The following is a post from Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO Michelle K. Lee and was published on the PTO Director’s blog.
Patent quality is central to fulfilling a core mission of the USPTO, which as stated in the Constitution, is to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” It is critically important that the USPTO issue patents that are both correct and clear. Historically, our primary focus has been on correctness, but the evolving patent landscape has challenged us to increase our focus on clarity.
Patents of the highest quality can help to stimulate and promote efficient licensing, research and development, and future innovation without resorting to needless high-cost court proceedings. Through correctness and clarity, such patents better enable potential users of patented technologies to make informed decisions on how to avoid infringement, whether to seek a license, and/or when to settle or litigate a patent dispute. Patent owners also benefit from having clear notice on the boundaries of their patent rights. After and after successfully reducing the backlog of unexamined patent applications, our agency is redoubling its focus on quality.
We asked for your help on how we can best improve quality—and you responded. Since announcing the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative earlier this year, we received over 1,200 comments and extensive feedback during our first-ever Patent Quality Summit and roadshows, as well as invaluable direct feedback from our examining corps. This feedback has been tremendously helpful in shaping the direction of our efforts. And with this background, I’m pleased to highlight some of our initial programs under the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative.
First, we are preparing to launch a Clarity of the Record Pilot, under which examiners will include as part of the prosecution record definitions of key terms, important claim constructions, and more detailed reasons for the allowance and rejection of claims. Based on the information we learn from this pilot, we plan to develop best examiner and applicant practices for enhancing the clarity of the record.
We also will be launching a new wave of Clarity of the Record Training in the coming months emphasizing the benefits and importance of making the record clear and how to achieve greater clarity. Recently, we provided examiners with training on functional claiming and putting statements in the record when the examiner invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), which interprets claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard and secures a complete and enabled disclosure for a claimed invention. Training for the upcoming year includes an assessment of a fully described invention under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and best practices for explaining indefiniteness rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Second, we are Transforming Our Review Data Capture Process to ensure that reviews of an examiner’s work product by someone in the USPTO will follow the same process and access the same facets of examination. Historically, we have had many different types of quality reviews including supervisory patent examiner reviews of junior examiners and quality assurance team reviews of randomly selected examiner work product. Sometimes the factors reviewed by each differed, and the degree to which the review results were recorded. With only a portion of these review results recorded and different criteria captured in those recordings, the data gathered was not as complete, useful, or voluminous as it could have been. As a result, the USPTO has been able to identify statistically significant trends only on a corps-wide basis, but not at the technology center, art unit, or examiner levels. We are working to unify the review process for all reviewers and systematically record the same and all review results through an online form, called the “master review form,” which we intend to share with the public.
What are the implications of this new process and new form? This new process will give us the ability to collect and analyze a much greater volume of data from reviews that we were already doing, but that were not previously captured in a centralized, unified way. As we roll out this new review process the amount of data we collect will significantly increase anywhere from three to five times. This will allow us to use big data analytic techniques to identify more detailed trends across the agency based upon statistically significant data including at the technology center, art unit, and even examiner levels. Also, this new process will give us better insight into not just whether the law was applied correctly, but whether the reasons for an examiner’s actions were spelled out in the record clearly and whether there is an omission of a certain type of rejection. For example, for an obvious rejection we are considering not only whether a proper obvious rejection was made, but whether the elements identified in the prior art were mapped onto the claims, whether there are statements in the record explaining the rejection, and whether those statements are clear.
The end result will be the (1) ability to provide more targeted and relevant training to our examiners with much greater precision, (2) increased consistency in work product across the entire examination corps, and (3) greater transparency in how the USPTO evaluates examiners’ work product. You can read more about these and our many other initiatives, such as our Automated Pre-examination Search pilot and Post Grant Outcomes, which incorporates insight from our Patent Trial and Appeal Board and other proceedings back into the examination process on our new Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative page on our website.
Finally, let me close by emphasizing that our Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative is not a “one-and-done” effort. Coming from the private sector, I know that any company that produces a truly top quality product has focused on quality for years, if not decades. The USPTO is committed to no less. The programs presented here are just a start. My goal in establishing a brand new department within the USPTO was to focus exclusively on patent quality and the newly created executive level position of Deputy Commissioner for Patent Quality will ensure enhanced quality now, and into the future. With your input we intend to identify additional ways we can enhance patent quality as defined by our patent quality pillars of excellence in work products, excellence in measuring patent quality, and excellence in customer service.
