[Patentpractice] DOCX penalty fee question

[Carl Oppedahl]

What he said.

On 2/28/2024 6:13 PM, Richard Schafer via Patentpractice wrote:
>
> I’m pretty sure that the PTO’s position is that nothing said in one of 
> the training videos can be relied upon. Such as last year when the 
> trainer in one of the PTO’s “how to use DOCX” sessions said there 
> would be a delay in implementing the surcharge, but PTO bigwigs like 
> Seidel refused to confirm that. I think their view is nothing said in 
> one of those training sessions is an official statement of the PTO.
>
> Best regards,
> *Richard A. Schafer | Schafer IP Law*
> P.O. Box 230081 | Houston, TX 77223
> M: 832.283.6564 | richard at schafer-ip.com <mailto:richard at schafer-ip.com>
>
> *From:*Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On 
> Behalf Of *Judith S via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2024 5:05 PM
> *To:* For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek 
> legal advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Judith S <judith.a.s at gmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentpractice] DOCX penalty fee question
>
> I missed that!  Whoever got penalized, want to petition to reverse 
> that penalty, based on this video?
>
> Judith
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 2:50 PM Randy A. Noranbrock via Patentpractice 
> <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>     Although, if you jump to the 40:28 mark of this helpful PTO video,
>     you can hear the PTO answer to this very question:
>     https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/uspto-videos/how-file-your-patent-application-documents-docx
>
>     “Question 4.
>
>     Will there be a surcharge for preliminary amendments submitted in
>     PDF format?
>
>     No. Preliminary amendments can be filed in PDF format and can be
>     included with the initial filing.”
>
>     -R
>
>     --
>
>     Randy A. Noranbrock - randy at ipfirm.com <mailto:randy at ipfirm.com> —
>     Partner @ Hauptman Ham, LLP
>
>     http://www.ipfirm.com <http://www.ipfirm.com/> - (703) 535-7070
>     (direct) - (703) 518-5499 (fax)
>
>     Randy A. Noranbrock is admitted in VA and registered to practice
>     before the US Patent & Trademark Office
>
>     *From: *Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com>
>     on behalf of Dan Feigelson via Patentpractice
>     <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
>     *Reply-To: *"For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons
>     to seek legal advice." <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
>     *Date: *Wednesday, February 28, 2024 at 5:33 PM
>     *To: *"For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to
>     seek legal advice." <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
>     *Cc: *Dan Feigelson <djf at iliplaw.com>
>     *Subject: *Re: [Patentpractice] DOCX penalty fee question
>
>     *[EXTERNAL SENDER]*
>
>     I think the issue with the preliminary amendment was that is was
>     filed on the same day as the application, and therefore was
>     considered part of the original filing. As far as I know,
>     amendments filed after the day of filing do not trigger the penalty.
>
>     Dan
>
>     On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 12:17 AM Goldberg, Judi via Patentpractice
>     <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>         Does the DOCX requirement/$400 penalty apply to _any_ spec
>         amendments, such as filing a replacement spec?  I saw the
>         email discussions here that the penalty fee was assessed for a
>         preliminary amendment, so I’m wondering if we will also get
>         hit with the penalty if we have to file a substitute spec? 
>         Does it make a difference if the amendments are in a national
>         phase application rather than a utility application, like it
>         is for the initial filing (Or will they also assess the
>         penalty fee if we file a preliminary amendment? Hmmmm).
>
>         PS – I took several of the USPTO’s DOCX “training” sessions,
>         and they never mentioned having to pay the penalty for
>         anything other than the originally filed spec. Why am I not
>         surprised. L
>
>         Thanks in advance,
>
>         Judi
>
>         -- 
>         Patentpractice mailing list
>         Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>         http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>         <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com_tr_cl_OjTkX16SzuKAxeSVN2o99LbrWA3i4ND-2DOS4AOj-2DKfxczr1Aif-5FCxQDp94ttf1U26LkX04WNeP4I0aYcbVsLg9PDBhedtUBLCPAE0xkgsloShsdnM3Hik-2D2L3tl6q14T-2DBVYHR9ut-2DyLsfvw9PUTAI5MyYP8gu4GdP8yuflHoZWwbfkHk17xZcmaRwVl8E-5FfSrrx0CXTT41unXFoNw7FvixRhkSESJNzyocsNc7vjrR9bwWU5pE5FOvrllipwGfNGZRHQcE5J2vpRPX1187A8-2DApxPq5eECwbBJp6B-5FNashbYNkjYyKLg33bw1tN1fR-5FylYz9NTRLIyRoIeXxpzKZ5G76e90ygqa4b9Wc&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=BqR0VQUVXErbEwFKisVgSVuzZx0HbJxwEUTNLj3Tx2Q&m=2z8eNcowfeElC_cdNoKIcEZd91Z6ByuSruYP8K6w_PJphORVEjlyZ5ciQ0gPDDKK&s=Fm7sT5jeXGawV46pWsgP6dsTjgVqFrhUhaUEJh2vpwI&e=>
>
>     *NOTICE*This email message originated from outside of your
>     organization. Please use caution when responding, opening
>     attachments, and clicking links.
>
>     -- 
>     Patentpractice mailing list
>     Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>     http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240228/b3f4059d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4514 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240228/b3f4059d/attachment.p7s>