<div dir="ltr">Yes the transaction showed up Financial Manager and looked normal there with the correct application no. <div><br><div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Andrew H. Berks, Ph.D., J.D.</div><div>Patent Attorney</div><div>Berks IP Law PLLC</div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">28 Liberty St 6th Fl</span><br></div><div dir="ltr">New York NY 10005<br><div><div><span style="font-size:12.8px">mobile: </span><span title="Call with Google Voice" style="font-size:12.8px"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice"><span title="Call with Google Voice">+1 845-558-7245<a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" rel="noopener" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" rel="noopener" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245" rel="noopener" title="Call +1 845-558-7245 via Google Voice" target="_blank"></a></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br></div><div><a href="mailto:andrew@berksiplaw.com" target="_blank">andrew@berksiplaw.com</a>, <a href="https://berksiplaw.com/" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">berksiplaw.com</a><span style="font-size:12.8px"> </span><span style="font-size:12.8px"> <a href="https://freship.com/" target="_blank">freship.com</a></span></div></div><div><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/andyberks/" style="font-size:12.8px" target="_blank">LinkedIn</a><span style="font-size:12.8px"> </span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:30 AM Carl Oppedahl <<a href="mailto:carl@oppedahl.com">carl@oppedahl.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
On 11/22/2023 9:00 AM, Andrew Berks via Pct wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">I had a problem earlier this year in another case
filed at the RO/IB and electing the ISA/US. First of all, I
frequently recommend the ISA/US with small entity clients
because the search fee is lower with small entity prices. The
problem was that the ISA/US made a unity of invention
objection and issued an invitation to pay an additional search
fee. The client was OK with this, but this case did not appear
on Patent Center/EFSweb/Private PAIR - because it was filed at
RO/IB. We had to pay the fee with a credit card form that was
faxed, which is really ridiculous. Putting full credit card
info on a paper and faxing it is not secure. The fee payment
form was clearly marked with what the money was for - the
additional search fees.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But the people who do the searching didn't get the
message that the additional fees were paid and issued the
WOSA without searching the second invention. Bottom line -
this bad WOSA was issued in March 2023 and as of today (Nov.
21, 2023) this situation is still not resolved. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
I am sorry Andrew to hear of this service failure at the USPTO. Yes
it sounds like the ISA/US did not provide all of the services that
you paid for at the ISA/US.
<p>So yes the question presented is, how can you send communications
to the ISA/US? Especially if you filed in an RO that was not
RO/US. This brings us to slide number 12 at <a href="https://www.oplf.com/2023-epct/webinar-14.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.oplf.com/2023-epct/webinar-14.pdf</a>
. Here is the slide:</p>
<p><img src="cid:ii_18bf8209f7fafe212501" alt=""></p>
<p>Yes, it turns out that the ISA/US is a laggard in this area.
Many other ISAs (among them, AU, EP, KR, RU and SG) are up to date
in terms of communications with ePCT. But not the ISA/US.</p>
<p>If only the ISA/US could become trendy, modern, and up-to-date in
this area! If they had, then you could have sent your fee payment
(Form 2038) through ePCT. <br>
</p>
<p>I have begged and pleaded with some high-up people within the
USPTO to become trendy, modern, and up-to-date in this area. So
far I have not succeeded.</p>
<p>Here is an important question. When you sent in the Form 2038,
did you later see the transaction in Financial Manager? <br>
</p>
<p>Carl<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote></div>