[Pct] Responding to PCT/RO/106 Form from USPTO

[Timothy Snowden]

In such cases I just re-submit the indicated drawings and politely point 
out that I've done nothing but re-rasterize and upload. BTW - 
rasterization at 300dpi using a tool like PDFX-Change or Adobe gives you 
more control over how they look.


Here's a snippet I have in my template:

"Amendments to DRAWING SHEET(s) ***
Applicant submits replacement drawing sheets *** containing FIG(S). ***. 
The sheets contain reproduction of the originally filed drawings. The 
replacement drawings are re-submitted unchanged in case there was a 
quality downgrade of the drawings during processing by the Receiving 
Office. As such, no new matter has been added. "




On 6/30/2025 11:48 AM, Joe Brennan via Pct wrote:
> I received a PCT/RO/106 form from the USPTO stating that the drawings 
> in a PCT application do not allow for reasonably uniform international 
> publication because several figures lack simplicity and clarity and 
> that the text is blurry. I'm surprised by this, because the exact same 
> drawings were used in two other PCT applications without any objection 
> being raised, as well as in an issued US patent without any problems.
>
> I spoke with the USPTO officer on the form, and he told me several things:
>
> 1.
>     The IB is "cracking down" (his words) on the USPTO, which is why
>     they are scrutinizing drawings more closely.
> 2.
>     He can't see the drawings as shown in the Supplemental Content
>     menu item in Patent Center. I assume he can see only the horribly
>     down sampled drawings as shown in the Documents & Transactions
>     menu item.
> 3.
>     They will still transmit the PCT application to the IB (which in
>     fact it has been, and the drawings look fine on ePCT - identical
>     to the drawings as filed).
> 4.
>     We can respond to the PCT/RO/106 with a response stating that the
>     drawings do permit reasonably uniform publication.
>
>
> With respect to #4, does anyone have an example response they can 
> point me to? I'm curious to see how others have responded to this form.
>
> Thank you,
> Joe
>
> **
>
> Ahmann Kloke LLP
> 650 Gilman Street
> Palo Alto, CA 94301
>
> www.ahmannkloke.com <http://www.ahmannkloke.com/>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/pct_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250630/19c54252/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Outlook-lraklzc1.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 39390 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/pct_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250630/19c54252/attachment.jpg>