To that end, we will continue our stakeholder outreach and feedback collection efforts in various ways, such as our monthly Patent Quality Chat webinars. The next Patent Quality Chat webinar on November 10 will focus on the programs presented in this blog and our other quality initiatives. I encourage you to join in regularly to our Patent Quality Chats and visit the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative page on our website for more information. The website provides recordings of previous Quality Chats as well as upcoming topics for discussion. We are eager to hear from you about our Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative, so please continue to provide your feedback to WorldClassPatentQuality@
Solving 112 issues are relatively easy.
1) For 112 6th/112-f require applicant to opt in at the time of filing if they desire claims to be read according to 112 6th/f. Don’t merely presume that they desire it. This fixes some potential 101 issues.
2) For other 112 issues, require applicant to map their claims to the spec at time of original filing and for each amendment. This is already done at the appeal stage for independent claims. This would also prevent overly broad reads of the claim based on the specification; an examiner can’t come up with wacky interpretations not supported on the specification to just reject the claims.
Feel silly replying to myself.
If the examiner doesn’t know the art, they can’t really make a proper 112 enablement rejection either. That is a bit more of a problem to solve on the office’s part since they have given more time to examiners on 112 training, than they have on technical training.
If practitioners want better rejections and better examination they need to get the office to either hire better examiners, or better train examiners on the technology they examine.
abcdefg,
Why would you put the onus on the practitioners….?
The practitioners already pay for a full complete and accurate examination.
Well all these 112 issues indicate that they are not getting a full and complete examination. We can do all sorts of hand wringing about the office, or not enough time or sillyness like that, or we can do something relatively easy to solve the problem. Applicant should know exactly which portions of the spec they are referring to when drafting the claims, and mapping the claims out this way should work to their favour by colouring the examiners mind when interpreting the claims.
Compact prosecution should really be a two way street, though the MPEP makes it largely seem the domain of the examiner. On the otherhand, no one really wins with an overly broad read of the claims during examination.
abcdefg,
Your point is a good one.
But notwithstanding what might be “best practices” (which your point speaks to), my point still stands.
This is just NOT something that can be “forced” onto applicants. It is just not something that is the responsibility of applicants. To force this, is to lose the chance to enforce ACCOUNTABILITY on the Office.
So, politely, your counter is null to the larger point.
May I also suggest that you refresh yourself concerning the Tafas case, as your “logic” applied there would have also given an “easy” – but incorrect solution.
#2 is a great idea.
I also think the office should reinvigorate the best mode requirement. A huge problem is that us examiners waste a lot of time trying to guess at the “inventive concept” leading to irrelevant searching and wasted time.
If I could know what the best mode is upfront, it would save me a lot of time.
“I also think the office should reinvigorate the best mode requirement.”
It was never “invigorated” in the first place. And with good reason.
“A huge problem is that us examiners waste a lot of time trying to guess at the ‘inventive concept leading to irrelevant searching and wasted time.”
Why are you “guessing” at the “inventive concept”? Wouldn’t it just be easier to examine the claims for enablement, written description support, clarity, definiteness, novelty, and non-obviousness?
“If I could know what the best mode is upfront, it would save me a lot of time.”
How? Why?
The problem is when applicants ammend a broad set of claims in an unexpected direction after a first action. The initial art may now be useless, and the office does not provide time for a new on-point search. If an examiner can identify the true inventive concept, the search is more likely to be applicable to the final rejection.
Alexander, you have identified why compact prosecution does not work well. I operates on an assumption that the claims are well drafted, and that dependent claims have the necessary additional limitations to overcome unexpected prior art. But, as we all know, most times the first action/response can be simply about clarifying the claims.
This is why, I think, every examination should have two searches and two non final actions.
This, I think, will lead to an overall better examination and better patents.
Ned, that sounds like a great idea. I particularly like how it would necessarily mean more examination time but would not be a blank check to examiners since they would owe applicants another action. The end of first-then-final could also improve relations between examiners and attorneys.
Alexander –
In cases where the amendments are in an unexpected direction, I would guess that 9 times out of 10 you understood quite well what the inventor thought he invented. The unexpected direction is what ever is left after you found pretty good art.
That’s very nice Les. I have inklings about 3/5 attorneys, but I keep them to myself because its rude to call people out when I have absolutely no evidence.
