<img width="1" height="1" src='https://gcfagjf.r.af.d.sendibt2.com/tr/op/j-pjB0M7s4yRKK20Czlur2tqZkk7CGn0c02UTibHFQii0HmKtrKnfw0v4zDDCFO4mOEhJfAqfI0a1ESVqYPMGvDrWAvqyPISCAqqiwKWs_kusgz8pF6taXG1yrEo1HEIg5mXDzr445StAf_WE1iHFibF5rfcO5nmhVfg9rZnIHwb4zFp-tP_exhckxLFZICOtom5mjwPaiLejGxYVxyg76XnIHOVEr-KJWQB' /><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>How are they making OTDP rejections using prior art? Such rejections are to be based on comparison of <i>claims</i>. Sounds like this examiner doesn't understand how OTDP works.<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 7:20\u202fPM Katherine Koenig via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="msg8201946679227723651">
<div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="m_8201946679227723651WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Happy holidays, everyone! <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I\u2019ve been seeing an increase in obviousness-type double patenting rejections. This was confirmed during an interview with an Examiner last week, who said the internal guidance/training they\u2019ve been receiving is to issue them wherever possible,
even if it\u2019s a stretch. It seems the policy reason is to reduce the occurrence/size of patent families. It\u2019s frustrating that this is the motivation and outcome we\u2019re seeing. I understand the policy of not extending patent term for the same (or a truly
obvious) invention, but in one case an OTDP rejection was issued in light of applicant\u2019s unrelated, older patent that had absolutely nothing to do with the current application. The rejection was cobbled together with the applicant\u2019s application + 2 prior
art references, which also had nothing to do with the current invention, but each disclosed the use of one of the ingredients in the invention. The Examiner didn\u2019t agree with non-analogous art or motivation to combine arguments, and we\u2019re stuck trying to
argue over our own reference or accept a patent term that would expire in 2029.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I\u2019ve seen some of David Boundy\u2019s very helpful discussions about OTDP rejections (thank you, David!), but am still having trouble coming up with a solution when the Examiners are instructed to make the refusal. Has anyone seen a similar
trend, and have you had any luck in overcoming? <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Corbel",sans-serif;color:black">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Corbel",sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Corbel",sans-serif;color:black">Katherine<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Corbel",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><br>
</p></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div>