Go to MPEP - Table of Contents
2266.01 Submission Not Fully Responsive to Non-Final Office Action [R-2] - 2200 Citation of Prior Art and Ex Parte Reexamination of Patents
2266.01 Submission Not Fully Responsive to Non-Final Office Action [R-2]
A response by the patent owner will be considered not fully responsive to a non-final Office action where:
(A) a bona fide response to an examiner's non-final action is filed;
(B) before the expiration of the permissible response period;
(C) but through an apparent oversight or inadvertence, some point necessary to a full response has been omitted (i.e., ** >appropriate consideration of a matter that the action raised, or compliance with a requirement made by the examiner, has been omitted<).
Where patent owner's amendment or response prior to final rejection is not fully responsive to an Office action in a reexamination and meets all of (A) through (C) above, the reexamination proceeding should not be terminated; but, rather, a practice similar to that of 37 CFR 1.135(c) (which is directed to applications) may be followed. The examiner may treat a patent owner submission which is not fully responsive to a non-final Office action by:
(A) waiving the deficiencies (if not serious) in the response and acting on the patent owner submission;
(B) accepting the amendment as a response to the non-final Office action but notifying the patent owner (via a new Office action setting a new time period for response) that the omission must be supplied; or
(C) notifying the patent owner that the response must be completed within the remaining period for response to the non-final Office action (or within any extension pursuant to 37 CFR 1.550(c)) to avoid termination of the proceeding under 37 CFR 1.550(d). This third alternative should only be used in the very unusual situation where there is sufficient time remaining in the period for response (including extensions under 37 CFR 1.550(c)), as is discussed below.
Where a patent owner submission responds to the rejections, objections, or requirements in a non-final Office action and is a bona fide attempt to advance the reexamination proceeding to final action, but contains a minor deficiency (e.g., fails to treat every rejection, objection, or requirement), the examiner may simply act on the amendment and issue a new (non-final or final) Office action. The new Office action may simply reiterate the rejection, objection, or requirement not addressed by the patent owner submission>,< or * >the action may< indicate that such rejection, objection, or requirement is no longer applicable. In the new Office action, the examiner will identify the part of the previous Office action which was not responded to and make it clear what is needed. Obviously, this course of action would not be appropriate in instances in which a patent owner submission contains a serious deficiency (e.g., the patent owner submission does not appear to have been filed in response to the non-final Office action).
**>Where patent owner's submission contains a serious deficiency (i.e., omission) to be dealt with prior to issuing an action on the merits and the period for response has expired, or there is insufficient time remaining to take corrective action before the expiration of the period for response, the patent owner should be notified of the deficiency and what is needed to correct the deficiency, and given a new time period for response (usually 1 month).< The patent owner must supply the omission within the new time period for response (or any extensions under 37 CFR 1.550(c) thereof) to avoid termination of the proceeding under 37 CFR 1.550(d). The patent owner may also file a further response as permitted under 37 CFR 1.111. This is analogous to 37 CFR 1.135(c) for an application. **
Form paragraph 22.14 may be used where a bona fide response is not entirely responsive to a non-final Office action.
**>
¶ 22.14 Submission Not Fully Responsive to Non-Final Office Action - Ex Parte Reexamination
The communication filed on [1] is not fully responsive to the prior Office action. [2]. The response appears to be bona fide, but through an apparent oversight or inadvertence, consideration of some matter or compliance with some requirement has been omitted. Patent owner is required to deal with the omission to thereby provide a full response to the prior Office action.
A shortened statutory period for response to this letter is set to expire ONE MONTH, or THIRTY DAYS, whichever is longer, from the mailing date of this letter. If patent owner fails to timely deal with the omission and thereby provide a full response to the prior Office action, the present reexamination proceeding will be terminated. 37 CFR 1.550(d).
Examiner Note
1. In bracket 2, the examiner should explain the nature of the omitted point necessary to complete the response, i.e., what part of the Office action was not responded to. The examiner should also make it clear what is needed to deal with the omitted point.
