First, I am sorry to hear of family medical issues, and sincerely hope they are positively resolved ASAP.

I appreciate your words of caution as to language used in these communications with the PTO. I seriously doubt that any such language will be used again.

Those words were carefully considered, and the input of an attorney was solicited regarding this language.

Here I suggest consideration of the "test of reasonableness". With all the things we KNOW, is it reasonable to suspect the possibility of wrong-doing?

Put another way, if you described the entire scenario we've experienced to anyone and asked their opinion, I strongly suspect that the response would be either:

The USPTO is incredibly inept, to the point of moronic.

or

There is something nefarious afoot, deep pocket entities are influencing the situation.

Is there another conclusion that could be reached? Are these not "reasonable" conclusions?

We did not say, in anything approaching absolute terms, that there is any corruption. We suggest the remote possibility.

I strongly suspect, based on his title, that Mr. Bahr is an attorney for the PTO. His reaction? I perceive it as genuine concern, worthy of attention by the head of the re-exam organization. Time taken to consider and react? Literally a few minutes.

So I'll accept your respected opinion that use of those words may have been ill-advised. But they contributed in getting the desired, immediate results.

Will the head of the re-exam organization be "sensitized"? TBD. But considering the action was forwarded by high-level USPTO Counsel, IMO it is reasonable to suspect there will be desired action.

Finally, contrast that language with language used in past communications with PTSC, and with posts here on Agora - a public forum.

Again, I respect your opinion and suggestion of caution.

With any luck, there will be no further need to contact the USPTO.

SGE