[Patentcenter] fax receipt from Patent Office?

[Carl Oppedahl]

Exactly.  USPTO needs to correct this design defect in QPIDS. See 
https://blog.oppedahl.com/improving-qpids/ where I raised this need on 
January 14, 2016.  Yeah, seven years have passed now since I pointed out 
this design defect and USPTO has done nothing about it.  Here is what I 
wrote:

    In summary:

     1. USPTO should permit the QPIDS filer to pay both fees up front
        using the payment mechanism of the filer’s choice.
     2. USPTO should */promptly/*refund the appropriate fee rather than
        sitting on the money for six months and forcing the filer to
        have to ask for the refund.
     3. USPTO should extend QPIDS to make it usable in design cases.

Carl

On 1/4/2024 9:42 AM, Randall Svihla via Patentcenter wrote:
>
> What about those instances when you are required to use a deposit 
> account, such as when filing a QPIDS IDS?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Randall S. Svihla
>
> NSIP Law
>
> Washington, D.C.
>
> *From:*Patentcenter <patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On 
> Behalf Of *Sandra L Etherton via Patentcenter
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 4, 2024 11:38 AM
> *To:* 'Dan Feigelson' <djf at iliplaw.com>; 'For bug reports, feature 
> requests, and tips and tricks about Patent Center.' 
> <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Sandra L Etherton <sandra at ethertonlaw.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentcenter] fax receipt from Patent Office?
>
> Yet another reason we use credit cards instead of a deposit account. 
> Much better from a cash management standpoint, among other reasons.
>
> *From:*Dan Feigelson [mailto:djf at iliplaw.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 3, 2024 11:05 PM
> *To:* For bug reports, feature requests, and tips and tricks about 
> Patent Center. <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Sandra L Etherton <sandra at ethertonlaw.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentcenter] fax receipt from Patent Office?
>
> Image removed by sender.
>
> I wouldn't worry about the PTO losing money on interest. As Carl has 
> noted many times, it forces people to grant it interest-free loans in 
> the form of deposit accounts, which are the only way of paying certain 
> fees and must maintain a $1000 balance to avoid the PTO deducting $25 
> at the end of each month. So either the PTO is collecting the nominal 
> interest rate on the deposit (which can be substantially larger than 
> $1000), or it collects interest (from the user) in excess of 2.5% *per 
> month*. If that's not a racket I don't know what is.
>
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 2:52 AM Sandra L Etherton via Patentcenter 
> <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>     An update from Dec 18 fax event:
>
>     Several people emailed me outside of this listserve about whether
>     they regularly got a faxback receipts from the PTO. Some said yes;
>     some said no. Thank you all for your input.
>
>     I never did get a faxback receipt from the Patent Office, but the
>     credit card charge went through for the fees about 48 hours after
>     I faxed it in.* As Carl said, follow the money! The new POA and
>     petition have not been uploaded, though, and the patent still
>     shows as expired for failing to timely pay the maintenance fee.
>
>     *I suspect there’s damage to the public and PTO because fees were
>     not deposited timely due to Patent Center not accepting e-filing
>     for this. Instead, the fees were charged two days later than they
>     could have been. I’m no cash management guru, but I assume the PTO
>     gets paid interest on its deposits. Hypothetically, with simple 3%
>     interest on $1640 fee for 2 days, the Patent Office lost ~$0.25 in
>     interest on my submission. That adds up if fees for many
>     submissions aren’t being deposited as quickly as they had been
>     when EFS was live.
>
>     Sandra
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240104/82067270/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ~WRD0001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 823 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240104/82067270/attachment.jpg>