[Patentpractice] Update: Going to shoot myself soon - Ombudsman

Thu May 23 22:56:57 UTC 2024

FWIW, I have also corresponded with Patrick the Ombudsman-Definitely-Not-AI
and found him not very helpful/cordial.

In one e-mail re the notice to file missing parts I received because I
filed a preliminary amendment to replace "___" with a filed application
number in PDF format on the filing date, he wrote: "The rules are not
debatable. The rules are the rules and are on our website. If I was filing
for a patent application, I would surely submit everything I could in docx
format."

I responded thusly:

"I actually don't think you would, if you were aware of the many documented
risks filing in DOCX format creates for practitioners and applicants.

For example, did you know that practitioners have no way to prove that the
DOCX file they uploaded is the DOCX file that the client approved? This is
because the USPTO *THROWS THE UPLOADED FILE AWAY* and provides no audit
trail of it.

The rules are supposed to be memorialized in a fixed form, such as the
MPEP, not on web pages that can change on the fly."

Now I'm surprised I wasn't accused of yelling because I used all caps.

Patrick got his revenge in the end, though, because the USPTO sent the
notice about petitioning from the NFMP due to filing a preliminary
amendment in PDF format on the filing date literally the day after I paid
the $400 penalty. (Sigh.)

Best regards,
Krista

------------------------------------------
Krista S. Jacobsen
Attorney and Counselor at Law
Jacobsen IP Law
krista at jacobseniplaw.com
T:  408.455.5539
www.jacobseniplaw.com