“The problem is when applicants amend a broad set of claims in an unexpected direction after a first action.”
Examiners are supposed to read the application and get an understanding of what applicants claim, and may claim. See MPEP section whatever. I’m too lazy to look it up right now. It’s in chapter 900 somewhere.
“The initial art may now be useless, and the office does not provide time for a new on-point search.”
Again, the first search is supposed to be inclusive. That pesky MPEP thing again.
“If an examiner can identify the true inventive concept, the search is more likely to be applicable to the final rejection.”
Well, the reason the art for the FOAM may be “useless” is because 1) the examiners don’t read the application and 2) they don’t know how to search. The examiners dump some words from the first claim into the search box, take the first reference or first couple/few references and ask themselves, “Gee, what ridiculous interpretation of the claims can I come up with to make this art fit?”
Stop doing that, do the job the way the MPEP instructs, and most (all?) of those “problems” will be solved.
You’re pretty smug for a guy who just said “wouldn’t it just be easier to examine the claims, for enablement, written description support, clarity, definiteness, novelty, and non-obviousness”.
With your new opinion, topce is correct: time is wasted when the examiner has to search A+B+(C or D or … Z) when the applicant is really interested in only ABF or ABG.
“You’re pretty smug for a guy who just said ‘wouldn’t it just be easier to examine the claims, for enablement, written description support, clarity, definiteness, novelty, and non-obviousness’.”
Smug? All of those issues are well defined and have pretty precise requirements for the examiner to make his/her case. If you think it’s so hard you should be thankful you’re at the PTO, because you’d never make it anywhere else.
“With your new opinion, topce is correct: time is wasted when the examiner has to search A+B+(C or D or … Z) when the applicant is really interested in only ABF or ABG.”
How much time does it take to put some new search terms in the box, hit “Enter” and then do the same exercise of shoe horning whatever references pop up in the search list on the amended claims? That’s what examiners do. You know it. I know it. You know I know it. Who you kidding?
Cheer up.
I’m in a great mood. Just wrote a reply to a typical lame restriction requirement and added a whole bunch of new dependent claims to the elected group for the examiner to search. I’m sure he’ll figure out that he should have just examined the original 20 claims (which were basically just the same 6 or 7 claims written as method/apparatus/system claims). Now he’s going to be searching for 13 new features, in addition to the original 6 or 7.
Have fun!
Yeah that practice should probably be banned. Still, at least this way he doesn’t have to extend the search to either of the method/apparatus/system subclasses. More features, meh, thousands more refs, eh that’s a bigger problem.
Which practice? Lame brained, lazy, improper restriction requirements?
I agree whole heartedly.
Thanks for the laugh. Been missing them. Where you been?
“You’re pretty smug”
Wrong word.
There is nothing “smug” about properly pointing out what you should already know.
You are REQUIRED to read – and understand – the specification in its entirety, and be able to search a priori the possible amendments.
At the onset, you have EVERYTHING possible the applicant could ever have – right in front of you.
“I’m in a great mood. Just wrote a reply to a typical lame restriction requirement and added a whole bunch of new dependent claims to the elected group for the examiner to search. I’m sure he’ll figure out that he should have just examined the original 20 claims (which were basically just the same 6 or 7 claims written as method/apparatus/system claims). Now he’s going to be searching for 13 new features, in addition to the original 6 or 7.
Have fun!”
Ladies and gentleman… the problem with the patent system embodied in one human being.
What’s the problem?
You are being pretty vocal about how you enjoy ruining an examiner’s day. You could have requested an interview and worked with the examiner. Why did you choose not to do so?
You want me to conduct an interview over a restriction requirement? And what was going to be the result of such an interview? I’m obligated to respond in writing, which is what the examiner would have said (“Well, just put your arguments in writing and file it and I’ll consider it.”). Great suggestion.
It’s not about ruining the examiner’s day. It’s about letting the examiner know that the usual shenanigans they get away with with the “we want to work with the examiner” and/or “we don’t want to get on the examiner’s bad side” crowd won’t work with me. I paid for an examination of twenty claims. And like I said, there’s really only about 6-7 original claims worth of stuff being claimed, and the other claims are just rewritten versions of those as method and system claims. So instead of giving me what I paid for, and despite the fact that the claims are just basically the same things with different preambles, the examiner decides to try to take the lazy route with a restriction.
