute the USPTO's assertion or back it
up.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Pamela Cei Brisky<br>
<br>
Senior Patent Paralegal<br>
Fujitsu North America, Inc.| Fujitsu Intellectual Property Center<br>
<br>
pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> |571-216-2112<br>
<br>
[cid:image001.png@01DA9B0F.465A03D0]<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/684996ff/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/684996ff/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image001.png<br>
Type: image/png<br>
Size: 487519 bytes<br>
Desc: image001.png<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/684996ff/attachment-0001.png">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/684996ff/attachment-0001.png</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:13:00 +0000<br>
From: Jim Larsen <jim@larsen-ip.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each<br>
year<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<MW4PR22MB31121D8E623B649D79D7DD18E81A2@MW4PR22MB3112.namprd22.prod.outlook.com><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
By definition, a proper AFCP request includes an examiner-initiated interview, if only to indicate that (at least in the majority of my experience) additional search and consideration will be required (i.e., RCE).<br>
<br>
Fed. Reg. Vo. 78, No. 96, at 29118<<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf</a>><br>
?If the examiner?s consideration of a proper AFCP 2.0 request and response does not result in a determination that all pending claims are in condition for allowance, the examiner will request an interview with the applicant to discuss the response.?<br>
<br>
If you aren?t seeing interview requests from examiners, it follows that either the application was allowed or the AFCP request was improper. No?<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
-Jim<br>
<br>
James C. Larsen<br>
Attorney<br>
Larsen IP PLLC<br>
p: 425.298.6846<br>
e: jim@Larsen-IP.com<<a href="mailto:jim@Larsen-IP.com">mailto:jim@Larsen-IP.com</a>><br>
w. www.Larsen-IP.com<<a href="http://www.Larsen-IP.com">http://www.Larsen-IP.com</a>><br>
<br>
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named herein. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or authorized agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unintended recipients are requested to notify the sender immediately and to permanently delete this e-mail,
any attachments, and copies.<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of pbrisky--- via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 12:04?PM<br>
To: Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Cc: pbrisky@fujitsu.com <pbrisky@fujitsu.com><br>
Subject: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
The USPTO claims that 50% of all AFCP requests (out of the 60k annually) made by applicants have been granted interviews. Anecdotally this has not been our observation. I am wondering if anybody has numbers to either refute the USPTO's assertion or back it
up.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Pamela Cei Brisky<br>
<br>
Senior Patent Paralegal<br>
Fujitsu North America, Inc.| Fujitsu Intellectual Property Center<br>
<br>
pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> |571-216-2112<br>
<br>
[cid:image001.png@01DA9B0F.465A03D0]<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/ad75ccd9/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/ad75ccd9/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image001.png<br>
Type: image/png<br>
Size: 487519 bytes<br>
Desc: image001.png<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/ad75ccd9/attachment-0001.png">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/ad75ccd9/attachment-0001.png</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:13:20 +0000<br>
From: Timothy Snowden <Timothy@thompsonpatentlaw.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each<br>
year<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<LV8PR16MB62842459E6D8BD8DAD0A46DDB31A2@LV8PR16MB6284.namprd16.prod.outlook.com><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
Hi Pamela,<br>
<br>
Anecdotally, we are close to 100% unless we get an allowance. However, we also are proactive about requesting interviews, so sometimes we get our interview 'before' the AFCP decision (which we prefer because it gives us an opportunity to try to drive to an
agreement).<br>
<br>
Not sure if that helps you or not.<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of pbrisky--- via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 2:02 PM<br>
To: Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Cc: pbrisky@fujitsu.com <pbrisky@fujitsu.com><br>
Subject: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The USPTO claims that 50% of all AFCP requests (out of the 60k annually) made by applicants have been granted interviews. Anecdotally this has not been our observation. I am wondering if anybody has numbers to either refute the USPTO's assertion or back it
up.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Pamela Cei Brisky<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Senior Patent Paralegal<br>
<br>
Fujitsu North America, Inc.| Fujitsu Intellectual Property Center<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> |571-216-2112<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[cid:image001.png@01DA9B0F.465A03D0]<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/e8db2f02/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/e8db2f02/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image001.png<br>
Type: image/png<br>
Size: 487519 bytes<br>
Desc: image001.png<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/e8db2f02/attachment-0001.png">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/e8db2f02/attachment-0001.png</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:20:53 +0000<br>
From: Richard Schafer <richard@schafer-ip.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Interesting notice from USPTO re data<br>
breach<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<SA1PR05MB7983A31F056BBC3FDB7AB68B8E1A2@SA1PR05MB7983.namprd05.prod.outlook.com><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
<br>
I think it's titled that way because the PTO has no way to know if any erroneous release of title information occurred. As Carl has said, the PTO probably isn't logging every application number lookup made by Assignment Center, much less analyzing those lookups
to see if they were for an application that the Assignment Center user wasn't authorized to access. They won't admit to their lack of knowledge directly, of course.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Richard A. Schafer | Schafer IP Law<br>
P.O. Box 230081 | Houston, TX 77223<br>
M: 832.283.6564 | richard@schafer-ip.com<mailto:richard@schafer-ip.com><br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Katherine Koenig via Patentpractice<br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 12:06 PM<br>
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Cc: Katherine Koenig <katherine@koenigipworks.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Interesting notice from USPTO re data breach<br>
<br>
Another thing I noticed is that the communication is titled Notice of Potential Erroneous Release of Patent Application Titles.<br>
<br>
It wasn't a potential erroneous release, it was an actual erroneous release. Someone who didn't have authorization to view it may have, but it doesn't change the fact that, through USPTO error, the titles were made public.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Katherine<br>
<br>
Dr. Katherine Koenig<br>
Registered Patent Attorney<br>
Koenig IP Works, PLLC<br>
2208 Mariner Dr.<br>
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316<br>
(954) 903-1699<br>
katherine@koenigipworks.com<mailto:katherine@koenigipworks.com><br>
<br>
[cid:image001.png@01DA9B09.63A687C0]<br>
Targeted Intellectual Property Strategy<br>
<br>
The information contained in this communication, including any attachments, is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible
to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply
to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then destroy all paper and electronic copies. Thank you.<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Patent Lawyer via Patentpractice<br>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 3:44 PM<br>
To: Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Cc: Patent Lawyer <patentlawyer995@gmail.com<mailto:patentlawyer995@gmail.com>><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Interesting notice from USPTO re data breach<br>
<br>
We should stop calling this a data breach. It was not.<br>
The PTO notice acknowledges that it was "a computer programming error."<br>
A data breach implies bad acts from someone outside.<br>
Maybe there were bad actors outside. Or maybe not. I'm not sure there were any.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Reply-To: Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Date: Monday, April 29, 2024 at 2:49 PM<br>
To: Patentpractice Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Cc: Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com<mailto:carl@oppedahl.com>><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Interesting notice from USPTO re data breach<br>
<br>
On 4/29/2024 12:14 PM, Carl Oppedahl wrote:<br>
On 4/29/2024 9:20 AM, Patent Lawyer via Patentpractice wrote:<br>
Part II:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I have received at least 6 of these notices.<br>
<br>
What should I tell my clients?<br>
<br>