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:03 AM Goldberg, Judi via Patentpractice <
patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Hi Suzannah,
>
> I am so frustrated with the Ombudsman - I thought they were retired patent
> examiners or patent attorneys, but guess what?  They are “promoted” from
> the Application Assistance Unit which means that their advice is
> practically useless.
>
>
>
> So frustrating!
>
>
>
> Be well,
>
> Judi
>
>
>
> *From:* Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Suzannah K. Sundby via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2024 11:51 AM
> *To:* For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Suzannah K. Sundby <suzannah at canadylortz.com>
> *Subject:* [Patentpractice] Update: Going to shoot myself soon - Ombudsman
>
>
>
> *[External Email]*
>
> Many requested updates… so…
>
>
>
> The same day I reached out to the Ombudsman, I also filed a formal Status
> Request.
>
>
>
> So today, I received a call from the Publications Branch (I think in
> response to the Status Request).  The publications person told me that
> the reason the application went abandoned was that I did not submit an
> Issue Fee Transmittal.  I explained that under the QPIDS program I do not
> need to resubmit an Issue Fee Transmittal and that the Examiner incorrectly
> mailed the wrong form in response to the second QPIDS.  Hence the reason
> why the Petitions Office withdrew the holding of abandonment (note,
> different from reviving) and remanded to the Publications Branch for
> issuance.
>
>
>
> Pubs person insisted that an Issue Fee Transmittal needs to be submitted
> or else the application will be abandoned again.  I again explained that
> I had previously submitted the Issue Fee Transmittal and under QPIDS,
> because prosecution was not reopened, I/Applicant need not do anything.  The
> previously paid issue fee is to be automatically applied without our even
> having to request such via submitting a new Issue Fee Transmittal.
>
>
>
> He said he is going to mail a notice saying they need Issue Fee
> Transmittal within 2 months or else the application will be abandoned.
>
>
>
> I told him no need, I will file an Issue Fee Transmittal within 30 minutes.
>
>
>
> So, I refiled the previously filed Issue Fee Transmittal and appended
> thereto the page from the QPIDS Q&A saying one need not do anything if the
> Examiner does not reopen prosecution, the petition to withdraw the
> abandonment that I previously filed, and the Petition decision that
> withdrew the holding of abandonment.
>
>
>
> I did not change the date or anything on the refiled (previously filed)
> Issue Fee Transmittal.
>
>
>
> Who wants to take bets as to whether the Publications Branch accepts the
> copy of the previously filed Issue Fee Transmittal?
>
>
>
> Who wants to take bets on whether the Publications Branch charges a second
> Issue Fee (which I then have to request a refund as the Issue fee was
> previously paid)?
>
>
>
> <sigh>
>
>
>
> Suzannah K. Sundby <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssundby/> *|* Partner
>
> *canady + lortz** LLP* <http://www.canadylortz.com/>
>
> 1050 30th Street, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20007
>
> T: 202.486.8020
>
> F: 202.540.8020
>
> suzannah at canadylortz.com
>
> www.canadylortz.com
>
> Confidentiality Notice:  This message is being sent by or on behalf of a
> lawyer.  It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed.  This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from
> disclosure.  If you are not the named addressee, you may not read, print,
> retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part.  If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
> e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
>
>
>
> *From:* Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Randall Svihla via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 4, 2024 6:43 AM
> *To:* For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Randall Svihla <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentpractice] Going to shoot myself soon - Ombudsman
>
>
>
> The USPTO needs to reassign Patrick to the cleaning staff.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Suzannah K. Sundby via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2024 6:21 PM
> *To:* David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>; For patent practitioners.
> This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Suzannah K. Sundby <suzannah at canadylortz.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentpractice] Going to shoot myself soon - Ombudsman
>
>
>
> Jeeezus please help me… it won’t stop.
>
>
>
> IT  is accusing me of yelling because I used ALL CAPS for emphasis
> (because the emails he sends are text only without format so I assume
> underlining and italics do not work on his end).
>
>
>
> And IT does not understand the QPIDS program and asserts that I withdrew
> the application from issue such that it is in the Examiner’s domain/purview.
>
>
>
> I firmly believe I am interacting with an AI Chatbot…
>
>
>
> See more below…
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suzannah K. Sundby
> Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 6:18 PM
> To: 'PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov' PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov
> Subject: RE: Ombudsman Pilot Program - Request
>
>
>
> I was not yelling, but emphasizing because it seems you did not understand
> that the case is in the Office of Publications.
>
>
>
> The withdrawal from issue is part of the QPIDS program.  The Examiner
> then proceeded to allow the application, and the original issue fee payment
> was to be automatically applied and the application then automatically
> allowed to issue.  See attached.
>
>
>
> It was after the allowance that the Office failed to apply the issue fee.
> That is when the application went abandoned.  I then had to petition to
> withdraw the abandonment.  The petitions office granted, and sent the
> application to the Office of Publications, where the previously paid issue
> fee was to be automatically applied and the application allowed to issue.
> This is where the application is stuck.
>
>
>
> If you still misunderstand and/or think I am being less than professional
> with you, then I need to speak with your supervisor and I request you
> provide me with your supervisor's contact information.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Suzannah K. Sundby
>
> Reg. No. 43,172
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov <PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov>
>
> Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 6:08 PM
>
> To: Suzannah K. Sundby <Suzannah at canadylortz.com>
>
> Subject: Ombudsman Pilot Program - Request
>
>
>
> Thank you for contacting the Patents Ombudsman Office. Please see response
> below.
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I am here to assist - not to be yelled at. CAPS is yelling. Review the
> 8-15-2023 Pet.auto document. Well well well what do we have there - a
> petition to withdraw from issue. It is signed by Suzannah.
>
>
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Patrick
>
> Patents Ombuds
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Suzannah K. Sundby <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssundby/> *|* Partner
>
> *canady + lortz** LLP* <http://www.canadylortz.com/>
>
> 1050 30th Street, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20007
>
> T: 202.486.8020
>
> F: 202.540.8020
>
> suzannah at canadylortz.com
>
> www.canadylortz.com
>
> Confidentiality Notice:  This message is being sent by or on behalf of a
> lawyer.  It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed.  This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from
> disclosure.  If you are not the named addressee, you may not read, print,
> retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part.  If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
