<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Roboto;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Well, of course he did! If each AF response has an AFCP 2.0 Request, absent some mechanism and transparency in the PTO for validating the examiner having actually conducted the additional search and responsibly considered the amendment and response, it would seem they can simply check off and claim the credit for having addressed an AFCP 2.0 Request when in reality, all they did was simply issue an Advisory Action that took them all of 5 minutes. I recently filed 3 AFCP 2.0 Requests. Once was successful as I simply amended the claims to the give the examiner what he was looking for. The other two simply received Advisory Actions without any acknowledgement that the AFCP 2.0 Request had been made and the catch-all phrase that additional search and consideration were necessary. (I\u2019ve had that same result many times over the past several years.) I immediately filed a Further Request for Reconsideration AF in both instances requesting acknowledgement of the AFCP 2.0 and a presentation of more substantive reasons for not moving it forward, i.e., a PTOL-2323, for purposes of appeal or petition.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Ed<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jeffrey Semprebon via Patentpractice<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, April 2, 2024 2:11 PM<br><b>To:</b> For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com><br><b>Cc:</b> Jeffrey Semprebon <jesemprebon@gmail.com><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Patentpractice] Proposed patent fee changes for fiscal year 2025<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>" Moreover, participation in the program is not necessary to hold an interview after final rejection, or to have an amendment filed and entered after close of prosecution, see MPEP sections 713.09 and 714.13. An AFCP 2.0 request should be filed only when an applicant would like to file a substantive amendment after close of prosecution that may require additional time for an examiner to consider and/or search." - I've had an examiner state specifically that an AFCP 2.0 request should be filed with ANY amendment after final.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:Roboto;letter-spacing:.1pt'>-Jeff</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>