How are defective responses handled after final rejection in ex parte reexamination?

The handling of defective responses after final rejection in ex parte reexamination differs from those filed before final rejection. According to MPEP 2266.02:

“If a defective (informal) response to an examiner’s action is filed after final rejection (before the expiration of the permissible response period), the examiner should not issue a form PTOL-475 or form PTO-2311 notification to the patent owner. Rather, an advisory Office action (form PTOL-467 or PTOL-467A) should be issued with an explanation of the defect (informality).”

The time period set in the final rejection continues to run and is extended by two months if the response is the first response after the final rejection, in accordance with MPEP § 2265. For more information on handling responses after final rejection, refer to MPEP § 2272.

To learn more:

Topics: MPEP 2200 - Citation Of Prior Art And Ex Parte Reexamination Of Patents, MPEP 2266.02 - Examiner Issues Notice Of Defective Paper In Ex Parte Reexamination, Patent Law, Patent Procedure
Tags: Advisory Office Action, Defective Response, ex parte reexamination, final rejection, Time Period Extension