> e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
>
>
>
> *From:* David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2024 6:04 PM
> *To:* For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Suzannah K. Sundby <suzannah at canadylortz.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentpractice] Going to shoot myself soon - Ombudsman
>
>
>
> "right 99.8% of the time."   As usual -- PTO never distinguishes between
> data and sampling bias.  If the applicant gives up and tries something
> different, well, the applicant didnt go back to the same PTO person and ask
> for yet another correction, so the last information must have been correct.
>
>
>
> All of the data about DOCX falls into the sampling bias category.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2024, 5:32 PM Suzannah K. Sundby via Patentpractice <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> It continues… note it says “I give the correct information 99.8% of the
> time”.
>
>
>
> WHO DOES THAT?!?!?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suzannah K. Sundby <Suzannah at canadylortz.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 5:29 PM
> To: PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov
> Subject: RE: Ombudsman Pilot Program - Request
>
>
>
> The application was NOT WITHDRAWN FROM ISSUE.  Thus, the reason why
> PatentCenter indicates the application is IN THE OFFICE OF PUBLICATIONS
> (not with the Examiner).
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov <PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov>
>
> Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 5:07 PM
>
> To: Suzannah K. Sundby <Suzannah at canadylortz.com>
>
> Subject: Ombudsman Pilot Program - Request
>
>
>
> Thank you for contacting the Patents Ombudsman Office. Please see response
> below.
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> Once an application has been withdrawn from issue it does go back to the
> examiner. I give the correct information 99.8% of the time. You want to
> refer to the examiner.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Patrick
>
> Patents Ombuds
>
>
>
>
>
> Suzannah K. Sundby <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssundby/> *|* Partner
>
> canady + lortz LLP <http://www.canadylortz.com/>
>
> 1050 30th Street, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20007
>
> T: 202.486.8020
>
> F: 202.540.8020
>
> suzannah at canadylortz.com
>
> www.canadylortz.com
>
> Confidentiality Notice:  This message is being sent by or on behalf of a
> lawyer.  It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed.  This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from
> disclosure.  If you are not the named addressee, you may not read, print,
> retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part.  If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
> e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
>
>
>
> *From:* Suzannah K. Sundby
> *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2024 4:30 PM
> *To:* patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
> *Subject:* Going to shoot myself soon - Ombudsman
>
>
>
> I have a case that went abandoned because of the USPTO failing to properly
> process/follow QPIDS procedures.
>
>
>
> Petitions granted my petition and withdrew the abandonment.
>
>
>
> The case was returned to the Office of Publications to process the Letters
> Patent.  It has been sitting in the Office of Publications since February
> 16th.  Thus, I decided to contact the Ombudsman to help get this case out
> of limbo so the patent is granted.  Below is the back and forth
> correspondence (note most recent emails on top as usual email strings).
>
>
>
> I feel like I am having a conversation with ChatGPT and I am about to
> shoot myself.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suzannah K. Sundby <Suzannah at canadylortz.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 4:22 PM
> To: PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov
> Subject: RE: Ombudsman Pilot Program - Request
>
>
>
> The case is not in the domain/purview of the Examiner.  PatentCenter
> indicates that it is in the OFFICE OF PUBLICATIONS, i.e., the division that
> prepares applications for PATENT GRANT.
>
>
>
> I am requesting that YOU as the Ombudsman poke the people in the OFFICE OF
> PUBLICATIONS to help get this case out of limbo and get the OFFICE OF
> PUBLICATIONS to act on the Letters Patent.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov <PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov>
>
> Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 3:36 PM
>
> To: Suzannah K. Sundby <Suzannah at canadylortz.com>
>
> Subject: Ombudsman Pilot Program - Request
>
>
>
> Thank you for contacting the Patents Ombudsman Office. Please see response
> below.
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> No issue notification has been sent out. You will want to check with the
> examiner to see if they will be sending out another Part B fees transmittal
> form. If the examiner says no you will have to give it a few more months
> for the issue notification.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Patrick
>
> Patents Ombuds
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From:  Suzannah at canadylortz.com
>
> Sent:  5/3/2024 01:57:34 PM
>
> To:  "PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov" <PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov>
>
> Subject:  Ombudsman Pilot Program - Request
>
>
>
> I know the application is revived.
>
>
>
> It should be GRANTED by now, at least we should have received an Issue
> Notification by now.
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov <PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov>
>
> Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 12:37 PM
>
> To: Suzannah K. Sundby <Suzannah at canadylortz.com>
>
> Subject: Ombudsman Pilot Program - Request
>
>
>
> Thank you for contacting the Patents Ombudsman Office. Please see response
> below.
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> The application is revived.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Patrick
>
> Patents Ombuds
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From:  Suzannah at canadylortz.com
>
> Sent:  5/3/2024 11:53:13 AM
>
> To:  "PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov" <PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov>
>
> Subject:  Ombudsman Pilot Program - Request
>
>
>
> U.S. Application No.: [redacted] is allowed, i.e., the Petitions Office
> withdrew the abandonment February 20, 2024 (see attached), thus, this
> application should have been processed by the patent grant publications
> division for grant.
>
>
>
> However, since February 20th, the patent grant publications division has
> yet to take any action.
>
>
>
> Thus, we need help getting this application processed for issuance of the
> Letters Patent.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Suzannah K. Sundby
>
> Reg. No. 43,172
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov <PatentsOmbudsmanOffice at uspto.gov>
>
> Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 10:32 AM
>
> To: Suzannah K. Sundby <Suzannah at canadylortz.com>
>
> Subject: RE: Ombudsman Pilot Program - Request
>
>
>
> Thank you for contacting the Patents Ombudsman Office. Please see response
> below.
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> We appreciate your reaching out to the Patents Ombuds Office.
>
>
>
> Representatives of the Patents Ombuds would like to learn more about this
> E-mail request for assistance. Please reply to this email with precise
> information about how the Patents Ombuds outreach can be of assistance to
> you.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Patrick
>
> Patents Ombuds
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Patentpractice mailing list
> Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>
> --
> 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/20240523/09d90e64/attachment.html>