[Patentpractice] Seems one now has to beg repeatedly to get a POA/Correspondence Change

[Judith S]

The most frustrating thing about the POA issue is that it seems to be
random. When I started my own firm I filed many POA changes, and about half
got accepted and half got rejected. They were all substantially identical
(inventor assigned to company, and we submitted a 3.73 form with the
assignment chain and the POA). There was zero rhyme or reason for what was
accepted and what was denied.  Calling EBC just got "resubmit it" as the
solution.  So we just automatically resubmitted with the same information,
and hoped that the next iteration went through. They all did, after one or
two tries.

Judith

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 11:04 AM Timothy Snowden via Patentpractice <
patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Yep. I just started my own firm and had that multiple times. I had several
> POAs rejected because it was 'changing the assignee' ... and the applicant
> was the sole inventor.
> On 3/12/2025 12:58 PM, Suzannah K. Sundby via Patentpractice wrote:
>
> Yes, of course.
>
>
>
> Note, essentially the same was filed in related case, which was accepted
> in the related case.
>
>
>
> 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:* Randall Svihla <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com> <rsvihla at nsiplaw.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 12, 2025 1:57 PM
> *To:* For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Suzannah K. Sundby <suzannah at canadylortz.com>
> <suzannah at canadylortz.com>
> *Subject:* RE: Seems one now has to beg repeatedly to get a
> POA/Correspondence Change
>
>
>
> Hi, Suzannah
>
>
>
> Did you file a Statement Under 37 CFR 3.73(c) establishing the right of
> the new assignee to take action in the application?
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Randall S. Svihla
>
> NSIP Law
>
> Washington, D.C.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Suzannah K. Sundby via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 12, 2025 1:51 PM
> *To:* patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
> *Cc:* Suzannah K. Sundby <suzannah at canadylortz.com>
> *Subject:* [Patentpractice] Seems one now has to beg repeatedly to get a
> POA/Correspondence Change
>
>
>
> Venting:
>
>
>
> Sequence of events requesting change of applicant to new assignee + POA &
> Correspondence Address Change:
>
> 8/8/2024          Mail Non-Final Rejection
>
> 2/4/2025          Filed Response, with EOT, Change of POA &
> Correspondence (included changing the applicant to the new assignee thus
> also included a corrected ADS)
>
> 2/10/2025        USPTO mailed Notice denying the POA/correspondence
> change request.  Note: USPTO denial was improper.
>
> 2/10/2025        Refiled POA/correspondence change request presenting
> same information differently
>
> 2/12/2025        USPTO mailed Notice of Informal or Non-Responsive
> Amendment, claiming that it could not be entered/accepted since I did not
> have POA (note, if the response filed February 4 was not entered, then the
> application would technically be abandoned bc after 6 month date).  I
> also called the USPTO to have them review/fix… but person said they
> couldn’t really help except have someone review the change request papers.
>
> 2/14/2025        So, I filed a response to the BOGUS/IMPROPER Notice
> telling them that a formal acceptance of a POA form is not necessary, as my
> signature itself indicates that I am duly authorized to make the submission.
> I again point out that I filed a proper change request, but filed again
> presenting the same requisite information for the POA/correspondence change
> request in a different format.
>
> 2/20/2025        USPTO denied entry of the POA/correspondence change
> request.
>
> 2/26/2025        Notice of Allowance mailed, but USPTO still did not
> accept the POA/correspondence change request.
>
> 3/5/2025          I refiled the POA/correspondence change request again
> presenting the same information in a different format.
>
> 3/6/2025          Corrected Filing Receipt mailed that finally updated
> the applicant to the new assignee.
>
> 3/11/2025        USPTO finally accepted and entered the POA BUT DID NOT
> update change the new correspondence address.
>
>
>
>
>
> So, I just filed a paper titled “Request for Change of Correspondence”
> stating:
>
>
>
> The undersigned respectfully requests Supervisory review and processing of
> its last change request, *i.e*., Change of Power of Attorney and
> Correspondence Address, that was filed March 5, 2025.
>
> The undersigned is *begging* whomever is reading the instant Request to
> please properly process its last change request, *i.e*., Change of Power
> of Attorney (POA) and Correspondence Address, that was filed March 5, 2025.
>
> The undersigned has filed multiple POA and correspondence change requests
> in the instant application, which each followed the requisite rules, yet
> were erroneously denied acceptance.  As such, the undersigned ‘played the
> game’ and resubmitted numerous times presenting the requisite information
> in various ways.  As of today, the POA has been accepted, but the
> correspondence address has not been updated.
>
> It is noted that the undersigned has been using the same form for over 10
> years, which form a USPTO person in the Office of Initial Patent
> Examination Department instructed was the best/preferred way to indicate
> the correspondence address change (to prevent confusion by the USPTO when
> processing).  That is, the POA form that was submitted on March 5, 2025
> request that the correspondence is changed to the above indicated Customer
> Number as follows:
>
> [Excerpt]
>
> Please, I beg you to properly change the correspondence address of the
> instant application to the Customer Number indicated above—as was requested
> on the many previously filed requests, including the Change of POA form
> that was filed on March 5, 2025 *which was accepted and entered*.
>
>
>
> Fingers crossed.
>
>
>
> Please pray for me and my sanity.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20250312/96de03df/attachment.html>