(Because I feel like writing another letter in my abundant free time!)<br>
<br>
Here is what I wrote to one of our clients a few minutes ago ...<br>
<br>
Subject line includes "USPTO may have revealed your application title to a third party"<br>
<br>
Body of email includes:<br>
<br>
Now the USPTO reveals that it may have revealed the title of your patent application to some member of the public. See the attached Notice.<br>
<br>
Our title is "redacted". Our application is scheduled to be published on redacted, 2025. I'd guess your reaction to this would be that the title, taken alone, does not reveal the entirety of the invention. Of course the revelation of the title might nonetheless
be of interest to third parties who would thereby learn that the client is innovating in this technical area.<br>
<br>
As you may see, the USPTO commits to "confirming that the disclosure was erroneous and inadvertent".<br>
<br>
I am not able to think of any next step for the client to do about this, other than waiting for the publication to happen around sixteen months from now.<br>
<br>
Carl<br>
<br>
It seems to me that the reaction to this data breach ought to be very much a matter of case-by-case consideration.<br>
<br>
Imagine one extreme, where the case claims priority from something that has already been published. Or, similarly, the case is a US national phase of a PCT that has already been published. In such cases the revelation of the title would likely be a no harm
no foul. The revelation of the application number might, nonetheless, be of concern to the extent that it might reveal filing activity by the client that would otherwise not have been known to adversaries or competitors.<br>
<br>
Yet another element of the case-by-case analysis would be tied to the title itself. One extreme is the "tetrafluoroethylene polymers" case where the title literally reveals the invention. Another extreme is the innocuous title that reveals very little. "Method
and apparatus for data transmission." "Improved cat box."<br>
<br>
In the case quoted above, the client is player number 3 or so in a fairly small world where player number 1 has infinite amounts of money to spend on making trouble for players 2 and 3. Even the tiniest clue given to player number 1 about our client's filing
activities would be unfortunate. But my situation is that I think the CIO's notice to me is a "boy who cried wolf" situation. I think it's highly likely that the CIO sent the notice to me not because any actual data logging by the USPTO revealed that some
third party saw my client's invention title. I think it's highly likely that the CIO sent the notice to me for no better reason than that I recorded an assignment during the breach period.<br>
<br>
Yet another factor for the case-by-case analysis is the position in the time line for the US pub. In the case I quoted above, the filing that I did claimed no priority and no domestic benefit. So the US pub will be sixteen months from now. It's sad to think
of unnecessarily revealing something sixteen months early. On the other hand if the case you are looking at is going to be published in a week, maybe that is not so sad.<br>
<br>
<br>
-- Patentpractice mailing list Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com">
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/8fa53d1f/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/8fa53d1f/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image001.png<br>
Type: image/png<br>
Size: 7679 bytes<br>
Desc: image001.png<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/8fa53d1f/attachment-0001.png">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/8fa53d1f/attachment-0001.png</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 19:31:52 +0000<br>
From: "pbrisky@fujitsu.com" <pbrisky@fujitsu.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each<br>
year<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<BLAPR07MB75700191E7D5366FD4F1AC4ABF1A2@BLAPR07MB7570.namprd07.prod.outlook.com><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Thanks for the responses. I know this is a very vague question. I am just trying to find out why the USPTO states the fee impact for the AFCP program is 15 million dollars and could not find any specific data on interviews and disposals.<br>
<br>
Pamela Cei Brisky<br>
Senior Patent Paralegal/Docketing Manager<br>
Fujitsu North America, Inc.<br>
Fujitsu Intellectual Property Center<br>
<br>
571-216-2112<br>
pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>><br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Jim Larsen via Patentpractice<br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:13 PM<br>
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Cc: Jim Larsen <jim@larsen-ip.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
By definition, a proper AFCP request includes an examiner-initiated interview, if only to indicate that (at least in the majority of my experience) additional search and consideration will be required (i.e., RCE).<br>
<br>
Fed. Reg. Vo. 78, No. 96, at 29118<<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf</a>><br>
?If the examiner?s consideration of a proper AFCP 2.0 request and response does not result in a determination that all pending claims are in condition for allowance, the examiner will request an interview with the applicant to discuss the response.?<br>
<br>
If you aren?t seeing interview requests from examiners, it follows that either the application was allowed or the AFCP request was improper. No?<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
-Jim<br>
<br>
James C. Larsen<br>
Attorney<br>
Larsen IP PLLC<br>
p: 425.298.6846<br>
e: jim@Larsen-IP.com<<a href="mailto:jim@Larsen-IP.com">mailto:jim@Larsen-IP.com</a>><br>
w. www.Larsen-IP.com<<a href="http://www.Larsen-IP.com">http://www.Larsen-IP.com</a>><br>
<br>
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named herein. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or authorized agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unintended recipients are requested to notify the sender immediately and to permanently delete this e-mail,
any attachments, and copies.<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of pbrisky--- via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 12:04?PM<br>
To: Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Cc: pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> <pbrisky@fujitsu.com<mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com>><br>
Subject: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
The USPTO claims that 50% of all AFCP requests (out of the 60k annually) made by applicants have been granted interviews. Anecdotally this has not been our observation. I am wondering if anybody has numbers to either refute the USPTO's assertion or back it
up.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Pamela Cei Brisky<br>
<br>
Senior Patent Paralegal<br>
Fujitsu North America, Inc.| Fujitsu Intellectual Property Center<br>
<br>
pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> |571-216-2112<br>
<br>
[cid:image001.png@01DA9B12.11B96410]<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/9cc9f674/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/9cc9f674/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image001.png<br>
Type: image/png<br>
Size: 487519 bytes<br>
Desc: image001.png<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/9cc9f674/attachment-0001.png">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/9cc9f674/attachment-0001.png</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 7<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 15:53:25 -0400<br>
From: <welched123@gmail.com><br>
To: "'For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice.'" <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each<br>
year<br>
Message-ID: <038801da9b38$106e9f50$314bddf0$@gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
No, that?s not right! The AFCP Request can be proper; but, an interview may still not happen. Based upon my experience and, as I recall, examiner comments, the examiners have the discretion to treat the AFCP Request as an AFCP Request or an After Final Response.
In the latter, they merely issue an (another) Advisory Action maintaining the Final Rejection and denying entry of the AFCP amendment. In the past several months I filed 3 AFCP Requests, one case was allowed without an interview. In the other two cases,
both were treated as After Final Responses (with no mention of the AFCP Request having been filed) and rejected by way of Advisory Actions. Finally, I filed the RCEs, which is clearly what these examiners wanted, with the amendment from the AFCP Request and
both cases were promptly allowed: again, no interview. Hence, the low count of interviews is a result of allowance without an interview and the failure of the examiner to consider the AFCP Request. While all three would have been included in the total counts
of AFCP submission, since all were submitted that way despite not being treated as such, none of these had an interview.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ed Welch<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
IP&L Solutions<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Jim Larsen via Patentpractice<br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:13 PM<br>
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Cc: Jim Larsen <jim@larsen-ip.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
By definition, a proper AFCP request includes an examiner-initiated interview, if only to indicate that (at least in the majority of my experience) additional search and consideration will be required (i.e., RCE).