2. This paragraph may be used for a patent owner communication that is not completely responsive to the outstanding (i.e., prior) Office action. See MPEP § 2266.01.
3. This practice does not apply where there has been a deliberate omission of some necessary part of a complete response.
4. This paragraph is only used for a response made prior to final rejection. After final rejection, an advisory Office action and Form PTOL 467 should be used, and the patent owner informed of any non-entry of the amendment.
<In the very unusual situation where there is sufficient time remaining in the period for response (including extensions under 37 CFR 1.550(c)), the patent owner may simply be notified that the omission must be supplied within the remaining time period for response. This notification should be made, by telephone, and an interview summary record (see MPEP § 713.04) must be completed and entered into the file of the reexamination proceeding to provide a record of such notification. When notification by telephone is not possible, the procedure set forth above should be followed.
The practice of giving the patent owner a time period to supply an omission in a bona fide response (which is analogous to that set forth in 37 CFR 1.135(c) for an application) does not apply where there has been a deliberate omission of some necessary part of a complete response; rather, it is applicable only when the missing matter or lack of compliance is considered by the examiner as being "inadvertently omitted." Once an inadvertent omission is brought to the attention of the patent owner, the question of inadvertence no longer exists. Therefore, a second Office action giving another new (1 month) time period to supply the omission would not be appropriate. However, if patent owner's response to the notification of the omission raises a different issue of a different inadvertently omitted matter, a second Office action may be given.
This practice authorizes, but does not require, an examiner to give the patent owner a new time period to supply an omission. Thus, where the examiner concludes that the patent owner is attempting to abuse the practice to obtain additional time for filing a response, the practice should not be followed. If time still remains for response, the examiner may telephone the patent owner and inform the patent owner that the response must be completed within the period for response to the non-final Office action or within any extension pursuant to 37 CFR 1.550(c) to avoid termination of the reexamination proceeding.
The practice of giving the patent owner a time period to supply an omission in a bona fide response does not apply after a final Office action. If a bona fide response to an examiner's action is filed after final rejection (before the expiration of the permissible response period), but through an apparent oversight or inadvertence, some point necessary to fully respond has been omitted, the examiner should not issue (to the patent owner) a notice of failure to fully respond. Rather, an advisory Office action (form PTOL-467) should be issued with an explanation of the omission. The time period set in the final rejection continues to run and is extended by 1 month if the response is the first response after the final rejection in accordance with the guidelines set forth in MPEP § 2265. See also MPEP § 2272.
Amendments after final rejection are approved for entry only if they place the proceeding in condition for issuance of a reexamination certificate or in better form for appeal. Otherwise, they are not approved for entry. See MPEP § 714.12 and § 714.13. Thus, an amendment after final rejection should be denied entry if some point necessary for a complete response under 37 CFR 1.113 was omitted, even where the omission was through an apparent oversight or inadvertence. Where a submission after final Office action or appeal (e.g., an amendment filed under 37 CFR 1.116) does not place the proceeding in condition for issuance of a reexamination certificate, the period for response continues to run until a response under 37 CFR 1.113 (i.e., a Notice of Appeal or an amendment that places the proceeding in condition for issuance of a reexamination certificate) is filed. The nature of the omission is immaterial. The examiner cannot give the patent owner a time period to supply the omission.
The examiner has the authority to enter the response, withdraw the final Office action, and issue a new Office action, which may be a final Office action, if appropriate, or an action closing prosecution in an otherwise allowable application under Ex parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 1935 C.D. 11 (Comm'r Pat. 1935), if appropriate. This course of action is within the discretion of the examiner. However, the examiner should recognize that substantial patent rights will be at issue with no opportunity for the patent owner to refile under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or 1.53(d) in order to continue prosecution nor to file a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114. Thus, where the time has expired for response and the amendment submitted would place the proceeding in condition for issuance of a reexamination certificate except for an omission through apparent oversight or inadvertence, the examiner should follow this course of action.
Go to MPEP - Table of Contents