<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Again to state this as clearly as possible ... the USPTO's bait
to try to trick you into filing with DOCX is that you will have an
"ongoing safeguard" because of the AUX-PDF file that the USPTO
promised to preserve for twenty years. Bu if what Randall reports
is what the USPTO really does, then the USPTO is failing to
preserve the AUX-PDF, thus eviscerating the supposed "ongoing
safeguard", thus greatly increasing the malpractice risks of
filing in DOCX. <br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/19/2024 1:15 PM, Rick Neifeld via
Patentpractice wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA++DgCa+EM-vPwtGExytN4Ws6dgm+9Y6qy8Rdv0WFn4fevCh7A@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Thank you for noting that "<span>The USPTO only
allows one </span><span>AUX.pdf</span><span> submission
per application, and each subsequent one you file
overwrites the previous one."</span></div>
<div dir="ltr"><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><span>That processing <u>contradicts the PTO's public
statements</u> in its Notice at "</span>Patent and
Trademark Office [Docket No.: PTO\u2013P\u20132022\u20130002] Filing Patent
Applications in DOCX</div>
Format," at 82 FR 25226, and in its notice at "Extension of
the Option for Submission of a PDF With a Patent Application
Filed in DOCX Format," 88 FR 37036.
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div> See 87 FR 25227, left column:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The USPTO continues to work with <br>
its stakeholders to transition to the <br>
DOCX format. Through this notice, the <br>
USPTO is providing applicants with the <br>
option to submit an applicant-generated <br>
PDF of the application along with the <br>
validated DOCX file(s) when filing an <br>
application in Patent Center, from the <br>
effective date of this notice through <br>
December 31, 2022 (the temporary <br>
period). This option will not be <br>
available for applications filed via EFS- <br>
Web. This will allow applicants to gain <br>
confidence in the reliability and <br>
accuracy of the USPTO system when <br>
filing applications in DOCX format, and <br>
safeguard the applicant should any <br>
conversion discrepancies have taken <br>
place.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>and see 88 FR 37036, at 37036 (Duration)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The option to submit <br>
an applicant-generated PDF of a patent <br>
application along with the validated <br>
DOCX file(s) when filing an application <br>
in Patent Center, as discussed in this <br>
notice, is being extended until further <br>
notice.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> and at 37037, left column:<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In April 2022, the USPTO announced <br>
that, for a period of time ending <br>
December 31, 2022, it was providing <br>
patent applicants with the option to <br>
submit a back-up, applicant-generated <br>
PDF version of the application along <br>
with the DOCX file(s) when filing an <br>
application in Patent Center. See Filing <br>
Patent Applications in DOCX Format, <br>
87 FR 25226 (April 28, 2022) (April <br>
2022 Notice). The goal of providing <br>
such an option was to encourage more <br>
applicants to begin filing patent <br>
applications in DOCX format. In <br>
particular, the USPTO anticipated that <br>
allowing applicants to submit a back-up <br>
PDF version of the application\u2014without <br>
incurring additional fees\u2014for a <br>
temporary period would encourage <br>
applicants to file in DOCX while <br>
ensuring that if any discrepancies were <br>
discovered, the back-up version could <br>
be used to correct the discrepancies.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>and at 37037 spanning left and center columns:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, in view of stakeholder <br>
requests, the USPTO will now keep <br>
copies of the applicant-generated PDF as <br>
part of the permanent record, regardless <br>
of whether a petition is filed. For <br>
example, for granted patents, the <br>
USPTO will keep copies of the <br>
applicant-generated PDF for at least 25 <br>
years after the patent grant before <br>
transferring it to the National Archives <br>
and Records Administration. <br>
With the changes detailed above, <br>
patent applicants choosing to submit an <br>
applicant-generated PDF with the <br>
validated DOCX file(s) when filing an <br>
application in Patent Center will have <br>
an ongoing safeguard should any <br>
unexpected conversion discrepancies<br>
</div>
<div>occur during the filing process. ...<br>
</div>
<div>As discussed in the April 2022 <br>
Notice, patent applicants who choose to <br>
submit an applicant-generated PDF with <br>
the validated DOCX file(s) when filing <br>
an application in Patent Center will not <br>
have to pay additional fees, such as an <br>
application size fee, as a result of filing <br>
the applicant-generated PDF and, on <br>
petition, will be able to rely on the <br>
applicant-generated PDF if a <br>
discrepancy occurs during the filing <br>
process.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is no reasonable interpretation of this guidance
that is consistent with your indication that that the PTO
actually does is, with "<span>each subsequent one [SIC;
AUX.pdf] you file [Patent Center] overwrites the
previous one." </span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><span>BR, Rick</span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><span><br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at
2:11\u202fPM Randall Svihla <<a
href="mailto:rsvihla@nsiplaw.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">rsvihla@nsiplaw.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Hi, Rick</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>You wrote:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>3.