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Fed. Reg. Vo. 78, No. 96, at 29118 <<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf</a>>
<br>
<br>
?If the examiner?s consideration of a proper AFCP 2.0 request and response does not result in a determination that all pending claims are in condition for allowance, the examiner will request an interview with the applicant to discuss the response.?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If you aren?t seeing interview requests from examiners, it follows that either the application was allowed or the AFCP request was improper. No?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
-Jim<br>
<br>
James C. Larsen<br>
Attorney<br>
Larsen IP PLLC<br>
p: 425.298.6846<br>
e: jim@Larsen-IP.com <<a href="mailto:jim@Larsen-IP.com">mailto:jim@Larsen-IP.com</a>>
<br>
w. <a href="http://www.Larsen-IP.com">www.Larsen-IP.com</a> <<a href="http://www.Larsen-IP.com">http://www.Larsen-IP.com</a>>
<br>
<br>
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named herein. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or authorized agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unintended recipients are requested to notify the sender immediately and to permanently delete this e-mail,
any attachments, and copies.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com <<a href="mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com">mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> > on behalf of pbrisky--- via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com
<<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> ><br>
Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 12:04?PM<br>
To: Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> ><br>
Cc: pbrisky@fujitsu.com <<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> <pbrisky@fujitsu.com <<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> ><br>
Subject: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The USPTO claims that 50% of all AFCP requests (out of the 60k annually) made by applicants have been granted interviews. Anecdotally this has not been our observation. I am wondering if anybody has numbers to either refute the USPTO's assertion or back it
up.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Pamela Cei Brisky <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Senior Patent Paralegal<br>
<br>
Fujitsu North America, Inc.| Fujitsu Intellectual Property Center <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> pbrisky@fujitsu.com |571-216-2112<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/a9ab8c0e/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/a9ab8c0e/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image001.jpg<br>
Type: image/jpeg<br>
Size: 16949 bytes<br>
Desc: not available<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/a9ab8c0e/attachment-0001.jpg">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/a9ab8c0e/attachment-0001.jpg</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 8<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 23:12:10 +0300<br>
From: "Dan Feigelson" <djf@iliplaw.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: [Patentpractice] non-pub request for case claiming priority<br>
from abandoned foreign application<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<df78b9e6-f354-4772-a5a2-e5cbe587b64a@smtp-relay.sendinblue.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Applicant filed first application in Israel, and plans to file in the US<br>
and only in the US claiming priority from the Israel application.<br>
<br>
Israel is an 18-month-from-earliest-priority-publication country, so this<br>
set of facts would preclude filing a non-publication request at the USPTO.<br>
<br>
But what if the applicant abandons its Israel application before<br>
publication? In that circumstance, can the applicant properly make a<br>
non-pub request in the US case?<br>
<br>
The way 35 USC 122 is worded, the answer seems to be no:<br>
<br>
122(b)(B))(i) If an applicant makes a request upon filing, certifying that<br>
the invention disclosed in the application has not and will not be the<br>
subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral<br>
international agreement, that requires publication of applications 18<br>
months after filing, the application shall not be published as provided in<br>
paragraph (1).<br>
<br>
I think the straightforward reading of that paragraph is that it's not a<br>
question of whether or not the application filed abroad actually publishes,<br>
but whether or not the law in the country where the application was filed<br>
provides 18-month publication of applications. And Israel certainly fits<br>
that bill.<br>
<br>
I suppose one could take the position that the country in question<br>
doesn't *require<br>
*publication of applications at 18 months unless those applications are<br>
still pending, and therefore the invention disclosed was not "the subject<br>
of an application filed in another country...that requires publication of<br>
applications 18 months after filing" since the foreign application was<br>
abandoned.<br>
<br>
But I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig to find out what the PTO or the<br>
courts say about it. And making a non-pub request in an application that<br>
claims foreign priority from an application filed in an 18-month<br>
publication country is begging the PTO to call out the filer on this.<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/4c8e219a/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/4c8e219a/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 9<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 20:25:05 +0000<br>
From: Scott Nielson <scnielson@outlook.com><br>
To: "'For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice.'" <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each<br>
year<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<SJ0PR11MB65756559EC3C2C828B517752B01A2@SJ0PR11MB6575.namprd11.prod.outlook.com><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
I'm starting to think AFCP requests are a scam. I always file them when taking claims deemed allowable in an office action even though it's not required. I do it because I want to do the examiner a favor (an AFCP request gives the examiner half a count or something
like that).<br>
<br>
However, if an AFCP does not result in an allowance, then the examiner rarely conducts an interview anymore. The examiner just treats it like an after final request and waits for me to file an RCE to get even more counts.<br>
<br>
I think the USPTO is picking up on how the AFCP program is being abused by examiners to generate counts without any extra effort on the examiner's part, which is why it wants to get rid of the program in the most recent fee setting proposal (I think that's
where I saw it).<br>
<br>
<br>
Scott Nielson<br>
<br>
801-660-4400<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Ed Welch via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 1:53 PM<br>
To: 'For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice.' <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Cc: welched123@gmail.com <welched123@gmail.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
<br>
No, that?s not right! The AFCP Request can be proper; but, an interview may still not happen. Based upon my experience and, as I recall, examiner comments, the examiners have the discretion to treat the AFCP Request as an AFCP Request or an After Final Response.
In the latter, they merely issue an (another) Advisory Action maintaining the Final Rejection and denying entry of the AFCP amendment. In the past several months I filed 3 AFCP Requests, one case was allowed without an interview. In the other two cases,
both were treated as After Final Responses (with no mention of the AFCP Request having been filed) and rejected by way of Advisory Actions. Finally, I filed the RCEs, which is clearly what these examiners wanted, with the amendment from the AFCP Request and
both cases were promptly allowed: again, no interview. Hence, the low count of interviews is a result of allowance without an interview and the failure of the examiner to consider the AFCP Request. While all three would have been included in the total counts
of AFCP submission, since all were submitted that way despite not being treated as such, none of these had an interview.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ed Welch<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
IP&L Solutions<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Jim Larsen via Patentpractice<br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:13 PM<br>
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Cc: Jim Larsen <jim@larsen-ip.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
By definition, a proper AFCP request includes an examiner-initiated interview, if only to indicate that (at least in the majority of my experience) additional search and consideration will be required (i.e., RCE).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Fed. Reg. Vo. 78, No. 96, at 29118<<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf</a>><br>
<br>
?If the examiner?s consideration of a proper AFCP 2.0 request and response does not result in a determination that all pending claims are in condition for allowance, the examiner will request an interview with the applicant to discuss the response.?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If you aren?t seeing interview requests from examiners, it follows that either the application was allowed or the AFCP request was improper. No?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
-Jim<br>
<br>
James C. Larsen<br>
Attorney<br>
Larsen IP PLLC<br>
p: 425.298.6846<br>
e: jim@Larsen-IP.com<<a href="mailto:jim@Larsen-IP.com">mailto:jim@Larsen-IP.com</a>><br>
w. www.Larsen-IP.com<<a href="http://www.larsen-ip.com/">http://www.larsen-ip.com/</a>><br>
<br>
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named herein. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or authorized agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unintended recipients are requested to notify the sender immediately and to permanently delete this e-mail,
any attachments, and copies.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of pbrisky--- via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 12:04?PM<br>
To: Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Cc: pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> <pbrisky@fujitsu.com<mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com>><br>
Subject: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The USPTO claims that 50% of all AFCP requests (out of the 60k annually) made by applicants have been granted interviews. Anecdotally this has not been our observation. I am wondering if anybody has numbers to either refute the USPTO's assertion or back it
up.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Pamela Cei Brisky<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Senior Patent Paralegal<br>
<br>
Fujitsu North America, Inc.| Fujitsu Intellectual Property Center<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> |571-216-2112<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[cid:image001.jpg@01DA9B16.88E51030]<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/dcb63098/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/dcb63098/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image001.jpg<br>
Type: image/jpeg<br>
Size: 16949 bytes<br>
