<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Yeah. So there's no real question the USPTO failed to do what
you paid the USPTO to do.</p>
<p>So next steps. Did you already call the PCT Help Desk? If so,
what happened next?<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/22/2023 10:44 AM, Andrew Berks
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEsYa5HHKOvX3dG3oSUW6_Ms=ZDHLKxKVOBC8d0pR5XNHNAWaQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Yes the transaction showed up Financial Manager and
looked normal there with the correct application no. </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"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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">
<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>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>