<span> </span>Regarding <span>AUX.pdf</span>
submissions, whether Patent Center stores all
<span>AUX.pdf</span> submissions? <span> </span>That
is, whether subsequent submission with
document description "Specification" overwrite
or otherwise result in Patent Center
discarding prior "<span>AUX.pdf</span>'
submissions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The USPTO only allows
one
<span>AUX.pdf</span> submission per
application, and each subsequent one you file
overwrites the previous one.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Best regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Randall S. Svihla</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>NSIP Law</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Washington, D.C.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
Patentpractice <<a
href="mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
<b><span>On Behalf Of </span></b>Rick
Neifeld via Patentpractice<br>
<b><span>Sent:</span></b> Thursday, December
19, 2024 12:48 PM<br>
<b><span>To:</span></b> For patent
practitioners. This is not for laypersons to
seek legal advice. <<a
href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br>
<b><span>Cc:</span></b> Rick Neifeld <<a
href="mailto:richardneifeld@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">richardneifeld@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span>Subject:</span></b> Re:
[Patentpractice] Feedback document
mis-placing comments</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Follow-up on my
post below. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Yesterday, I
received a Notice of Incomplete Reply to
the Notice To File Corrected Application
Papers. And I filed a response to that
Notice of Incomplete Reply. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The Notice of
Incomplete Reply asserted that the Reply
to the Notice To File Corrected
Application Papers failed to include "a
clean version without markings." </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>My reply to that
Notice was a traverse, asserting that a
clean version without markings had been
filed as part of the Reply to the Notice
To File Corrected Application Papers, and
provided proof from the EAR of the name of
the file, and the SHA-512 hash value
associated with the name of the file. And
that the file name included "CleanCopy"
and the transmittal letter and remarks
specified that file was the required clean
copy. And including the exact same DOCX
file identified by its unique Hash value,
as a submission, but with the Document
Description "Transmittal Letter." And in
the filing process, I was given an option
to include an AUX.pdf, so I saved the DOCX
file as a pdf, and also submitted that as
(yet another) AUX.pdf. And the EAR for
this filing shows, of course, a DOCX
document to which PatentCenter appended
"-DOCX" and the AUX.pdf document, to which
PatentCenter did nothing to the filename.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Today, I called the
PTO, repeatedly, as shown in my
contemporaneous notes below (filename
"Troubleshooting_AgentRedacted_XXXXXX.txt"),
to obtain clarification, and to ensure the
PTO does not hold the application
abandoned, for failure to respond. I
raised some interesting questions that
neither EBC nor the ASU representatives
could answer. And I await a call back
after the ASU agent confers with her
supervisor. See my questions at the end
of the record below. My real time notes,
the record of these calls, with the agent
names and my reference number redacted,
appears below:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Filename:
[Troubleshooting_AgentRedacted_XXXXXX.txt]<br>
10:12 AM, Called EBC<br>
Agent ___, agent number 59<br>
Given case number 2-00092400.<br>
Agent indicates he cannot address whether
a marked up copy is present in the
official file in Patent Center for this
application. <br>
Agent indicates only "Application
assistance unit: 571272400" can address my
questions.<br>
Agent transferred me to Application
assistance unit: 571272400<br>
Application Assistance Unit Agent ___,
given number 2-00092412<br>
Agent indicates he cannot see the
documents in Patent Center identified in
the "Documents & transaction history",
"Documents" tab.<br>
10:31 AM, Agent has put me on hold.<br>
11:01 line has hung up (call ended).<br>
<br>
11:03 Calling back. 571272400, Agent ___,
answered. Call dropped.<br>
<br>
11:06 Calling back. 571272400,<br>
11:07-11:08, approximately 2 minutes of
recorded voice message.<br>
11:08 Agent ___ answers, provides
reference 2-00092412<br>
11:09, agent placed me on hold while agent
reads notes from 2-00092412.<br>
Discussion with Agent, identify problem.<br>
11:15 Agent Response. I cited rule 1.121
requirements. Agent unclear regarding rule
requirement. Agent places me "on hold".<br>
11:16 Discussing "clean copy"
requirements. Agent agrees there is no
rule requirement to place markings on the
"clean copy" of a substitute specification
stating it is a "clean copy."
