5 thoughts on “Around the Horn: Continuation Rule Changes

  1. 4

    David French writes:

    This initiative is a continuation of the policy to cut-down multiple exchanges between examiner’s and applicants. The USPTO once allowed multiple office actions before final, a procedure which is still available in Canada. Then, in the 1960s, I believe, the USPTO adopted the policy of making a second examiner’s office action final. That is the source of the problem. The objective was to cut-off debate and force applicants to get-it-right when they respond to the first office action.

    I think the answer is to file an appeal and to file a continuation at the same time. That will get the examiner’s attention and soon you will see many final office actions being withdrawn from final status.

  2. 2

    BabelBoy, check the last nine pages of the 129-page pdf file linked in the Final Rule post.

  3. 1

    Yo, can someone point me to the actual language of the new rules — as in, 37 CFR 1.75(d), 1.75(f), etc.? The Registrar appears to only give the PTO spin on the rules in 3 sections: Background, Discussion, and Comments. Where are the actual rules?


    Babel Boy

Comments are closed.