[Patentpractice] (i) USPTO fax not working and (ii) question about faxing a 'wrong' fee-code + credit card details

[Carl Oppedahl]

Anybody who calls the AAU about this kind of delay (fax or postal or 
hand-carried item failing to appear in IFW even after many weeks) will 
hear from the AAU that the backlog is quoted at "6-8 weeks".  Their 
information is wrong.  The actual delay is typically 7-10 weeks.

And no, it is not within the ability of the AAU to get any stalled 
document out of the queue and into IFW any faster.  The massive mail 
bags of unopened mail, the massive piles of untouched fax-to-PDF files, 
the enormous trays of untouched hand-carried filings, they get handled 
in chronological order and that's it. It is impossible to get anybody to 
dig through the mail bags to pick out any particular document to get it 
entered faster into IFW.

It is irresponsible for the USPTO to fail to staff this area 
appropriately to handle whatever the level of incoming document workflow 
actually is.  The USPTO's failure in this area leads to abandoned cases, 
needless petitions to revive, instances of extension fees having to be 
paid even though it ought not to be necessary.

On 1/15/2025 2:38 PM, Andrea R. Jacobson via Patentpractice wrote:
>
> In our experience, it’s not uncommon for faxed and mailed items to 
> take a while to be processed. I assume that fewer resources are 
> available for that work at the PTO these days given the reliance on 
> e-filing, so the longer processing is not a surprise to me.
>
> I would call the AAU and see if they can be off assistance with 
> nudging things along on your cases or provide some guidance on getting 
> your payment processed in prior to the fee increase.
>
> Andrea R. Jacobson (she/her )  |  Senior Litigation Paralegal  | 
> McGarry Bair PC
> Direct (616) 742-3538  | arj at mcgarrybair.com <mailto:arj at mcgarrybair.com>
>
> *From:*Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On 
> Behalf Of *Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 15, 2025 4:00 PM
> *To:* For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek 
> legal advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentpractice] (i) USPTO fax not working and (ii) 
> question about faxing a 'wrong' fee-code + credit card details
>
> This is extremely well-plowed ground.  It looks like you have not had 
> an opportunity review my many blog postings on this subject, including 
> https://blog.oppedahl.com/sluggishness-of-uspto-workflow-for-inbound-faxes/ 
> .
>
> It is well established by now that the people at the USPTO whose job 
> includes:
>
>   * looking at received faxes, and
>   * looking at received paper mail, and
>   * looking at stuff that has been hand-carried to the USPTO
>
> are failing to do their jobs diligently.
>
> We have for example a host of Powers of Attorney that the USPTO 
> received from us by mail on October 2, 2024 and they did not show up 
> in IFW until just a couple of weeks ago.
>
> We have for example a host of Powers of Attorney that the USPTO 
> received from us at the Central Fax Number on September 27, 2024 and 
> they did not show up in IFW until just a couple of weeks ago.
>
> On 1/15/2025 1:35 PM, William Ahmed via Patentpractice wrote:
>
>     Dear All,
>
>     About 5 weeks ago, we faxed an office action response to
>
>     1-571-273-8300
>
>     5 weeks later, the USPTO has still not posted this response to the
>     file-wrapper [we ended up subsequently e-filing the same OA
>     response to avoid extension fees].
>
>     OUR PROBLEM -- we recently filed multiple reissue applications.
>     Patent center did NOT properly read the ADS due to IT issues [they
>     picked up a lot of ADS data but not all of it].
>
>     Therefore, Patent center did NOT allow us to pay the reissue
>     filing/search/examination fees, which have different fee-codes for
>     a 'basic utility non-provisional'.
>
>     We do not have a deposit account. The ADS is OK, so I assume a
>     human will process the ADS in the upcoming weeks/months and will
>     enter this into the system as a reissue application.
>
>     We need to pay fees BEFORE the January 19 fee-increase.
>
>     FIRST QUESTION -- is there a better fax number than 1-571-273-8300
>     [we pay maintenance fees to their fax and this is always handled
>     correctly]
>
>     SECOND QUESTION -- what happens if fax staff receives our
>     credit-card fee payment, and processes it next week BEFORE the
>     USPTO mails the official filing receipt.
>
>     As of today, the USPTO thinks this is a 'basic utility filing'
>     rather than a reissue filing.
>
>     Will the USPTO credit card staff they take the money from my cc
>     and post those fee reissue codes to the file, assuming the
>     'regular USPTO staff' will work things out?
>
>     Or will they refuse to take the money, causing me to be stuck with
>     higher filing fees since I will only be able to pay after January
>     19, 2025.
>
>     Even though the reissue fees are increasing 'only' by 8% on
>     January 19, over multiple reissue applications, this is significant.
>
>     Please advise.
>
>     Many thanks,
>
>     Bill
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250115/56d1d0ac/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4751 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250115/56d1d0ac/attachment.p7s>