<br>
Agent states that, at the "top of" clean
copy of specification, pages must include
the phrase "clean copy" on each page,
upper top right corner, of each page. Upon
repeated requests for clarification, agent
specifies that should be in "a header" (as
opposed to inside the margins where text
of the specification resides.) <br>
11:19 Discussing "marke up copy"
requirements. Agent agent is unclear about
requirements for a "marked up copy". Agent
does not see the marked up copy in
[whatever she is looking at corresponds to
the Patent Center] the official file.<br>
I identified to agent the name of the file
that is the marked up copy, as including
"MarkedCopy" in filename, as shown in the
EAR and in the actual file named
"2024-12-15_SubSpec_MarkedCopy_CSfiling2811USfiling_ANJA0024-SPEC.pdf"<br>
11:22 Agent places me on hold, again.<br>
11:__[??] Agent Clarified: The "marked up
copy" does not require any additional
marking showing it is the "marked up"
copy.<br>
Regarding questions about "Document
descriptions" for clean and marked up
copies of a substitute specification:
Agent stated that appropriate "Document
Description" in Patent Center submissions
for both clean copy of a substitute
specification, and for a marked up copy of
a substitute specification, is
"Specification."<br>
*******************</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>After I identified
the markings in the submitted marked up
copy, Agent indicated she needed to speak
with a supervisor before providing advice
on how to resolve Patent Center's lack of
recognition of the presence of a marked up
copy. <br>
I asked for clarification on the following
additional questions regarding file
format, and AUX pdf.
<br>
Regarding "DOCX" or "PDF" for clean and
marked up copy of substitute
specifications:<br>
1. What are the appropriate file formats
for a clean copy of a substitute
specification?<br>
2. What are the appropriate file formats
for a marked up copy of a substitute
specification?<br>
3. Regarding AUX.pdf submissions, whether
Patent Center stores all AUX.pdf
submissions? That is, whether subsequent
submission with document description
"Specification" overwrite or otherwise
result in Patent Center discarding prior
"AUX.pdf' submissions.
<br>
11:35 call continuing at this time.<br>
11:__[??] Call concluded. Agent stated she
intends to call me back within 24 hours.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>***********************************</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Rick</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>On Tue, Dec 17,
2024 at 2:25\u202fPM Rick Neifeld <<a
href="mailto:richardneifeld@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">richardneifeld@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Agree. And I
will break from ongoing work to add
a couple comments and questions.</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>First, I am
concerned when I get a
specification for filing that
includes embedded image objects.
Those objects normally include non
ascii characters, and
unconventional symbols. For
example, for communications
modulation schemes or quantum
computing algorithms. I cannot
easily reproduce those
things within a page, in case of a
requirement to correct a portion
of the specification. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I get that
sort of stuff from foreign
colleagues. So I have notified my
foreign colleagues. Hopefully they
will teach their clients to do a
better job at providing patent
easy-to-use disclosures. But I
doubt it.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Second, I
recently had to respond to a
Notice of informalities requiring
me to formally revise the Figs and
spec. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I found the
process of responding to be more
complex and time consuming than in
the past, prior to Patent Center
and the DOCX coercion. And as to
the process, I solicit input on
what I did right, and what I did
wrong, and what I did that was
inconsequential (but perhaps made
me feel better), in response to
the Notice. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>An issue I
am concerned with is compliance
with rule 121, substitute
specification, in this situation,
given Patent Center's filing
constraints. By rule, the markup
is the de jure substitute spec.
The clean copy is for the
convenience of the examiner. That
is what the rule states, right?.
