@KimG5166 Does the "Same as above" residency checkbox solve your issue for inventors? It should allow you to put in a secondary residency address. fa0fabb3-7d76-4233-a4d5-4f49da803261-image.png

@ChristianS9906 That takes care of one part. The UI is always a large part of any project. We also have to notify account admins when sync changes have been made so that they can review the changes. Other side effects that I haven't predicted have to be considered as well.

@AnnM9156 That is correct--it is just a field that records data regarding the application. You can, however, customize triggering for tasks based on the value in that field. I took a look at our docket, and our 3-month non-final OA response deadline has two flavors--one that is called "Respond to Non-Final Office Action - 3-month deadline" and the other that is called "Respond to Non-Final Office Action - 3-month deadline (Track One)." The "track one" version triggers when a non-final OA is received in a case that has Track One status specified, and the non-track one version triggers when a non-final OA is received in a case that does not have Track One status specified. Our 4-month OA deadline triggers when either of the 3-month deadlines closes as "missed."

Pretty much what I was looking for. Not sure why I hadn't noticed this before.

@jonah-soundhound-com Yup, that would do the trick--strange that I didn't find that suggestion when I looked for custom tasks as a search topic. I upvoted it.

I created a report of all my matters. I sorted it by Application Number then by Examiner Name so that Examiner Name is that main sorting criteria. For any given examiner name, the application numbers were in order. I saved it as a new test report. I opened some other report and then opened my test report. The matters were sorted by examiner name, but for any given examiner name, the application numbers were in no predictable order.

If there is an existing way to save a report with a multi-level sort as Kim requests, I would love to know.

A simple "Matters" button in a Contact view that shows all matters with which the contact is associated in any way would work great for me.

👍 Long been on my wish list, too.

@MikeO5888 Actually, there is a workaround....

The 2K limit is, it is true, a browser-inherent limit. But not all browsers are created equal....

Chrome and Edge, for example, seem to have limits of around 2K for MailTo link text.

However, Firefox seems to have a massive larger limit. For example, I have been able to successfully generate emails from AppColl in Outlook using Firefox that have nearly 24,000 characters (5+ pages of solid text in Word).

Keep in mind that if Firefox ever reduces that limit, there is nothing AppColl can do about it. At the same time, Chrome and Edge might raise it, allowing them to be used in a similar manner....

So if you're willing to use Firefox as your AppColl browser, you should be able to have much more flexibility in terms of the size of the email template for direct creation in your Outlook client.

Cheers,
Christian

@jonah-soundhound-com Yeah, I thought of that as well--but at some point, too much customizability becomes problematic for AppColl since it makes it difficult for them to write coherent instructions for users (if you have a screen shot showing where fields are but users may have completely different UI layouts, that may introduce headaches).

However, one way to maybe address that is to have a button/toggle in the UI that lets users instantly flip between a "default" AppColl UI layout (like it is now) and a customer-defined layout (in which admins could reposition any fields to suit the needs of their attorneys/admins). That way AppColl's help files are still applicable to the AppColl default, but users can also use custom layouts--with the understanding that AppColl help files are intended to be directed at the default layout....

@jonah-soundhound-com
37 CFR 1.78 requires that "[t]he reference also must identify the relationship of the applications, namely, whether the later-filed application is a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of the prior-filed nonprovisional application, international application, or international design application." Not the same weight as 35 USC 120, of course, but still something I think should be complied with.

I suspect that you may be correct that it might not actually impact the priority claim's validity if one did not, but I would not want to test it--at the very least, there could be an argument that a patentee committed inequitable conduct by, for example, labeling a CIP priority claim as a normal "continuation" priority claim. This might cause an Examiner to mistakenly assume that the subject matter in the application is identical to that in the parent, and thus incorrectly apply the parent's priority date to all claim elements when some of those claim elements were not in the priority application and not entitled to that earlier date....

Dear AppColl,

Please implement this request with high priority. While this is not a big deal for professional prosecutors, it is a big deal for users who use AppColl to manage portfolios.

Thank you.
~Jonah

@RichardS3059 I second IP Manager (ugh). I too managed a medium sized law firm docketing group and while the updates were nice, the firm's portfolio was made up of a mixture of foreign and US. As you said, the effort to keep those rules current if quite a commitment. One thing we appreciate about AppColl is the affordability. I think by not having foreign rules certainly helps with keeping costs low.