@BrandonK6644 You could very easily set up such task types--just use the existing ones as templates, update/rename them as needed, and start using them going forward instead of the vanilla Filed RCE. You'd have to manually select the appropriate one, of course.

Doing the same for OAs would be a little more challenging since they autodocket, but I think it could be done. You'd have to make some fancy database query triggers that would check to see if a prerequisite task (e.g., 1st OA) had docketed before triggering a 2nd OA task, and checking to make sure that no existing 2nd OA task was present. I think this can all be done in the current task framework--see example below.

First NFOA - Create "Respond to 1st Non-Final Office Action" task
When a specific task is created: "Receive non-final office action"
AND
While a task database query doesn't return any records: Matter = "{Task.Matter}" and TaskType.Contains("Respond to") and TaskType.Contains("Non-Final Office Action")

Second NFOA - Create "Respond to 2nd Non-Final Office Action" task
When a specific task is created: "Receive non-final office action"
AND
While a task database query returns one or more records: Matter = "{Task.Matter}" and TaskType = "Respond to 1st Non-Final Office Action"
AND
While a task database query doesn't return any records: Matter = "{Task.Matter}" and TaskType = "Respond to 2nd Non-Final Office Action"

And so forth for 3rd, 4th, etc. NFOAs (assuming you want that level of granularity).

NOTE: In order for this to work, the most recent previous NFOA task has to be correctly assigned since each subsequent task creation event looks for the "previous" task that should have been created according to the trigger rules. So you'd have to analyze your docket and at least update the most recent Respond to NFOA tasks to reflect their proper "number" before implementing the above rules.

As far as I know, there isn't a "While a task database query returns exactly X records" where you can specify X. If that existed, you could avoid having to back-update your tasks to the new format.

Cheers,
Christian

Interesting idea - thanks. We'll pass this onto engineering.

@gregg_appcoll OK so to clarify, if I create a custom field "Test," configure the field for a contacts query, and set that field for a given Matter to a particular Contact, then {Matter.Test.email} will return that Contact's email address? How can I restrict the contact fields to match the current client? This is the logic I'm looking for but the syntax isn't quite right:

275350d0-9d8b-4271-a594-7357d713f874-image.png

Hi Christian. Thank you for the suggestion. We will certainly pass this on to engineering.

Hi Christian - we opened a fix for this. We'll let you know when done. Thanks.

Hi Ashley - this is a good idea and something we will pass on to engineering for future consideration. We will certainly let you know of any progress made.

Hi Christian - we will work on alleviating this by doing some truncation. We will keep you in the loop.

Hi Sadiq - Thanks for the feedback. We will remove the notifications when a matter is saved. This may take some time, but it will be done.

Thanks.

@ChristianS9906 Do you have an example that takes multiple minutes? This will help us. But we are working on this with some architecture changes.

@DarinD8866 Thanks for the input - we'll pass on your request.

We hear you. I added a formal request to expand this out to better accommodate dozens of numbers. We'll let you know when this has been added.

@SadiqA2304

Hi Sadiq. We're actually working on it. It's a significant job to redo the entire table/column formating UI. We have the Contacts tab in Beta and it works quite nice. We're going tab by tab as we have time. Unfortunately, we do not have an ETA as of yet. I hope this helps.

Hi Christian - this is a good suggestion. We have added this as a new feature request. We'll let you know when this is done. Thank you.

We have upped the priority of this. In the meantime, you can add a Fee offset billing item and enter the dollar amount you are discounting. We hope this helps.

Thank you both for the suggestions. We will pass this onto engineering for consideration. We hope this helps.

@gregg_appcoll adding onto the Power of Attorney yes/no. It would be helpful if a POA form could be linked to the actual contact (assignee or inventor)

@gregg_appcoll Thanks, Greg, however I would still find it very helpful to have a syntax for an alternate field, when a first field is blank. As I previously noted, I have several situations where such a syntax would be helpful:

(a) a client-specific USPTO customer number (if the client has one), or the firm's customer number (if the client doesn't have one) (Some of my clients want me to use their customer number, rather than mine. I have templates for responses to Office Actions, etc. that include a customer number in the document headers)

(b) a client-specific USPTO deposit account number (if the client has one), or the firm's deposit account number (if the client doesn't have one). (My template responses include boilerplate language authorizing charges to a deposit account, in case of a missed extension of time.)

(c) actual filing date or official filing date or priority date, depending on what is available. (For example, when calculating due dates for foreign applications.)

Thanks,
George

Hi Kevin, thanks for the feedback. This feature is being worked on and should be available in the future.

Hi Sadiq - thanks for the suggestion. We'll certainly look into this.

Hello Kate and Melissa,

This is a good idea and something we have formally submitted to our engineering team as a new feature. It may take some time, but it will be added. Thanks for your continued feedback.