<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">With regard to the “inventors as applicants” change, is it possible that they were made applicants because your original applicant (whoever that is) cannot be an applicant for all designated states (they are ineligible to be an applicant
in the US and file at the RO/US)? I think the USPTO would reject your POA at that point since the inventors (now applicant / inventors) have not (I assume) signed the POA.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b>From:</b> Pct <pct-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Timothy Snowden via Pct<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, November 27, 2023 5:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Russell Nugent via Pct <pct@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Timothy Snowden <timothy@thompsonpatentlaw.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Pct] Ex Officio Changes to the Request form<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Re: #3 on drawings -- I usually politely point out that the USPTO downgraded the drawings, and that we are re-submitting them for convenience sake. You can submit the repsonse via ePCT to avoid USPTO image damage
again. I've never had that response rejected.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">On 11/27/2023 4:26 PM, Russell Nugent via Pct wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black">Dear Group,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black">I filed a PCT application in the USPTO (client's decision not mine) and I have gotten some confusing correspondence back. The USPTO made
ex officio changes that I can object to. The first change was that all of the inventors that were listed as Inventors only have been changed to inventors and applicants. Can anyone think of a reason they would decide on their own end that the inventors are
applicants too?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black">They then rejected my POA as not being signed by all of the applicants. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black">In addition, what is the current thinking/solution to the images being degraded by the USPTO. They objected to the drawings as not being
clear, and the drawings that I downloaded from Patent Center are of poor quality. Resubmitting the drawings that are good quality will presumably not fix this issue. Suggestions and advice please (other than to file in WIPO next time)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div id="Signature">
<div>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:#242424">Thanks, </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:13.5pt;color:#242424">RUSSELL D. NUGENT</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><i><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424">Attorney at law</span></i><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424"><img width="201" height="66" style="width:2.0902in;height:.6875in" id="_x0000_i1025" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4z7V6pBMuo7rYSvB8jx6VK4e64t-N1CYJNO168MTVtDkfLnUZEWARq79Wr9lpxYzkJoMhRhRbc"></span><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424">1904 Eastwood Road, Suite 310A</span></b><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><b><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424">Wilmington, NC 28403</span></b><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424">(p) 910.899.0236 | (f) 888.290.7817<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><u><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#954F72"><a href="http://www.humphriesfirm.law" target="_blank"><span style="color:#954F72">http://www.humphriesfirm.law</span></a></span></u><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><span style="font-size:11.5pt;color:#242424;background:white">CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments constitute privileged and confidential attorney-client communication, and/or confidential proprietary
and/or trade secret information intended for the addressee only. This e-mail and any attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC §§ 2510-2521, and are legally privileged. Unauthorized review, use, disclosure, distribution or
copying is strictly prohibited. The information contained in the e-mail and any attachments is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that use, disclosure, distribution or
copying is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, notify the sender at (910) 332-0721 or by reply e-mail and destroy the original and all copies of this e-mail and all attachments immediately without reading or saving in any manner.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission with any attachments may constitute an attorney-client communication, protected health information (PHI) or other confidential information that is in fact confidential, legally protected from disclosure and/or protected
by the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient, please maintain confidentiality and be aware that forwarding this e-mail to others may result in a waiver of these protections and privileges and regardless electronic communications may
be at times illegally accessed and viewed. If you are not the intended recipient, this e-mail is not intended for transmission to you, nor to be read, reviewed, used, distributed or even received by you or any other unauthorized persons. If you have received
this electronic mail transmission in error, please double delete it from your system immediately without copying, reading or disseminating it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address record can be corrected. Thank you very much.
</body>
</html>