<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Anybody who calls the AAU about this kind of delay (fax or postal
or hand-carried item failing to appear in IFW even after many
weeks) will hear from the AAU that the backlog is quoted at "6-8
weeks". Their information is wrong. The actual delay is
typically 7-10 weeks.</p>
<p>And no, it is not within the ability of the AAU to get any
stalled document out of the queue and into IFW any faster. The
massive mail bags of unopened mail, the massive piles of untouched
fax-to-PDF files, the enormous trays of untouched hand-carried
filings, they get handled in chronological order and that's it.
It is impossible to get anybody to dig through the mail bags to
pick out any particular document to get it entered faster into
IFW.</p>
<p>It is irresponsible for the USPTO to fail to staff this area
appropriately to handle whatever the level of incoming document
workflow actually is. The USPTO's failure in this area leads to
abandoned cases, needless petitions to revive, instances of
extension fees having to be paid even though it ought not to be
necessary.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/15/2025 2:38 PM, Andrea R.
Jacobson via Patentpractice wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CY4PR1801MB183275EB51950FBCCEE68BABA5192@CY4PR1801MB1832.namprd18.prod.outlook.com">
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In our experience, it\u2019s not uncommon
for faxed and mailed items to take a while to be processed.
I assume that fewer resources are available for that work at
the PTO these days given the reliance on e-filing, so the
longer processing is not a surprise to me. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I would call the AAU and see if they
can be off assistance with nudging things along on your
cases or provide some guidance on getting your payment
processed in prior to the fee increase.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Andrea R. Jacobson (she/her ) |
Senior Litigation Paralegal | </span><span>McGarry Bair
PC<br>
</span><span>Direct (616) 742-3538 | <a
href="mailto:arj@mcgarrybair.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><span>arj@mcgarrybair.com</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
Patentpractice
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com"><patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 15, 2025 4:00 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> For patent practitioners. This is not for
laypersons to seek legal advice.
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com"><patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Carl Oppedahl <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:carl@oppedahl.com"><carl@oppedahl.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Patentpractice] (i) USPTO fax not
working and (ii) question about faxing a 'wrong'
fee-code + credit card details</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p>This is extremely well-plowed ground. It looks like you have
not had an opportunity review my many blog postings on this
subject, including
<a
href="https://blog.oppedahl.com/sluggishness-of-uspto-workflow-for-inbound-faxes/"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">
https://blog.oppedahl.com/sluggishness-of-uspto-workflow-for-inbound-faxes/</a>
.</p>
<p>It is well established by now that the people at the USPTO
whose job includes:</p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal">
looking at received faxes, and</li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
looking at received paper mail, and</li>
<li class="MsoNormal">
looking at stuff that has been hand-carried to the USPTO</li>
</ul>
<p>are failing to do their jobs diligently. </p>
<p>We have for example a host of Powers of Attorney that the
USPTO received from us by mail on October 2, 2024 and they did
not show up in IFW until just a couple of weeks ago.</p>
<p>We have for example a host of Powers of Attorney that the
USPTO received from us at the Central Fax Number on September
27, 2024 and they did not show up in IFW until just a couple
of weeks ago.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 1/15/2025 1:35 PM, William Ahmed via
Patentpractice wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear All,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">About 5 weeks ago, we faxed an office
action response to </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">1-571-273-8300</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">5 weeks later, the USPTO has still
not posted this response to the file-wrapper [we ended
up subsequently e-filing the same OA response to avoid
extension fees].</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">OUR PROBLEM -- we recently filed
multiple reissue applications. Patent center did NOT
properly read the ADS due to IT issues [they picked up a
lot of ADS data but not all of it].</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Therefore, Patent center did NOT
allow us to pay the reissue filing/search/examination
fees, which have different fee-codes for a 'basic
utility non-provisional'.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We do not have a deposit account. The
ADS is OK, so I assume a human will process the ADS in
the upcoming weeks/months and will enter this into the
system as a reissue application.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We need to pay fees BEFORE the
January 19 fee-increase.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">FIRST QUESTION -- is there a better
fax number than 1-571-273-8300 [we pay maintenance fees
to their fax and this is always handled correctly]</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">SECOND QUESTION -- what happens if
fax staff receives our credit-card fee payment, and
processes it next week BEFORE the USPTO mails the
official filing receipt.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As of today, the USPTO thinks this is
a 'basic utility filing' rather than a reissue filing.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Will the USPTO credit card staff they
take the money from my cc and post those fee reissue
codes to the file, assuming the 'regular USPTO staff'
will work things out?</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Or will they refuse to take the
money, causing me to be stuck with higher filing fees
since I will only be able to pay after January 19, 2025.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Even though the reissue fees are
increasing 'only' by 8% on January 19, over multiple
reissue applications, this is significant.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please advise.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Many thanks,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bill</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>