That’s not going to work with me. I paid for an examination of 20 claims, and that’s what I’m going to get. The examiner can do it the easy way, just like I originally filed, by examining the same 6-7 claims just rewritten twice as method and system claims, or the examiner can do it the hard way by sending a restriction requirement an giving me the opportunity to review the case once more before examination and put in every single possible disclosed but unclaimed feature. It’s the examiner’s choice. Don’t blame me because the examiner chose poorly.
And you’d think they’d learn from this experience. But they don’t. I get the same lame brained, lazy, improper restrictions from the same examiners over and over and over. And I do the exact same thing to them. Over and over and over.
Unlike Vince for the ShamWow, I can do this all day.
“ ruining an examiner’s day”
You are blaming the wrong person.
Again.
One thing they could do is redraft the MPEP section (800?) concerning restrictions. I personally find that section unreadable. It’s not logical to be able to restrict method and apparatus claims that are basically the same (or receiver and transmitter claims that are basically the same), but the MPEP is so poorly written that it appears you can restrict claims for seemingly no reason. Just say it’s a “combination/subcombination” or use some other nonsense, and you can restrict anything. And if you do restrict claims, refund the money for doing less work (assuming you paid for more than 20/3).
Restriction practice is an abomination.
Note those here that “glory” in KSR are also likely the ones to defend the Office practice on restrictions.
The two are simply incompatible, and it only shows a lack of ethics for someone to want both (and want it, with little doubt, because of laziness).
You guys deserve each other on the basis of exaggeration and lack of empathy.
As you’ve so ably demonstrated, you’re clearly so above all this. Congratulations.
Exactly right, AAA JJ.
Bet you though that he does not recognize his own hypocrisy.
No worries, he’s just testing out 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2)(i).
I’m sympathetic to this problem.
On the practitioner side, I occasionally receive a patent application drafted by another firm, and am asked to see what I can do to move it through prosecution. I look at the claims and see: “A method comprising: A, B, and C” … nothing stands out as the point of novelty. I look at the specification and see: “Figure is a flowchart showing: A, B, and C.” Full stop. In order to figure out what I should focus on, I sometimes have to go back to the original disclosure document.
I don’t write my cases that way. Every application I’ve ever written goes:
This same narrative story is retold in the abstract, and in the background-plus-brief-summary. I can’t imagine how I could better characterize the point of novelty, in a plain and readable way.
And yet, probably 50% of the first office actions I receive cite art that has nothing to do with (X) – indeed, often, the art simply recites: (ABC). It usually takes until the second round of examination for examiners to cite art that’s even relevant to (AXC) – and, in a small but significant set of cases, it takes a pre-appeal brief.
Why does this happen? Are these examiners so accustomed to bad specifications that they don’t even bother reading them any more? Do they just flip right to the claims, and try to guess at what’s new?
On the practitioner side, I occasionally receive a patent application drafted by another firm, and am asked to see what I can do to move it through prosecution. I look at the claims and see: “A method comprising: A, B, and C” … nothing stands out as the point of novelty. I look at the specification and see: “Figure is a flowchart showing: A, B, and C.” Full stop. In order to figure out what I should focus on, I sometimes have to go back to the original disclosure document.
I don’t write my cases that way. Every application I’ve ever written goes:
Despite this structure, about 50% of the first office actions I receive cite art that has nothing to do with (Q) – indeed, often, the art simply recites: (ABC). It usually takes until the second round of examination for examiners to cite art that’s even relevant to (AQC) – and, in a small but significant set of cases, it takes a pre-appeal brief.
Why does this happen? Are these examiners so accustomed to bad specifications that they don’t even bother reading them any more? Do they just flip right to the claims, and try to guess at what’s new?
David, may I suggest you review In re Morris. Our spec showed the prior art, discussed its problems, provided a solution. We called the solution X, and claimed X.
Despite that, the examiner construed X to read on the very prior art that we had said was insufficient. That was sustained on appeal by the Federal Circuit.
If you wonder why I am no fan of BRI, Morris is the reason.
I’ve had several similar cases, Ned – including one before the PTAB where the examiner has just characterized the central point of our invention as “obvious” over the conventional technique, citing a reference that only shows the conventional technique.
It’s a blatant effort to flush the application down the drain just because the examiner doesn’t like it. It is far outside the bounds of what examiners are allowed to do – and yet, the PTAB is such a roll of the dice that I’m not confident they will do the right thing.
Ned,
You and your (anti-software) pal blew the Morris case.
