<div dir="ltr">The definition of "new ground" at MPEP
<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"><b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1207.html#d0e125671" target="_blank">§ 1207.03</a><span style="font-weight:normal"></span></b></span> is remarkably underinclusive. See <a href="https://www.u">https://www.u</a><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><font size="2"><a href="http://spto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/comments/ieee_20130204.pdf">spto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/comments/ieee_20130204.pdf</a> <span> for a more-complete work-up.</span></font></span>
</div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 3:51\u202fPM Alan Taboada 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="msg-6559885053487300635">
<div lang="EN-US" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="m_-6559885053487300635WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">According to what I see in the MPEP sections Roger cited to:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">MPEP 706.07(h)(VIII)<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">VIII. FIRST ACTION FINAL AFTER FILING AN RCE</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">The action immediately subsequent to the filing of an RCE with a submission and fee under
<b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9020-appx-r.html#d0e322625" target="_blank">37 CFR 1.114</a><span style="font-weight:normal"> may be made final only if the conditions set forth in
</span><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s706.html#d0e69408" target="_blank">MPEP § 706.07(b)</a><span style="font-weight:normal"> are met.
<u></u><u></u></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">It would not be proper</span></u><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"> to make final a first
Office action immediately after the filing of an RCE if the first Office action includes a new ground of rejection. See
<b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1207.html#d0e125671" target="_blank">MPEP § 1207.03</a><span style="font-weight:normal"> for a discussion of what may constitute a new ground of rejection.
<u></u><u></u></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">Form paragraph
<b><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s706.html#fp7.42.09" target="_blank">7.42.09</a><span style="font-weight:normal"> should be used if it is appropriate to make the first action after the filing of the RCE final.<u></u><u></u></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">Form paragraph 7.42.09 recites in relevant part:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the claims in the application prior to the entry
of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper)
</span><b><i><u><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:red">and</span></u></i></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"> all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of
record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">In my experience the fight is typically whether \u201c</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">all
claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">\u201d<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)">Roger states \u201cthe amendment clearly presented new issues\u201d, but does the office action raise new issues or merely reject the amended
claims using the same art and grounds as in the prior office action?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(14,40,65)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(225,225,225) currentcolor currentcolor;padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>David Boundy via Patentpractice<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, March 6, 2025 3:34 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> David Boundy <<a href="mailto:PatentProcedure@gmail.com" target="_blank">PatentProcedure@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Patentpractice] Question about First Action Final after RCE<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I had this once about 20 years ago. I talked to (I think it was Magdalen Greenlief, then the editor of the MPEP.) She said "Yup, that's what it means." I asked about futility and the like. She said "No we want you to file the amendment."
(No, we want your extension fees. Forward progress is not the PTO's business model. I didn't say that. That was back before I became totally cynical--but I guess it was a major factor in getting me to think that way.) But this section of the MPEP has been
revised about 3-4-5 years ago -- it might be different now.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 2:56<span style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">\u202f</span>PM Roger Browdy via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;border-style:none none none solid;border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">The RCE procedure (as explained in the MPEP) is strange as it provides that an examiner cannot make the next action final if an amendment after final was not entered by means of
an Advisory Action. See MPEP 706.07(b), 4<sup>th</sup> paragraph. However, if the RCE is filed on the same day as the amendment after final, for example, and an Advisory Action was never issued, the examiner can make the next action final, even though the
amendment clearly presented new issues so that it would never have been entered had an advisory action been issued. The literal language of the MPEP permits this (see MPEP 706.07(h)(VIII) and form paragraph 7.42.09). On the other hand, I know that many examiners
and supervisors interpret it differently and would never make the next action final if the amendment clearly raised new issues, even if no advisory action had been issued refusing entry and even though after-final practice would technically permit it.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am filing a petition to withdraw finality in such a case, but I would like any input from anyone who may have filed such a petition in the past or otherwise has any insight into