Desc: image001.jpg<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/dcb63098/attachment-0001.jpg">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/dcb63098/attachment-0001.jpg</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 10<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 20:28:42 +0000<br>
From: Katherine Koenig <katherine@koenigipworks.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each<br>
year<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<BN8PR15MB31404160A206682166AB0784BC1A2@BN8PR15MB3140.namprd15.prod.outlook.com><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
That?s been my experience in the majority of cases as well ? if the AAF and AFCP doesn?t result in allowance, there?s no interview granted. I seem to remember that interviews were almost always granted, and it was very helpful to hear the Examiner?s position
before filing an RCE.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Katherine<br>
<br>
Dr. Katherine Koenig<br>
Registered Patent Attorney<br>
Koenig IP Works, PLLC<br>
2208 Mariner Dr.<br>
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316<br>
(954) 903-1699<br>
katherine@koenigipworks.com<mailto:katherine@koenigipworks.com><br>
<br>
[cid:image002.png@01DA9B1B.761E4B10]<br>
Targeted Intellectual Property Strategy<br>
<br>
The information contained in this communication, including any attachments, is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible
to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply
to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then destroy all paper and electronic copies. Thank you.<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Scott Nielson via Patentpractice<br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 4:25 PM<br>
To: 'For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice.' <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Cc: Scott Nielson <scnielson@outlook.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
I'm starting to think AFCP requests are a scam. I always file them when taking claims deemed allowable in an office action even though it's not required. I do it because I want to do the examiner a favor (an AFCP request gives the examiner half a count or something
like that).<br>
<br>
However, if an AFCP does not result in an allowance, then the examiner rarely conducts an interview anymore. The examiner just treats it like an after final request and waits for me to file an RCE to get even more counts.<br>
<br>
I think the USPTO is picking up on how the AFCP program is being abused by examiners to generate counts without any extra effort on the examiner's part, which is why it wants to get rid of the program in the most recent fee setting proposal (I think that's
where I saw it).<br>
<br>
<br>
Scott Nielson<br>
<br>
801-660-4400<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Ed Welch via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 1:53 PM<br>
To: 'For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice.' <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Cc: welched123@gmail.com<mailto:welched123@gmail.com> <welched123@gmail.com<mailto:welched123@gmail.com>><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
<br>
No, that?s not right! The AFCP Request can be proper; but, an interview may still not happen. Based upon my experience and, as I recall, examiner comments, the examiners have the discretion to treat the AFCP Request as an AFCP Request or an After Final Response.
In the latter, they merely issue an (another) Advisory Action maintaining the Final Rejection and denying entry of the AFCP amendment. In the past several months I filed 3 AFCP Requests, one case was allowed without an interview. In the other two cases,
both were treated as After Final Responses (with no mention of the AFCP Request having been filed) and rejected by way of Advisory Actions. Finally, I filed the RCEs, which is clearly what these examiners wanted, with the amendment from the AFCP Request and
both cases were promptly allowed: again, no interview. Hence, the low count of interviews is a result of allowance without an interview and the failure of the examiner to consider the AFCP Request. While all three would have been included in the total counts
of AFCP submission, since all were submitted that way despite not being treated as such, none of these had an interview.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ed Welch<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
IP&L Solutions<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Jim Larsen via Patentpractice<br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:13 PM<br>
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Cc: Jim Larsen <jim@larsen-ip.com<mailto:jim@larsen-ip.com>><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
By definition, a proper AFCP request includes an examiner-initiated interview, if only to indicate that (at least in the majority of my experience) additional search and consideration will be required (i.e., RCE).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Fed. Reg. Vo. 78, No. 96, at 29118<<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf</a>><br>
<br>
?If the examiner?s consideration of a proper AFCP 2.0 request and response does not result in a determination that all pending claims are in condition for allowance, the examiner will request an interview with the applicant to discuss the response.?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If you aren?t seeing interview requests from examiners, it follows that either the application was allowed or the AFCP request was improper. No?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
-Jim<br>
<br>
James C. Larsen<br>
Attorney<br>
Larsen IP PLLC<br>
p: 425.298.6846<br>
e: jim@Larsen-IP.com<<a href="mailto:jim@Larsen-IP.com">mailto:jim@Larsen-IP.com</a>><br>
w. www.Larsen-IP.com<<a href="http://www.larsen-ip.com/">http://www.larsen-ip.com/</a>><br>
<br>
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named herein. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or authorized agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unintended recipients are requested to notify the sender immediately and to permanently delete this e-mail,
any attachments, and copies.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of pbrisky--- via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 12:04?PM<br>
To: Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Cc: pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> <pbrisky@fujitsu.com<mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com>><br>
Subject: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The USPTO claims that 50% of all AFCP requests (out of the 60k annually) made by applicants have been granted interviews. Anecdotally this has not been our observation. I am wondering if anybody has numbers to either refute the USPTO's assertion or back it
up.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Pamela Cei Brisky<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Senior Patent Paralegal<br>
<br>
Fujitsu North America, Inc.| Fujitsu Intellectual Property Center<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> |571-216-2112<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[cid:image003.jpg@01DA9B1B.761E4B10]<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/9d1c4ca0/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/9d1c4ca0/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image002.png<br>
Type: image/png<br>
Size: 7679 bytes<br>
Desc: image002.png<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/9d1c4ca0/attachment-0001.png">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/9d1c4ca0/attachment-0001.png</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image003.jpg<br>
Type: image/jpeg<br>
Size: 16949 bytes<br>
Desc: image003.jpg<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/9d1c4ca0/attachment-0001.jpg">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/9d1c4ca0/attachment-0001.jpg</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 11<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:31:32 -0400<br>
From: Jeffrey Semprebon <jesemprebon@gmail.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] non-pub request for case claiming<br>
priority from abandoned foreign application<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAO06ByfSuaBVF8yDArH0TMWiUqECEn79DUmKZmKrYq=Fin7r7A@mail.gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Seems that any ambiguity in interpretation prevents signing the<br>
certification. One might take the position that Israel doesn't require<br>
publication, but can one CERTIFY that it doesn't? Just looks like asking<br>
for unnecessary trouble.<br>
<br>
<br>
-Jeff<br>
<br>
Jeffrey E. Semprebon<br>
Semprebon Patent Services<br>
<a href="http://www.semprebonps.com">www.semprebonps.com</a><br>
72 Myrtle Street<br>
Claremont, New Hampshire 03743<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/5368c0bc/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/5368c0bc/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 12<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 20:33:07 +0000<br>
From: "pbrisky@fujitsu.com" <pbrisky@fujitsu.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each<br>
year<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<BLAPR07MB757081571462C656D9BC4B50BF1A2@BLAPR07MB7570.namprd07.prod.outlook.com><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
I think they are saying that they will base their decision on renewal of the Pilot on the outcome of their fee extortion campaign.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Pamela Cei Brisky<br>
Senior Patent Paralegal/Docketing Manager<br>
Fujitsu North America, Inc.<br>
Fujitsu Intellectual Property Center<br>
<br>
571-216-2112<br>
pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>><br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Scott Nielson via Patentpractice<br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 4:25 PM<br>
To: 'For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice.' <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Cc: Scott Nielson <scnielson@outlook.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
I'm starting to think AFCP requests are a scam. I always file them when taking claims deemed allowable in an office action even though it's not required. I do it because I want to do the examiner a favor (an AFCP request gives the examiner half a count or something
like that).<br>
<br>
However, if an AFCP does not result in an allowance, then the examiner rarely conducts an interview anymore. The examiner just treats it like an after final request and waits for me to file an RCE to get even more counts.<br>
<br>
I think the USPTO is picking up on how the AFCP program is being abused by examiners to generate counts without any extra effort on the examiner's part, which is why it wants to get rid of the program in the most recent fee setting proposal (I think that's
where I saw it).<br>
<br>
<br>
Scott Nielson<br>
<br>
801-660-4400<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Ed Welch via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 1:53 PM<br>
To: 'For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice.' <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Cc: welched123@gmail.com<mailto:welched123@gmail.com> <welched123@gmail.com<mailto:welched123@gmail.com>><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
<br>
No, that?s not right! The AFCP Request can be proper; but, an interview may still not happen. Based upon my experience and, as I recall, examiner comments, the examiners have the discretion to treat the AFCP Request as an AFCP Request or an After Final Response.
