[Patentpractice] USPTO welcome letters

[Suzannah K. Sundby]

I've never taken the time to read what the stupid freaking letter says...

Seems to me that if a pro se inventor got to the part of having filed an application and receive the filing receipt, the pro se inventor does not need the stupid freaking letter either...

-----Original Message-----
From: Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> On Behalf Of Neil R. Ormos via Patentpractice
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2024 8:17 AM
To: Patent Practice Mailing List <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: Neil R. Ormos <ormos-lists at ormos.org>
Subject: Re: [Patentpractice] USPTO welcome letters

Carl Oppedahl wrote:

> A listserv member asks to post anonymously ...

>>  "how much more can they waste our time" ...

>> I know the Welcome Letter was previously discussed, but today I found 
>> 10 or more
>> WELCOME.LET2 in our daily eOA along with a corresponding M327 
>> document (Miscellaneous Incoming Communication to Applicant-No Action 
>> Count).  Welcome Letter TWO was mailed about
>> 10+ days following an office action.

>> What a huge waste of time on our part -- especially linking it to an 
>> M327 document which generally has an important communication with it.  
>> Unless I'm wrong, these Welcome Letters aren't extremely important...

Separate from the issue of wasting practitioner time, the letter seems to include some less than helpful communications to /pro se/ inventors.

For example:
 
| Need help near you? We have regional offices across the country [...], 
| as well as Patent and Trademark Resource Centers in libraries in 
| nearly every state [...], with specialists standing by to help you at 
| no cost.

Libraries may have someone who can show a /pro se/ inventor how to use computer search facilities.  That kind of help might be useful before the application is filed.

Do any libraries really have "specialists standing by" to provide help in responding to office actions? 

What help could someone who is not a registered practitioner offer other than referring the patron to a book or web site that discusses office actions and how to respond.

("Oh, you have appendicitis? Here's a copy of /Remove It Yourself/. Scalpels are in the drawer. Please don't forget to clean up when you're done...")

Another example:

| Connect with us on Instagram, Linkedin, Twitter, Facebook, and 
| YouTube.

Although this is in the "learn more" section of the letter, does it really benefit /pro se/ applicants to invite them to use public communication channels to "connect" with the PTO?  Even if the PTO's file wrapper is itself open to public inspection by the time the first office action is mailed, some /pro se/ applicants, especially those who have not been counseled on confidentiality, are sometimes very chatty and blurt out all kinds of (formerly) confidential information not essential to patent prosecution when seeking help in public fora.

Also, "Twitter"?  I guess the news has not yet reached Alexandria.

And why is the text of the letter screened with a pattern?  (Yes, I know how the IFW works, but text that is solid-black in the first place does not get screened. I don't understand why anyone would use gray text in the first place.)

--
Patentpractice mailing list
Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com