the issue of whether the PTO policy is to make such after-RCE actions final or not. I have seen blogs where some have said that the action cannot be made final if the response raises new arguments on patentability. But this is not what MPEP 706-07(b) says,
which MPEP 706.07(h)(VIII) says should be applied in such a situation.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Roger L. Browdy</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">Partner </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:7.5pt"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:rgb(23,71,158)">_____________________________________________ </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:rgb(23,71,158)">FisherBroyles, LLP</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:rgb(23,71,158)">direct: +1 202-277-5198</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:rgb(23,71,158)"><a href="mailto:roger.browdy@fisherbroyles.com" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(70,120,134)">roger.browdy@fisherbroyles.com</span></a></span></u><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://link.edgepilot.com/s/5952be9f/5uYE2we9k0iO_KZ9ZeZHvQ?u=http://www.fisherbroyles.com/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:rgb(23,71,158)">https://link.edgepilot.com/s/5952be9f/5uYE2we9k0iO_KZ9ZeZHvQ?u=http://www.fisherbroyles.com/</span></a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:rgb(23,71,158)"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:rgb(23,71,158)">The information contained in this e-mail message is only for the personal and confidential use of
the intended recipient(s). If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.</span><span style="color:rgb(14,40,65)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</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><div><br clear="all"></div><br><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:10pt"><font size="2"><b><span><span><span><span><span><span><span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></b></font></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,127,160);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:12px"><font size="2"><b><a border="0" href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" style="color:rgb(102,127,160);text-decoration:none;outline:none;background:transparent 0px 0px" target="_blank"><img alt="" height="92" width="73" src="https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/mail-sig/AIorK4wRMgBgcdZCqTw68Gg6ihENvW6_y8dGBqYvnJwiaIyu6LO5a7IJ-cljKsueIE5uxXbT6s9MN5hE2lGU"> <img alt="Cambridge Technology Law LLC" src="https://s3.amazonaws.com/keynectup/PROFILE/9b92f0cd-ecec-44c8-8932-60e8dc63709f/thumbnail.jpg?1455027242552" style="border-width: 0px; border-style: none; border-color: currentcolor; outline: 0px;" height="96" border="0" width="96"><br></a></b></font></p><font size="2"><b>
</b><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">Listed as one of the world's 300 leading intellectual property
strategists</span></a></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><span style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none">
</span><a href="http://ssrn.com/author=2936470" target="_blank">Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470</a><a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext"><br></span></a></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><a href="https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?" target="_blank"><span style="color:windowtext">Click here to add me to your
contacts.</span></a></p><b>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="font-weight:700"></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="color:rgb(0,0,255)"><a href="https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight:700">David Boundy</span></a></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span style="font-weight:700"></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span></span></span></p></b></font><p></p>
<p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span><a href="mailto:dboundy@cambridgetechlaw.com" target="_blank">DBoundy@cambridgetechlaw.com</a> / <a href="tel:%2B1%206464729737" value="+16464729737" target="_blank">+1 646.472.9737</a></span></span></p><p style="margin:0px 0px 10px;color:rgb(102,102,102);font-family:"Open Sans",sans-serif,Arial;font-size:14px"><span><span><span style="font-weight:700">Cambridge Technology Law LLC</span></span><br>686 Massachusetts Avenue #201, Cambridge MA 02139<br><a href="http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com" target="_blank">http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com</a><br><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy" target="_blank">http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy</a><br></span></p>mailing address<div>PO Box 590638<br></div><div>Newton MA 02459<br></div></div></div><font size="1"><span style="line-height:150%;font-family:"Times New Roman""><br>This communication is
a confidential attorney-client communication intended only for the person named above or an authorized representative.<span> </span>Any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited, whether by the author or recipients.<span> </span>Any legal, business or tax information
contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not
intended as a thorough, in-depth analysis of specific issues, nor a substitute
for a formal opinion, nor is it sufficient to avoid legal or other adverse
consequences to the recipient. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to
receive for the addressee), you may not copy, use, disclose or distribute this
communication or attribute to the Firm any information contained in this
communication. If you have received this communication in error, please advise
the sender by replying to this message or by telephone, and then promptly
delete it.</span></font></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>