In the latter, they merely issue an (another) Advisory Action maintaining the Final Rejection and denying entry of the AFCP amendment. In the past several months I filed 3 AFCP Requests, one case was allowed without an interview. In the other two cases,
both were treated as After Final Responses (with no mention of the AFCP Request having been filed) and rejected by way of Advisory Actions. Finally, I filed the RCEs, which is clearly what these examiners wanted, with the amendment from the AFCP Request and
both cases were promptly allowed: again, no interview. Hence, the low count of interviews is a result of allowance without an interview and the failure of the examiner to consider the AFCP Request. While all three would have been included in the total counts
of AFCP submission, since all were submitted that way despite not being treated as such, none of these had an interview.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ed Welch<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
IP&L Solutions<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Jim Larsen via Patentpractice<br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:13 PM<br>
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Cc: Jim Larsen <jim@larsen-ip.com<mailto:jim@larsen-ip.com>><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
By definition, a proper AFCP request includes an examiner-initiated interview, if only to indicate that (at least in the majority of my experience) additional search and consideration will be required (i.e., RCE).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Fed. Reg. Vo. 78, No. 96, at 29118<<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf</a>><br>
<br>
?If the examiner?s consideration of a proper AFCP 2.0 request and response does not result in a determination that all pending claims are in condition for allowance, the examiner will request an interview with the applicant to discuss the response.?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If you aren?t seeing interview requests from examiners, it follows that either the application was allowed or the AFCP request was improper. No?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
-Jim<br>
<br>
James C. Larsen<br>
Attorney<br>
Larsen IP PLLC<br>
p: 425.298.6846<br>
e: jim@Larsen-IP.com<<a href="mailto:jim@Larsen-IP.com">mailto:jim@Larsen-IP.com</a>><br>
w. www.Larsen-IP.com<<a href="http://www.larsen-ip.com/">http://www.larsen-ip.com/</a>><br>
<br>
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named herein. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or authorized agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unintended recipients are requested to notify the sender immediately and to permanently delete this e-mail,
any attachments, and copies.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of pbrisky--- via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 12:04?PM<br>
To: Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Cc: pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> <pbrisky@fujitsu.com<mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com>><br>
Subject: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The USPTO claims that 50% of all AFCP requests (out of the 60k annually) made by applicants have been granted interviews. Anecdotally this has not been our observation. I am wondering if anybody has numbers to either refute the USPTO's assertion or back it
up.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Pamela Cei Brisky<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Senior Patent Paralegal<br>
<br>
Fujitsu North America, Inc.| Fujitsu Intellectual Property Center<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> |571-216-2112<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[cid:image001.jpg@01DA9B1C.14759250]<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/8ddc58da/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/8ddc58da/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image001.jpg<br>
Type: image/jpeg<br>
Size: 16949 bytes<br>
Desc: image001.jpg<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/8ddc58da/attachment-0001.jpg">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/8ddc58da/attachment-0001.jpg</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 13<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 16:34:55 -0400<br>
From: Jeffrey Semprebon <jesemprebon@gmail.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] non-pub request for case claiming<br>
priority from abandoned foreign application<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAO06ByctXM2Z4odPam0UV0PqfDArZg4QP2TNTT++kMSJAGEQHA@mail.gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Real concern probably isn't that the USPTO will call out the Applicant on<br>
this. More serious issue is if the USPTO doesn't catch it, and the issue is<br>
first raised by an accused infringer in litigation. Seems awfully easy for<br>
them to point the court at that language and point at Israel's 18-month<br>
publication rule. Good luck arguing "It doesn't actually count if the<br>
application isn't pending."<br>
<br>
-Jeff<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/fb20d173/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/fb20d173/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 14<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 21:44:24 +0000<br>
From: Karen Oster <karen@kdopatent.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: [Patentpractice] Office Action Predictions<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<SJ0PR20MB42641CC15CCEC0E7D20B2BD0BC1A2@SJ0PR20MB4264.namprd20.prod.outlook.com><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
My assistant spoke to the Applications Assistance Unit this morning. Apparently, office action prediction letters are no longer available and the First Office Action Estimator tool is disabled permanently. (Not that either of these were particularly reliable.)
Also, the estimates by Technology Centers in the Official Gazette (<a href="https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/official-gazette/official-gazette-notices-2024">https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/official-gazette/official-gazette-notices-2024</a>)
appear to be obsolete.<br>
<br>
If you want any idea about when you can expect an Office Action, you can call the Case Resolution team at 571-272-1720 and supposedly they can give you a timeline. My assistant tried calling and got voicemail.<br>
<br>
Does anyone have any other ideas of where to get this information? Has anyone had any success with the Case Resolution team?<br>
<br>
Karen Dana Oster<br>
<a href="http://www.oregonpatent.com<http://www.oregonpatent.com>">www.oregonpatent.com<http://www.oregonpatent.com></a><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/ea605c04/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/ea605c04/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 15<br>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 22:34:06 -0400<br>
From: David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq@gmail.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] non-pub request for case claiming<br>
priority from abandoned foreign application<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAJwugqHa07MM2ynqpV+5rf8ArGAgWvh_G20resYERTO_4wKm0g@mail.gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Jeff's observation is sound.<br>
<br>
This is something that constantly bugs me when my client buys patents, when<br>
I look at file histories, etc.. Too many patent attorneys take care of<br>
anything that the examiner raises, and then go to sleep. There are LOTS<br>
of kinds of stuff that examiners DON'T raise... YOU have to pay attention<br>
to them, and make sure they won't blow up in litigation. Counsel for<br>
defendant will be looking for little picky stuff in the assignment, in the<br>
benefit claim, in the foreign filing license, not in the IDS, etc etc. If<br>
you lay the landmine for yourself, defense counsel will find it and<br>
detonate it and take off your leg with it. Don't trust examiners to find<br>
stuff like this tension between a priority claim and a nonpub request.<br>
<br>
Can you tell what I spent half the day on?<br>
<br>
On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 4:35?PM Jeffrey Semprebon via Patentpractice <<br>
patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Real concern probably isn't that the USPTO will call out the Applicant on<br>
> this. More serious issue is if the USPTO doesn't catch it, and the issue is<br>
> first raised by an accused infringer in litigation. Seems awfully easy for<br>
> them to point the court at that language and point at Israel's 18-month<br>
> publication rule. Good luck arguing "It doesn't actually count if the<br>
> application isn't pending."<br>
><br>
> -Jeff<br>
> --<br>
> Patentpractice mailing list<br>
> Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<br>
><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>
<br>
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<<a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy">https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy</a>><br>
<br>
*David Boundy *| Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC<br>
<br>
P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA 02459<br>
<br>
Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707<br>
<br>
*dboundy@potomaclaw.com <dboundy@potomaclaw.com>* | *www.potomaclaw.com<br>
<<a href="http://www.potomaclaw.com">http://www.potomaclaw.com</a>>*<br>
<br>
Articles at <a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470">http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a> <<a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470">http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a>><br>
<<a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?">https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?</a>><br>
<br>
Click here to add me to your contacts.<br>