You have no one to blame but yourself.
anon, I am not going to blame Stern. I blame myself.
Sadly Ned, you appear to have not learned your lesson from that case.
Granted, most examiners do not look at the specification.
However…
Your ABC/AQC sounds like a problem of claiming. It shouldn’t be necessary to read the specification for the claims to differentiate ABC and AQC. Furthermore, why would the examiner even search for or report on ABC if she hadn’t read the specification and you claimed AQC? Knowing absolutely nothing else, it sounds like you didn’t sufficiently claim Q.
Frankly, in many of these cases, the examiners simply do not understand the technology area – not even at a fundamental level.
I had an examiner confuse the concepts of:
(a) Partitioning a query into sub-queries, each applying a subset of the logical operations in a sequence, and applying each sub-query in the sequence to the database; and
(b) Partitioning the database into subsets and applying the entire query to each subset.
This examiner regarded everything involving the terms “partition” and “database,” used in proximity with each other, as basically the same thing.
I had an examiner confuse the concepts of:
(a) Polling a data set at a certain frequency, such as querying the database once every 10 seconds for updates; and
(b) Communicating with the database server at a certain radiofrequency.
The case had nothing to do with wireless technology of any sort: this examiner simply had a background in EE / RF communication, and had been assigned a complicated invention in the field of databases.
I had an examiner confuse the concepts of:
(a) Compressing a data set into compressed-size blocks and recording the variable size of the compressed block; and
(b) Recording a hashcode for each fixed-size chunk of a data set (e.g., each 1kb sequential block of data). Nothing in the reference mentioned compression for any reason.
There is no justification for these fundamental errors. No one with a passing familiarity with computers should confuse a claim calling out (a) in pretty straightforward language, with a reference teaching (b).
“Granted, most examiners do not look at the specification.
However…”
However WHAT?
How about you do your Fn job?
A lot of the time yes, unfortunately.
How long are your specs normally if you don’t mind me asking?
Also, how broadly do you normally claim Q? A lot of the time, B will read on Q through BRI.
The parts of the specification that recite the problem and solution are maybe five pages. They’re pretty readable – light on boilerplate, using ordinary terminology in the technical field, and coordinated with a diagram showing a step-by-step interaction. It’s not like the examiner would need to blow six hours reading 30 pages of disclosure to understand it.
You seem like you have a lot of bad luck toward getting competent examiners. If this is all true, I sincerely feel bad for you.
My dear topce,
Your rampant mistakes as to patent law here on the blog paint you as not of those competent examiners.
And as much as I criticize certain examiners, I do deal with capable and competent ones.
Those, though, tend not to get the law so very wrong on blogs.
(and that’s not a coincidence)
There is definitely a problem of perception here.
Good examiners tend to generalize their mindset to all examiners. And they interact with the full spectrum of practitioners – good and bad (and there are more bad than good) – so they tend to have a lower opinion of the average practitioner.
By the same token: Good practitioners tend to generalize their mindset to all practitioners. And they interact with the full spectrum of examiners – good and bad (and there are more bad than good) – so they tend to have a lower opinion of the average examiner.
I have certainly encountered good examiners: diligent, technically well-informed, eager to explain, eager to listen, eager to admit their mistakes but also eager to call out my errors. I try my best to give these examiners kudos: I thank them for their work, note them to their supervisors and to my clients – I even posted a few positive reviews on ExaminerWatchdog when that was a thing.
But there are so, so many bad examiners out there… we can’t just dismiss them as an anomaly. PTO administration is doing nothing to identify and weed out these people. It is doing everyone a disservice by allowing bad examiners to do shoddy work without penalty, keep their jobs, and drag down the standard of examination.
It is more than just a question of perception, David.
Yes it is true that there are “bad practitioners.”
But those “bad practitioners” do not make it a habit to come onto a legal blog and share just how bad they are.
And yet, as I pointed out, that is EXACTLY the case with the rather large majority of examiners that post here.
I know that there are one or two that post thoughtfully and are willing to actually acknowledge the law (or who post with full knowledge of the law and express themselves well as expressing how they want the law to be different – without pretending that the law already is how they would like it to be).
But look at what we have: dross. Not only that, but they are proud of their dross and celebrate the b@n@l rants of Malcolm and other anti-patentists.
There be a VERY clear difference there.
…and on top of that, when the subject RIGHTFULLY comes up on improving examination, they are the very first to attempt to shuck their responsibilities and blame applicants.