So how do you describe, and which
form of file, is a best practice,
for complying with the rules for
the substitute specification and
marked up copy, within the
constraints of Patent Center
submissions?</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In this
case, I had filed the original
application in pdf format, for
both spec and figs. However, I
had in my possession the original
DOCX from which the pdfs were
created. So I had options. What I
ended up filing in response to the
Notice were:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Replacement
drawing sheets (figures) in DOCX
format, with document description
"Drawings, other than black and
white line drawings" (At my end
pdfs generated by conversion from
a DOCX are not fuzzy, like what
you see on the PTO side, after
filing a pdf via Patent Center.)</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Marked Up
copy of the substitute spec, in
pdf format, with document
description "Specification". (I
found no document description for
"substitute specification.")</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Clean Copy
of the substitute spec, in DOCX
format, with also with document
description "Specification".</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>But then
also a Clean Copy of the
substitute spec, in PDF format, as
the AUX.PDF. (Because you get this
option when you upload a DOCX and
select document description
"specification", even after the
application and its specification
has been filed on some prior day.)</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I also
determined the SHA-512 for
theAUX.PDF and included that value
in my transmittal letter (Yes, I
still file transmittal letters
listing what I am filing.)</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I also
included this note in the
Transmittal Letter</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>"The
applicant notes that the USPTO
server may revise and replace DOCX
files the applicant uploads, with
revised files, prior to entering
them into the official file for
this application.</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The applicant
notes that the USPTO has not
specified exactly how the USPTO
server does this, and does not
always clearly specify what those
changes are."</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In my
response, at the end, I included
this DOCX centric statement:</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>" While
the USPTO relies upon DOCX
submission for the
specification, there are in fact
over 40 different versions of
the "DOCX" specifications, and
these file format specifications
are generated and controlled by
the Microsoft Corporation. See
the publicly available
specifications at "[MS-DOCX]:
Word Extensions to the Office
Open XML (.docx) File Format." <br>
Therefore, what the USPTO
displays, or what the USPTO
examiner interprets a
specification to contain, based
upon a document submitted having
a DOCX file extension, may
differ from what the applicant
submits. Accordingly the
examiner is encouraged to review
the originally submitted
specification, which was
submitted in pdf format, and
therefore is definite and
reliable as to what the
applicant's application, as
originally filed, discloses,
when the examiner examines this
application."</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> So,
comments?</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thanks,
RICK </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>On Tue, Dec
17, 2024 at 1:13\u202fPM Carl Oppedahl
via Patentpractice <<a
href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
wrote:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>On
12/17/2024 10:48 AM, William
Slate via Patentpractice
wrote:</span></p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>A
comment read:
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>\u201cThis
claim appears to not end
with a period.\u201d</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The
area highlighted by the
comment was a hard return
between claims 7 and 8.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I
found a period missing at
the end of claim 9.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Will</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><span>Let's sort of summarize
where we are on this.</span></p>
<p><span>Anybody who chooses to
(incur the risks of using) use
DOCX as their filing method is
putting himself or herself at
the mercy of the USPTO's
proprietary DOCX rendering
engine. Which as of some months
ago was up to version 18,
something like that. </span></p>
<p><span>What we see here is an
example of that engine being
flaky at application-filing
time. And yes I have seen many
other instances of the DOCX
rendering engine being flaky at
application-filing time, in
other ways.</span></p>
<p><span>What stares me in the face
is that this same engine is
presumably the black box that
will typeset the patent
application for issuance, at
some later time down the line.
By then it might be version 24
or version 36. And it might
render a square root sign as a
smiley face or might render a
Greek letter mu as a "u".</span></p>
<p><span>Meanwhile I imagine there
are many practitioners who have
been ducking the DOCX risks,
assuming that the "ongoing
safeguard" of the auxiliary PDF
will somehow permit the
practitioner to avert what would
otherwise be a malpractice
claim. </span></p>
<p><span>But see <a
href="https://blog.oppedahl.com/maybe-uspto-will-clarify-the-docx-safeguard/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">
https://blog.oppedahl.com/maybe-uspto-will-clarify-the-docx-safeguard/</a>
. The USPTO has not answered
that letter yet, despite almost
a year having passed. I suggest
that it would be a mistake,
given the USPTO's deafening
silence in response to questions
about the "ongoing safeguard",
to assume that the auxiliary PDF
will protect against malpractice
claims.</span></p>
<p><span> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>--
<br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a
href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Best regards</div>
<div>Rick Neifeld, J.D., Ph.D. <br>
</div>
<div>Neifeld IP Law PLLC<br>
</div>
<div>9112 Shearman Street, Fairfax VA 22032</div>
<div>Mobile: 7034470727<br>
</div>
<div>Email: <a href="mailto:RichardNeifeld@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">RichardNeifeld@gmail.com</a>; <br>
</div>
<div>This is NOT a confidential and privileged
communication. If you are not the intended recipient,
please delete this email and notify the sender you have
done so.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>