<<a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?">https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/a941ff7a/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240430/a941ff7a/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 16<br>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 02:39:31 +0000<br>
From: "Karen S. Canady" <karen@canadylortz.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Office Action Predictions<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<PH8PR20MB5195CE69C931401C65C437EBA9192@PH8PR20MB5195.namprd20.prod.outlook.com><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
I have a divisional application filed 2 years ago that the client wanted to monitor (in order to contact the examiner once it was assigned). The first action prediction letters started out saying 7 months (in June 2022), then it shifted to 6 months (August
2022), then 5 months (May 2023). The last time I checked was in October 2023, still at ?5 months?. Almost 7 months after that last check, still no action, no examiner assigned to the case.<br>
<br>
I would assume that calling the Case Resolution Team would be the same, but perhaps I?m wrong. It seems they have no ability to predict these.<br>
<br>
Karen S. Canady, Ph.D., Esq. | Partner<br>
canady + lortz LLP<<a href="http://www.canadylortz.com/">http://www.canadylortz.com/</a>><br>
<br>
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1400<br>
Los Angeles, CA 90010<br>
<br>
T: 310.482.1360 (mobile)<br>
T: 310.966.9400 (office)<br>
F: 909.494.4441<br>
karen@canadylortz.com<mailto:karen@canadylortz.com><br>
www.canadylortz.com<<a href="http://www.canadylortz.com/">http://www.canadylortz.com/</a>><br>
Confidentiality Notice: This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential,
or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you may not read, print, retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and
delete all copies of the message.<br>
<br>
Ask me about the Foundation for Advancement of Diversity in IP Law<br>
[cid:image001.png@01DA9B36.1E8CE3A0]<https://diversityiniplaw.org/><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Karen Oster via Patentpractice<br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 2:44 PM<br>
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Cc: Karen Oster <karen@kdopatent.com><br>
Subject: [Patentpractice] Office Action Predictions<br>
<br>
My assistant spoke to the Applications Assistance Unit this morning. Apparently, office action prediction letters are no longer available and the First Office Action Estimator tool is disabled permanently. (Not that either of these were particularly reliable.)
Also, the estimates by Technology Centers in the Official Gazette (<a href="https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/official-gazette/official-gazette-notices-2024">https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/official-gazette/official-gazette-notices-2024</a>)
appear to be obsolete.<br>
<br>
If you want any idea about when you can expect an Office Action, you can call the Case Resolution team at 571-272-1720 and supposedly they can give you a timeline. My assistant tried calling and got voicemail.<br>
<br>
Does anyone have any other ideas of where to get this information? Has anyone had any success with the Case Resolution team?<br>
<br>
Karen Dana Oster<br>
<a href="http://www.oregonpatent.com<http://www.oregonpatent.com>">www.oregonpatent.com<http://www.oregonpatent.com></a><br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/28ba6a41/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/28ba6a41/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image001.png<br>
Type: image/png<br>
Size: 67554 bytes<br>
Desc: image001.png<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/28ba6a41/attachment-0001.png">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/28ba6a41/attachment-0001.png</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 17<br>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 07:47:58 -0400<br>
From: David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq@gmail.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Interesting notice from USPTO re data<br>
breach<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAJwugqEwpwiYLBTGdEOUUeO7LJZjOBj2WRcz63-vJ9ZV6rxo6g@mail.gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
*Question 1.* Do I recall that this is the second such data breach in the<br>
last year? Can someone remind me of what the first one is, so we can<br>
write a letter to Vidal and the Inspector General complaining of a *pattern*<br>
instead of a single instance?<br>
<br>
*Question 2.* Here's a draft letter -- any refinements?<br>
<br>
Dear [client]:<br>
<br>
The attached letter from the U.S. Patent Office explains a data breach into<br>
the Patent Office's computer systems. Our conclusion is that the risk is<br>
minimal, and nothing can be done.<br>
<br>
Because of a bug in the PTO's software, the serial numbers and titles of<br>
patent applications that should have been maintained confidential may have<br>
been exposed to unauthorized third parties. This is not the typical kind<br>
of data breach involving an external attacker; this is a programming bug in<br>
which the Patent Office mis-set the switches to protect data that should<br>
have been protected. As the Patent Office describes it, the breach is<br>
likely small ? it would only have occurred when a third party made<br>
a database query that would have included your patent application, and the<br>
data exposed would only have been the serial number and title of the patent<br>
application, not the remainder of the content. The Patent Office's access<br>
logging does not record who looked at what when, so there is no way to know<br>
whether any of your applications are among those exposed, and if so, to<br>
whom.<br>
<br>
The Patent Office's letter explains that the breach was open from February<br>
5 to March 29. The letter explains that the Patent Office's testing did<br>
not detect or confirm the error until March 28, and the breach was closed<br>
March 29. The letter explains that the Patent Office is "committed to data<br>
security" but this is the second such data breach in the last year.<br>
<br>
The only likely situation in which we could see genuine harm is where the<br>
title reveals the invention, for example, where the title names a specific<br>
compound and its treatment indication. If you believe there could be harm<br>
in revealing the title of any of your specific patent applications, the PTO<br>
offers that "the USPTO will assist applicants by confirming that the the<br>
disclosure was erroneous and inadvertent."<br>
<br>
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 5:40?AM Dan Feigelson via Patentpractice <<br>
patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I got the following in one of my cases. Supposedly posted yesterday<br>
> (Saturday, April 27)<br>
><br>
> *Notice of Potential Erroneous Release of Patent Application Titles*<br>
><br>
> On February 5, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office<br>
> (USPTO), replaced the Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS) and<br>
> Electronic Trademark Assignment System (ETAS) with Assignment Center.<br>
><br>
> Between February 5, 2024 and March 29, 2024, the USPTO, unintentionally,<br>
> through a computer programming error, permitted bibliographic information<br>
> to be viewed by unauthorized individuals with access to registered<br>
> Assignment Center accounts. This bibliographic information was limited to<br>
> the application number (the two-digit series code plus the six-digit serial<br>
> number) and title of the invention.<br>
><br>
> You are receiving this notification because your application ?spatent<br>
> title may have been viewed during that time frame by individual(s) who<br>
> lacked permission to do so . The software error was first reproduced by<br>
> USPTO on March 28, 2024, and was corrected on March 29, 2024. Only<br>
> application numbers and titles were disclosed; it is important to note that<br>
> your specification and claims were not part of the information made<br>
> available and were not accessed.<br>
><br>
> Any improper access of the application information between the dates of<br>
> February 5, 2024 and March 29, 2024, is not considered a publication of<br>
> such applications under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). No rights in United States<br>
> patents are threatened by the access to unpublished applications. It is<br>
> extremely unlikely that the title could disclose the invention in a way<br>
> that would constitute patent- defeating prior art in any jurisdiction. To<br>
> the extent any issue is raised, the USPTO will assist applicants by<br>
> confirming that the disclosure was erroneous and inadvertent.<br>
><br>
> We?re committed to data security and are taking enhanced steps to prevent<br>
> incidents such as this from happening in the future. The USPTO sincerely<br>
> regrets this error and is instituting more testing controls, both manual<br>
> and automated testing, to prevent similar processing errors in the future.<br>
><br>
> Inquiries regarding this matter may be directed to Mark Polutta, Senior<br>
> Legal Advisor, at (571) 272-7709 or Andrew Stclair, Legal Advisor, at (571)<br>
> 270-0238, both of the Office of Patent Legal Administration or via email<br>
> addressed to ugPto.gov.<br>
><br>
> Henry ?Jamie? Holcombe<br>
> Chief Information Officer<br>
> US Patent and Trademark Office<br>
> Office +1 (571)272-9400<br>
><br>
> Dated: April 27 th , 2024<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Patentpractice mailing list<br>
> Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<br>
><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>
<br>
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<<a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy">https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy</a>><br>
<br>
*David Boundy *| Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC<br>
<br>
P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA 02459<br>
<br>
Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707<br>
<br>
*dboundy@potomaclaw.com <dboundy@potomaclaw.com>* | *www.potomaclaw.com<br>