There is a single word missing from the Office and its examiners that is at the core of the problem: ACCOUNTABILITY.
Get that in the examining corp and you will see the problems disappear.
Guaranteed.
That’s beyond question at this point. The OIG Report provides overwhelming evidence that anything goes at the PTO:
These metrics speak for themselves – they are indefensible.
Gaaaaah
It’s worse than I thought.
Maybe someone should inform Miss Lee.
The Statute already requires the Applicant to opt in. One opts in by using the phrase “means for” or “step for.” Its the courts that have muddied the water.
abcef’ng, I second your motion.
I am now including all my specs a statement to the effect that I do not intend any claim to be governed by 112(f) unless it uses “means for” in the claim.
It also used to be standard operating procedure at Seagate to require its applications to include a set of “claims” with reference numerals in the summary of the invention section in order that such “claims” might be copied for PCT-application purposes. This actually is pretty good practice for anybody writing an application the United States today. So, making the requirement in the rules would actually help most Americans write claims that could be used in the PCT applications and also educate anyone unfamiliar with the application where the various claim elements are supported.
Boilerplate has its place.
Mindless “do always” boilerplate….
…not so much.
PTO management acts like the majority of the PTO’s examiners are diligently and competently working in good faith to make accurate assessments of patentability. Applicants routinely subjected to the examiners’ near-gibberish articulations of obviousness, etc., know otherwise.
“PTO management acts like the majority of the PTO’s examiners are diligently and competently working in good faith to make accurate assessments of patentability.”
This of course is the fault of us examiners and not the count system or management.
Do you know how much time we get to respond to your arguments? Just take a guess.
“Do you know how much time we get to respond to your arguments? Just take a guess.”
Not
My
Problem
Stop trying to make your problem into someone else’s.
Not my problem either. Management should give us more time or impose page limits.
Also everyone in the system has skin in the game. You can repeat that it isn’t your problem over and over but it really is partly your responsibility to, for example, not write 50 pages of arguments.
If your 20 page office action includes 20 103 rejections that are each wrong three different ways : 1 ref one doesn’t show what you say it shows, ref 2 doesn’t say what it shows and there was no motivation to combine, and oh by the way, to apply ref 1 you need the provisional date and the provisional (which you didn’t even glance at) doesn’t even support the paragraphs you cited, I’m gonna need a coupla pages to address each rejection.
I don’t wanna. You made me.
Seems like you had an incompetent examiner. Sorry to hear.
Do you need a shoulder to cry on before you address widespread practices instead of special cases?
If it were a special case, I wouldn’t have mentioned it. It’s typical.
…and if you are receiving 50 page responses….
That is every case? I sincerely doubt it. Most of my arguments are 10 pages are less. The rare 50 pagers seem to go on and on about nonsense and are totally off point. The writing is horrid in most of them.
Well….its the majority of cases. For example, I have a 19 page Final on my desk now.
Claim 1 was previously rejected in view of a combination of 3 documents, none of which were actually prior art on their own. All required reliance on provisional applications for an early enough date. All claimed priority to multiple provisionals. None of the rejections cited support in the provisionals. I reviewed all of the provisionals and traversed the rejections based on lack of support in both the cited documents and the provisionals.
The examiner continues to cite document 1 but dropped documents 2 and 3 in favor of documents 4 and 5. With regard to document 1 he is at least citing the provisionals for support of SOME, but not all, of the of the cited paragraphs. The new grounds of rejection were clearly required by the fact that documents 2 and 3 were not actually prior art. Nevertheless, the OA declares that the new grounds were required by the minor amendments to the claims.
So, I’m going to have to burn pages and time traversing the finality, then traversing the rejections…..
If you’re writing “pages” to traverse the propriety of the finality, you’re doing it wrong.
Just saying. 🙂
I’d be more accepting of this argument if I didn’t regularly see office actions that couldn’t have taken more than 60 seconds to prepare.
Non-Final Office Action:
Final Office Action:
How many hours were allotted to the examiner for that?
Probably about 1 if a primary.
I’m skeptical that is what actually went down though but if it did, that is awful and I am sincerely sorry that that happened to you. That is quite frankly, a B$ rejection.
“I’m skeptical that is what actually went down though”
Why? because you think yourself to be so awesome….?
You really need to get a c1ue.
Ugh more of the same from management.
Just trying to make it appear they are changing things all while things stay the same.