<div dir="ltr"><div>Given the chaos ensuing at the USPTO, I would file an RCE. Its less work than an appeal. If you go the appeal route, file the appeal brief which will take the examiner a year to respond to. Either way you are looking at a big delay but I would not expect any timely responses from the USPTO in the near future at least. I like the Federal Court suggestion too, but that's a lot more work and money. <br></div><div><br></div><div><br clear="all"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Andrew H. Berks, Ph.D., J.D.</div><div>Patent Attorney</div>Rivkin Radler LLP</div><div><a href="mailto:andrew.berks@rivkin.com">andrew.berks@rivkin.com</a><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 12:26\u202fPM steve--- 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="msg2527189747322578864"><div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div class="m_4879924456441675972WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">Dear Group:<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">I ask your advice, both consensus and obscure, regarding action based on the below. I am tending toward a Notice of Appeal, preappeal conference request, and usurious extension of time. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">The subject case had a Final office action issued 7/26/2024. On 9/26/2024, I filed both an after final response and a petition to withdraw finality. An advisory action was issued 10/1/2024, and a Petition Decision was mail 10/23/2024. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">The petition was filed because a dependent claim was amended after non-final rejection, and the Examiner in the final rejection did not actually consider the effect of the amendment. This became critical when that same dependent claim was sought to be added to the independent claim.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">A Request for Reconsideration of the dismissal of the Petition was filed 10/24/2024. In this request for rehearing, a key sentence was \u201cWhile the issues of the claim admittedly changed, and the Examiner withdrew the prior rejections of claims 1-20, the final rejection did not, other than parroting the claim language, actually consider and analyze the differences in claim 4 before and after the amendment.\u201d The conclusion states:<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in;text-indent:0.5in">Given that the language of the rejection explicitly fails to support the rejection, it is disingenuous for the Director to state \u201cAs detailed above, the limitation of claim 4 reciting \u2018wherein at least two of the plurality of wearable or implantable sensors sense the same physiological condition\u2019 was <b><i>discussed</i></b> by the examiner as being taught in Khachaturian in the Final Office action dated 26 July 2024 in the second paragraph on page 5.\u201d While the issue may have been nominally \u201cdiscussed\u201d, that is not the threshold required to sustain a final rejection according to 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) (\u201c\u2026\u201d) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.104 (\u201c\u2026\u201d).<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">The request for rehearing was routed to the Office of Petitions, and based on a discussion, has not even been docketed to a petitions examiner, with the statutory deadline looming this week. There is thus no possibility that the petition will be decided before expiration of the statutory period. <u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Meanwhile, since filing of the request for reconsideration, the Examiner tells me that she is prohibited from acting on my outstanding second submission after final rejection with a timely filed AFCP 2.0 request, due to a policy that stays all other USPTO action until the petition is decided.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Suggestions for action?<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Very truly yours,</span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Steven M. Hoffberg<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">Hoffberg & Associates<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">29 Buckout Road<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">West Harrison, NY 10604<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">(914) 949-2300 tel<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">(845) 625-2547 fax<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="mailto:steve@hoffberglaw.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">steve@hoffberglaw.com</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/hoffberg/" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">https://www.linkedin.com/in/hoffberg/</span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black;background:white">Emails and attachments received from us may be confidential and/or protected by the attorney-client privilege, as attorney work-product or based on other privileges or provisions of law. If you are not designated as an intended recipient of this email, do not read, copy, use, forward or disclose the email or any of its attachments to others. Instead, immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system. We strictly prohibit any unauthorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of emails or attachments sent by us to other than the intended recipient.</span><span style="color:black"> This communication does not create any legal obligations on behalf of the sender, unless executed in a manner indicating an intent to be bound.</span><span><u></u><u></u></span></p></div></div></div>-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</div></blockquote></div>