<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)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:542638208;
mso-list-template-ids:-1428018938;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\uf0b7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\uf0a7;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\uf0a7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\uf0a7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\uf0a7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\uf0a7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\uf0a7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\uf0a7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I dislike RCE\u2019s in general \u2013 the fees are a big part of the reason. But beyond that, I think that an RCE (and particularly a second RCE) is emblematic of inefficient prosecution.
My goal is to have the claims in shape for allowance by the final rejection. The way to do that is to file the application with claims that are well-drafted, in light of the known prior art, to be able to make good arguments over the expected obviousness
rejections. I still want to be aggressive, particularly with the independent claims \u2013 a first-action allowance is not what I\u2019m looking for. But I don\u2019t want to waste examination rounds trying to figure out what the actual scope of the invention should be.
Once you get that first non-final, you should have a good idea of the strength of the prior art on which the examiner will rely. At that point, I\u2019m willing to make the necessary claim amendments to overcome that art. But I\u2019d like to have the claims in such
a shape that, were the examiner to go final with the same art, I\u2019m willing to take those claims to appeal. Sometimes there is a nuance to the examiner\u2019s arguments that are only properly expressed in the final rejection, and an RCE may be necessary to make
further refinements to the claims. But in general, I like to have the claims in good enough shape by the time they are finally rejected that I am comfortable taking the arguments to the PTAB.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Quite often, if the case for patentability is well-argued in the appeal brief, the examiner will reopen prosecution anyways. Sometimes you get better rejections back, but
it will be a non-final so another opportunity to amend the claims if needed in order to overcome the art, before the examiner again goes final. Sometime it\u2019s a notice of allowance, when the examiner realizes that their arguments are not going to be convincing
to the PTAB. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><b><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#00853E;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Jeroen Valensa</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#00853E"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#7F7F7F;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Assistant General Counsel \u2013 Intellectual Property</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.aosmith.com/"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext;text-decoration:none"><img border="0" width="127" height="44" style="width:1.3229in;height:.4583in" id="Picture_x0020_4" src="cid:image001.jpg@01DC2BA6.DD728E30"></span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><br>
<b><span style="color:black">11270 W Park Place<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">Milwaukee, WI 53224</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#7F7F7F;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#7F7F7F;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">phone:
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#7F7F7F;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">414-359-4083<br>
</span><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#7F7F7F;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">mobile:
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#7F7F7F;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual">414-915-9065</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#7F7F7F;mso-ligatures:standardcontextual"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#7F7F7F">email:</span><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#00853E">
</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a href="mailto:jevalensa@aosmith.com"><span style="color:blue">jevalensa@aosmith.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces@oppedahl-lists.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Carl Oppedahl via Patentpractice<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, September 20, 2025 5:03 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> Carl Oppedahl <carl@oppedahl.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Patentpractice] RCE versus continuation?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" style="width:100.0%;border-collapse:collapse">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="4" style="width:3.0pt;border:solid black 1.0pt;border-right:none;background:#CF0000;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt">
</td>
<td style="border:solid black 1.0pt;border-left:none;background:#FFD11C;padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt">
<p><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif;color:black">This message has originated from an
<strong><span style="font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif">External Source</span></strong>. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.</span><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt 3.0pt"></td>
<td style="padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div>
<p>Hello folks. I just got done paying the fee for a second RCE in one of my clients' cases. Ouch! $2860 for a non-small entity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I then went to the trouble to add up the filing fee, search fee, and exam fee that would have been paid in an ordinary continuation. Looks like that adds up to $2000. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I note that the number 2000 is smaller than that number 2860.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Which got me thinking about the question of the subject line. RCE or continuation?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I guess in most ways the RCE is the better path despite the need for handing over more money, right?<o:p></o:p></p>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
Maybe the case has enough IDS references to be in IDS-size-penalty world. In the continuation, an IDS size penalty would need to be paid. The RCE saves having to pay that penalty.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
Maybe there are lots of excess claims in the case. The RCE saves having to pay again for the excess claims.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
For a continuation, I would have to identify and upload spec, claims, abstract, and drawings. Which among other things presents the risk that I will screw up and upload the wrong file or a wrong version of a file. The RCE eliminates risk of my screwing this
up, and saves the mouse clicks required for the uploads.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
For the continuation, to avoid the malpractice risks of DOCX filings, I would have to pay the $430 penalty. The RCE saves me from having to pay that fee.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
Maybe enough years would have dragged on by now that the penalty fee for presenting a domestic benefit claim after so many years would kick in. The RCE avoids that penalty.<o:p></o:p></li></ul>
<p>What factors favor the continuation? Well, one thing is, sometimes the client is not sure yet how the client wants to deal with the most recent rejection. If so, then the continuation is ideal because you could (for example) intentionally do something
to trigger a notice of some kind. Put in a placeholder multiple-dependent claim and not pay for it, triggering a Notice to pay for the RCE. Then maybe within two months, cancel the MDC and along with it, hand in the response to the most recent rejection.
(With the RCE it would have been required that the response accompany the RCE.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Did I get the pros and cons right? Are there other pros and cons that I missed?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>