<<a href="http://www.potomaclaw.com">http://www.potomaclaw.com</a>>*<br>
<br>
Articles at <a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470">http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a> <<a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470">http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a>><br>
<<a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?">https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?</a>><br>
<br>
Click here to add me to your contacts.<br>
<<a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?">https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/77b42c40/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/77b42c40/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 18<br>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 09:10:06 -0400<br>
From: David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq@gmail.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Interesting notice from USPTO re data<br>
breach<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAJwugqHsEVFXsQR-CKNkco82jotEnK+t7Y2e2FsMScmdJBWypg@mail.gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
*Question 1.* The data breach re "where you sleep at night" was just<br>
under a year ago. Are there others? Can we come up with ohters so we<br>
can write a letter to Vidal and the Inspector General complaining of a<br>
*pattern* instead of a single instance?<br>
<br>
*Question 2.* Here's a draft letter -- any refinements?<br>
<br>
Dear [client]:<br>
<br>
The attached letter from the U.S. Patent Office explains a data breach into<br>
the Patent Office's computer systems. Our conclusion is that the risk is<br>
minimal, and nothing can be done.<br>
<br>
Because of a bug in the PTO's software, the serial numbers and titles of<br>
patent applications that should have been maintained confidential may have<br>
been exposed to unauthorized third parties. This is not the typical kind<br>
of data breach involving an external attacker; this is a programming bug in<br>
which the Patent Office mis-set the switches to protect data that should<br>
have been protected. As the Patent Office describes it, the breach is<br>
likely small ? it would only have occurred when a third party made<br>
a database query that would have included your patent application, and the<br>
data exposed would only have been the serial number and title of the patent<br>
application, not the remainder of the content. The Patent Office's access<br>
logging does not record who looked at what when, so there is no way to know<br>
whether any of your applications are among those exposed, and if so, to<br>
whom.<br>
<br>
The Patent Office's letter explains that the breach was open from February<br>
5 to March 29. The letter explains that the Patent Office's testing did<br>
not detect or confirm the error until March 28, and the breach was closed<br>
March 29. The letter explains that the Patent Office is "committed to data<br>
security" but this is the second such data breach in the last year.<br>
<br>
The only likely situation in which we could see genuine harm is where the<br>
title reveals the invention, for example, where the title names a specific<br>
compound and its treatment indication. If you believe there could be harm<br>
in revealing the title of any of your specific patent applications, the PTO<br>
offers that "the USPTO will assist applicants by confirming that the the<br>
disclosure was erroneous and inadvertent."<br>
<br>
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 5:40?AM Dan Feigelson via Patentpractice <<br>
> patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> I got the following in one of my cases. Supposedly posted yesterday<br>
>> (Saturday, April 27)<br>
>><br>
>> *Notice of Potential Erroneous Release of Patent Application Titles*<br>
>><br>
>> On February 5, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office<br>
>> (USPTO), replaced the Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS) and<br>
>> Electronic Trademark Assignment System (ETAS) with Assignment Center.<br>
>><br>
>> Between February 5, 2024 and March 29, 2024, the USPTO, unintentionally,<br>
>> through a computer programming error, permitted bibliographic information<br>
>> to be viewed by unauthorized individuals with access to registered<br>
>> Assignment Center accounts. This bibliographic information was limited to<br>
>> the application number (the two-digit series code plus the six-digit serial<br>
>> number) and title of the invention.<br>
>><br>
>> You are receiving this notification because your application ?spatent<br>
>> title may have been viewed during that time frame by individual(s) who<br>
>> lacked permission to do so . The software error was first reproduced by<br>
>> USPTO on March 28, 2024, and was corrected on March 29, 2024. Only<br>
>> application numbers and titles were disclosed; it is important to note that<br>
>> your specification and claims were not part of the information made<br>
>> available and were not accessed.<br>
>><br>
>> Any improper access of the application information between the dates of<br>
>> February 5, 2024 and March 29, 2024, is not considered a publication of<br>
>> such applications under 35 U.S.C. 122(b). No rights in United States<br>
>> patents are threatened by the access to unpublished applications. It is<br>
>> extremely unlikely that the title could disclose the invention in a way<br>
>> that would constitute patent- defeating prior art in any jurisdiction. To<br>
>> the extent any issue is raised, the USPTO will assist applicants by<br>
>> confirming that the disclosure was erroneous and inadvertent.<br>
>><br>
>> We?re committed to data security and are taking enhanced steps to prevent<br>
>> incidents such as this from happening in the future. The USPTO sincerely<br>
>> regrets this error and is instituting more testing controls, both manual<br>
>> and automated testing, to prevent similar processing errors in the future.<br>
>><br>
>> Inquiries regarding this matter may be directed to Mark Polutta, Senior<br>
>> Legal Advisor, at (571) 272-7709 or Andrew Stclair, Legal Advisor, at (571)<br>
>> 270-0238, both of the Office of Patent Legal Administration or via email<br>
>> addressed to ugPto.gov.<br>
>><br>
>> Henry ?Jamie? Holcombe<br>
>> Chief Information Officer<br>
>> US Patent and Trademark Office<br>
>> Office +1 (571)272-9400<br>
>><br>
>> Dated: April 27 th , 2024<br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Patentpractice mailing list<br>
>> Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<br>
>><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>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
><br>
> <<a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy">https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy</a>><br>
><br>
> *David Boundy *| Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC<br>
><br>
> P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA 02459<br>
><br>
> Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707<br>
><br>
> *dboundy@potomaclaw.com <dboundy@potomaclaw.com>* | *www.potomaclaw.com<br>
> <<a href="http://www.potomaclaw.com">http://www.potomaclaw.com</a>>*<br>
><br>
> Articles at <a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470">http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a><br>
> <<a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470">http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a>><br>
> <<a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?">https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?</a>><br>
><br>
> Click here to add me to your contacts.<br>
> <<a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?">https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?</a>><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
-- <br>
<br>
<br>
<<a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy">https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy</a>><br>
<br>
*David Boundy *| Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC<br>
<br>
P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA 02459<br>
<br>
Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707<br>
<br>
*dboundy@potomaclaw.com <dboundy@potomaclaw.com>* | *www.potomaclaw.com<br>
<<a href="http://www.potomaclaw.com">http://www.potomaclaw.com</a>>*<br>
<br>
Articles at <a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470">http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a> <<a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470">http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a>><br>
<<a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?">https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?</a>><br>
<br>
Click here to add me to your contacts.<br>
<<a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?">https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/ef4ef0ac/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/ef4ef0ac/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 19<br>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 09:26:23 -0400<br>
From: Jeffrey Semprebon <jesemprebon@gmail.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Office Action Predictions<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAO06ByfmmdeP2vQ6oAravTmF6=P7WAi25ZS9kT39sJ2Naz+bHw@mail.gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Back when we had PAIR, I noted that the predicted FOAM would stick at X<br>
number of months in the future, where X is an integer from 3 to 5, and<br>
would very often remain so for Y months where Y is an integer greater than<br>
X. Of course, at some point the office action would arrive unannounced,<br>
while the prediction immediately preceding blithely remained at X months.<br>
<br>
-Jeff<br>
<br>
Jeffrey E. Semprebon<br>
Semprebon Patent Services<br>
<a href="http://www.semprebonps.com">www.semprebonps.com</a><br>
72 Myrtle Street<br>
Claremont, New Hampshire 03743<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/5de88b7a/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/5de88b7a/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 20<br>
Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 13:50:17 +0000<br>
From: Timothy Snowden <Timothy@thompsonpatentlaw.com><br>
To: "For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek<br>
legal advice." <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each<br>
year<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<LV8PR16MB6284116A10F1CC8F0001C294B3192@LV8PR16MB6284.namprd16.prod.outlook.com><br>
<br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
I've had a number of examiners decide they can't get it done under AFCP, but I can only think of a couple of times that they refused/ignored an interview request. That said, I typically request an interview at the same time I file the AFCP request, which apparently
triggers something on their docket that makes it harder for them to ignore. I have had Examiners try to get by with calling me up and telling me they were refusing to allow under AFCP, and have that count for the interview ? but you can still usually manage
to at least hold get them to stay on the phone long enough to explain what they see as deficient and get a tentative agreement for next steps under RCE.<br>
<br>
The main reason I use AFCP2 in almost all cases is to keep them from cheating on the RCE ? if they've refused the AFCP because they don't have time to examine, they basically can't go final on RCE.<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of Katherine Koenig via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:28 PM<br>
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Cc: Katherine Koenig <katherine@koenigipworks.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
<br>
That?s been my experience in the majority of cases as well ? if the AAF and AFCP doesn?t result in allowance, there?s no interview granted. I seem to remember that interviews were almost always granted, and it was very helpful to hear the Examiner?s position
before filing an RCE.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Katherine<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dr. Katherine Koenig<br>
<br>
Registered Patent Attorney<br>
<br>
Koenig IP Works, PLLC<br>
<br>
2208 Mariner Dr.<br>
<br>
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316<br>
<br>
(954) 903-1699<br>
<br>
katherine@koenigipworks.com<mailto:katherine@koenigipworks.com><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[cid:image002.png@01DA9B1B.761E4B10]<br>
<br>
Targeted Intellectual Property Strategy<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The information contained in this communication, including any attachments, is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible
to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, do not read it. Please immediately reply
to the sender that you have received this communication in error and then destroy all paper and electronic copies. Thank you.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Scott Nielson via Patentpractice<br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 4:25 PM<br>
To: 'For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice.' <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
Cc: Scott Nielson <scnielson@outlook.com><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I'm starting to think AFCP requests are a scam. I always file them when taking claims deemed allowable in an office action even though it's not required. I do it because I want to do the examiner a favor (an AFCP request gives the examiner half a count or something
like that).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
However, if an AFCP does not result in an allowance, then the examiner rarely conducts an interview anymore. The examiner just treats it like an after final request and waits for me to file an RCE to get even more counts.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I think the USPTO is picking up on how the AFCP program is being abused by examiners to generate counts without any extra effort on the examiner's part, which is why it wants to get rid of the program in the most recent fee setting proposal (I think that's
where I saw it).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Scott Nielson<br>
<br>
801-660-4400<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of Ed Welch via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 1:53 PM<br>
To: 'For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice.' <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Cc: welched123@gmail.com<mailto:welched123@gmail.com> <welched123@gmail.com<mailto:welched123@gmail.com>><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
No, that?s not right! The AFCP Request can be proper; but, an interview may still not happen. Based upon my experience and, as I recall, examiner comments, the examiners have the discretion to treat the AFCP Request as an AFCP Request or an After Final Response.
In the latter, they merely issue an (another) Advisory Action maintaining the Final Rejection and denying entry of the AFCP amendment. In the past several months I filed 3 AFCP Requests, one case was allowed without an interview. In the other two cases,
both were treated as After Final Responses (with no mention of the AFCP Request having been filed) and rejected by way of Advisory Actions. Finally, I filed the RCEs, which is clearly what these examiners wanted, with the amendment from the AFCP Request and
both cases were promptly allowed: again, no interview. Hence, the low count of interviews is a result of allowance without an interview and the failure of the examiner to consider the AFCP Request. While all three would have been included in the total counts
of AFCP submission, since all were submitted that way despite not being treated as such, none of these had an interview.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Ed Welch<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
IP&L Solutions<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>> On Behalf Of Jim Larsen via Patentpractice<br>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 3:13 PM<br>
To: For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Cc: Jim Larsen <jim@larsen-ip.com<mailto:jim@larsen-ip.com>><br>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
By definition, a proper AFCP request includes an examiner-initiated interview, if only to indicate that (at least in the majority of my experience) additional search and consideration will be required (i.e., RCE).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Fed. Reg. Vo. 78, No. 96, at 29118<<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf</a>><br>
<br>
?If the examiner?s consideration of a proper AFCP 2.0 request and response does not result in a determination that all pending claims are in condition for allowance, the examiner will request an interview with the applicant to discuss the response.?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
If you aren?t seeing interview requests from examiners, it follows that either the application was allowed or the AFCP request was improper. No?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
-Jim<br>
<br>
James C. Larsen<br>
Attorney<br>
Larsen IP PLLC<br>
p: 425.298.6846<br>
e: jim@Larsen-IP.com<<a href="mailto:jim@Larsen-IP.com">mailto:jim@Larsen-IP.com</a>><br>
w. www.Larsen-IP.com<<a href="http://www.larsen-ip.com/">http://www.larsen-ip.com/</a>><br>
<br>
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this email, including any attachments, is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named herein. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or authorized agent, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Unintended recipients are requested to notify the sender immediately and to permanently delete this e-mail,
any attachments, and copies.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>> on behalf of pbrisky--- via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 12:04?PM<br>
To: Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com<mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com>><br>
Cc: pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> <pbrisky@fujitsu.com<mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com>><br>
Subject: [Patentpractice] Number of AFCP interviews granted each year<br>
<br>
Hi<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The USPTO claims that 50% of all AFCP requests (out of the 60k annually) made by applicants have been granted interviews. Anecdotally this has not been our observation. I am wondering if anybody has numbers to either refute the USPTO's assertion or back it
up.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Pamela Cei Brisky<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Senior Patent Paralegal<br>
<br>
Fujitsu North America, Inc.| Fujitsu Intellectual Property Center<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
pbrisky@fujitsu.com<<a href="mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com">mailto:pbrisky@fujitsu.com</a>> |571-216-2112<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[cid:image003.jpg@01DA9B1B.761E4B10]<br>
<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/a85fb934/attachment-0001.htm">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/a85fb934/attachment-0001.htm</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image002.png<br>
Type: image/png<br>
Size: 7679 bytes<br>
Desc: image002.png<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/a85fb934/attachment-0001.png">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/a85fb934/attachment-0001.png</a>><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...<br>
Name: image003.jpg<br>
Type: image/jpeg<br>
Size: 16949 bytes<br>
Desc: image003.jpg<br>
URL: <<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/a85fb934/attachment-0001.jpg">http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240501/a85fb934/attachment-0001.jpg</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<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>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of Patentpractice Digest, Vol 7, Issue 1<br>
********************************************<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>