<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>At the risk of stating the obvious, what happens when an RCE is
filed is that the Examiner is given a sizeable gift -- 1.8
counts. I do think there are some Examiners that somehow respond
in a way to being given that many counts all at once.</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/12/2025 3:24 PM, Roger Browdy via
Patentpractice wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CO6PR04MB83961EAFBF34A32679AE84649C08A@CO6PR04MB8396.namprd04.prod.outlook.com">
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Justin,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have had success with petitions to
withdraw finality, particularly when my arguments fall within
the requirements of the MPEP, i.e., the new rejection was
clearly not necessitated by the amendments.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In cases like this, you certainly should
decide how to respond and perhaps have an interview with the
examiner. But any amendments to overcome the prior art will
almost certainly result in the necessity of filing an RCE. I
don\u2019t understand the appeal or abandon mentality. If claims
have not been amended or evidence considered, RCE is the route
you must take to put the case in better form for appeal.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>Roger L. Browdy</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Partner </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>_____________________________________________ </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>FisherBroyles, LLP</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>direct: +1 202-277-5198</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span><a
href="mailto:roger.browdy@fisherbroyles.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>roger.browdy@fisherbroyles.com</span></a></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a
href="http://www.fisherbroyles.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span>www.fisherbroyles.com</span></a></span><u><span></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span>From:</span></b><span>
Patentpractice
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com"><patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Justin Miller via Patentpractice<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 12, 2025 2:22 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> For patent practitioners. This is not for
laypersons to seek legal advice.
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com"><patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Justin Miller
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:justin@distinctpatentlaw.com"><justin@distinctpatentlaw.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [External Sender][Patentpractice] Office
action made final despite new grounds of rejection</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>All,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>I am working on a utility
patent application for a medical device. Received a
first office action with prior art rejections. I made
minor claim amendments, had an interview with the
examiner, who stated that the application appeared
allowable.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>But I just received a final
office action based on new prior art references.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>In the final office action, the
examiner states that the action is properly final
because the new grounds of rejection were necessitated
by the amendments. That seems to be a stretch to me.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Has anyone had any luck
contesting finality? I have read
<a
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mpep.uspto.gov_RDMS_MPEP_current-23_current_d0e69118.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=7yDyUE5lzuruhwIvS68v9eFQKnrJuSrXb1MxDfvR_V8&m=jKQ2QYx46wVv-Df3pfjF7FfFEKhyNC37_wS0Gf0yVuqV-1gNZoD9jFZqliWr4FHX&s=00GtQ3kEip7Dup5mBRdOJOwd-6_gkj4ea-wlo8So9Fw&e="
moz-do-not-send="true">
MPEP 706.07(a)</a>, but it seems unclear as to when
the new ground of rejection is "necessitated by
applicant\u2019s amendment of the claims".</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>My suspicion is that while it
is possible to fight the finality of the office
action, it is probably cheaper to file an RCE.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>As the bonus question, I
welcome any strategies when receiving a final office
action. In my experience, when I receive two
rejections from the same examiner, given that I always
participate in an interview, it is often either time
to abandon or appeal. But given that this rejection is
substantively different I think a round of negotiation
might be helpful. Perhaps I can squeeze in another
interview before I respond.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Interesting stats (page is slow
to load):</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.bipc.com_us-2Dpatent-2Dpractice-2Dresponding-2Dto-2Dfinal-2Drejections-2Dso-2Das-2Dto-2Dminimize-2Dthe-2Dneed-2Dfor-2Drce-2Dfilings&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=7yDyUE5lzuruhwIvS68v9eFQKnrJuSrXb1MxDfvR_V8&m=jKQ2QYx46wVv-Df3pfjF7FfFEKhyNC37_wS0Gf0yVuqV-1gNZoD9jFZqliWr4FHX&s=mJZmkhzxhY4QCMoRKxQTMVBMojbAX51ZaVoSLrxm7xA&e="
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.bipc.com/us-patent-practice-responding-to-final-rejections-so-as-to-minimize-the-need-for-rce-filings</a></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thanks for reading.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Sincerely,</span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Justin P. Miller</span><span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Patent Attorney</span><span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Distinct Patent Law</span><span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><a
href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__distinctpatentlaw.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=7yDyUE5lzuruhwIvS68v9eFQKnrJuSrXb1MxDfvR_V8&m=jKQ2QYx46wVv-Df3pfjF7FfFEKhyNC37_wS0Gf0yVuqV-1gNZoD9jFZqliWr4FHX&s=XhHQin4yLav2kv5bTqBRSYKyYoiM_eu6zSbpMwyULfs&e="
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span>https://distinctpatentlaw.com/</span></a></span><span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>Office: 727.513.4590</span><span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>