[Patentpractice] Petition to Withdraw Finality

Thu Jan 23 18:45:44 UTC 2025

Steven - " taught in Khachaturian in the Final Office action dated 26 July
2024 in the second paragraph on page 5" is very specific.  The threshold
for supporting finality are the requirements for reexamination, which are
the same an the requirements for initial examination.  1.104(c)(2): ("In
rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the examiner must
cite the best references at his or her command. When a reference is complex
or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant,
the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable.
The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly
explained and each rejected claim specified.")

" taught in Khachaturian in the Final Office action dated 26 July 2024 in
the second paragraph on page 5" appears to satisfy the "designated as
nearly as practicable" requirement.  The only way that you could show that
" taught in Khachaturian in the Final Office action dated 26 July 2024 in
the second paragraph on page 5" does not  satisfy the "designated as nearly
as practicable" requirement, is if that passage does not refer to
Khachaturian.
Otherwise, all you have shown is that you disagree with the examiner about
the showings of  Khachaturian. *Jung* noted that "reference by specific
column and line number was more than sufficient to meet this burden," not
that the examiner's correspondence had to be correct. (So don't hold your
breadth on the petition.)

BR, Rick

On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 1:02 PM David Boundy via Patentpractice <
patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Without deep thought and research, you might have a plausible case if
> you're willing to go to federal Court.  (But I'd need to research it much
> deeper to know whether you have a strong case or a weak one.)  The PTO's
> use of strategic delay in deciding petitions is truly beyond the pale, and
> you might well have a plausible claim.
>
> The PTO's position is that *In re Jung *absolves the PTO of the
> obligation of  5 U.S.C. § 555(e) to give you a useful explanation and *bona
> fide* response to your traverse.  Contrast
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/555 with
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1519848467837385132  (Jung
> is particularly galling -- while the attorneys were working on the brief, I
> told them that 35 U.S.C. § 132 wouldn't get them where they needed to go,
> look at § 555 instead.  They went with § 132.  And lost.  Oh well.)
>
> Theoretically, you could request a § 1.136(b) extension.   You have
> arguably "prosecuted the application" in a statutory sense, but how likely
> do you think it is that the PTO will buy that?  A court maybe (I don't know
> how that one would come out).  But the PTO only over dead bodies.
>
> In the real world, where bullying goes unpunished because it generates
> revenue for the PTO and the PTO knows that court review will cost you six
> figures, the practical reality is that you're stuck.  Appeal.
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 12:24 PM steve--- via Patentpractice <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Group:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> A Request for Reconsideration of the dismissal of the Petition was filed
>> 10/24/2024.  In this request for rehearing, a key sentence was “While 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.”  The conclusion states:
>>
>>
>>
>> Given that the language of the rejection explicitly fails to support the
>> rejection, it is disingenuous for the Director to state “As detailed above,
>> the limitation of claim 4 reciting ‘wherein at least two of the plurality
>> of wearable or implantable sensors sense the same physiological condition’
>> was *discussed* by the examiner as being taught in Khachaturian in the
>> Final Office action dated 26 July 2024 in the second paragraph on page 5.”
>> While the issue may have been nominally “discussed”, that is not the
>> threshold required to sustain a final rejection according to 35 U.S.C. §
>> 132(a) (“…”) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.104 (“…”).
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Suggestions for action?
>>
>>
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>>
>>
>>
>> Steven M. Hoffberg
>>
>> Hoffberg & Associates
>>
>> 29  Buckout Road
>>
>> West Harrison, NY 10604
>>
>> (914) 949-2300 tel
>>
>> (845) 625-2547 fax
>>
>> steve at hoffberglaw.com
>>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/hoffberg/
>>
>>
>>
>> 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. This communication does not create any
>> legal obligations on behalf of the sender, unless executed in a manner
>> indicating an intent to be bound.
>> --
>> Patentpractice mailing list
>> Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>>
>> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>
>
> *David Boundy *| Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC
>
> P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA  02459
>
> Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707
>
> *dboundy at potomaclaw.com <dboundy at potomaclaw.com>* | *www.potomaclaw.com
> <http://www.potomaclaw.com>*
>
> Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470
> <http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
> Click here to add me to your contacts.
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
> --
> Patentpractice mailing list
> Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>

-- 
Best regards
Rick Neifeld, J.D., Ph.D.
Neifeld IP Law PLLC
9112 Shearman Street, Fairfax VA 22032
Mobile: 7034470727
Email: RichardNeifeld at gmail.com;
This is NOT a confidential and privileged communication.  If you are not
the intended recipient, please delete this email and notify the sender you
have done so.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250123/05ae6f8e/attachment.html>