<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Yes in our office this comes up about once every six months. We
file a paper saying what you said. It always works.</p>
<p>It is very satisfying each time it works.</p>
<p>Each time I present a three-day PCT live in-person class (the
next one will be this coming January or so), I have an hour-long
section in which I review the many factors that might prompt a
filer to choose one way or another as between bypass continuation
or national phase.</p>
<p>And I just now realized this is yet another factor. If you pick
bypass, then you are vulnerable to these last-minute demands to
prepare and file new drawings. Each of which risks a later
accusation that new matter supposedly got added. </p>
<p>In contrast, if you pick national-phase, then you can tell them
to pound sand when they send you a last-minute demands to prepare
and file new drawings.</p>
<p>So thank you, Roger, you have triggered an improvement to that
section of the class.</p>
<p>Carl</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/29/2025 9:32 AM, Roger Browdy
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CO6PR04MB8396CD26A482199382A7A00E9CFAA@CO6PR04MB8396.namprd04.prod.outlook.com">
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">The below posting has a very interesting
reference to MPEP 1893.03(f), which says that the USPTO may
not impose drawing requirements during examination of a
national stage appln beyond those imposed by the PCT. My
question is, has anyone objected to a Notice to file Corrected
Application Papers after allowance asking that the Notice be
withdrawn on this grounds? I am interested in the success
rate for such an argument.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Roger L. Browdy</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Partner </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>_____________________________________________ </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>FisherBroyles, LLP</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>direct: +1 202-277-5198</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span><a
href="mailto:roger.browdy@fisherbroyles.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">roger.browdy@fisherbroyles.com</a></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a
href="http://www.fisherbroyles.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>www.fisherbroyles.com</span></a></span><u><span></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>The information contained in this
e-mail message is only for the personal and confidential
use of the intended recipient(s). If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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> Monday, June 2, 2025 3:11 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] Large Tables ASCII
Format</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 6/2/2025 12:48 PM, Suzannah K. Sundby
via Patentpractice wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Facts:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">National Phase application was filed
with pages and pages of tables
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Application allowed.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Got a Notice to Correct Application
Papers because font of Tables too small
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Increasing the font size makes the
total pages close to 900 pages, which requires 11
ADDITIONAL units of application size fees from what was
previously paid.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have the tables in ASCII format
(prepared for a CON).
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Question: In response to the Notice,
can we amend the specification to delete the embedded
tables and provide in ASCII format (by amending the
specification to incorporate the ASCII tables)?</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I understand extra page fees are
calculated as 3 KB = 1
<span class="grame">page</span>, which significantly
decreases the amount of fees to something like 2
additional units of application size fees.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I called patent publications (waited
over an hour), they transferred me to \u201ccase resolution
team\u201d for post-allowance stuff, who simply said they don\u2019t
know. I thus called
<span class="spelle">OPLA</span> and got no one and hence
left a message hours ago.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I wonder if MPEP § 1893.03(f) would be of any help? Here is
what I filed recently in one of my national-phase cases.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Request that Notice to File Corrected Application Papers be
withdrawn<br>
The undersigned has now received a Notice to File Corrected
Application Papers dated May 28, 2025.<br>
It is signed by <redacted> in the Publication Branch.<br>
The Notice says "The figure label for FIG. 6 is not oriented
in the same direction as the figure." The<br>
Notice purports to require that the applicant respond with
an amendment to the drawings.<br>
The Publication Branch is requested to comply with MPEP §
1893.03(f) which says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The USPTO may not impose drawing requirements during the
examination of a national stage<br>
application beyond those imposed by the Patent Cooperation
Treaty ( e.g., PCT Rule 11).</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal">The present application is a national
phase application. It is thus apparent that the Notice to
File<br>
Corrected Application Papers was improper.<br>
So as to comply with MPEP § 1893.03(f), the Publication
Branch is requested to withdraw the Notice<br>
to File Corrected Application Papers.<br>
Respectfully submitted,</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>