What references should an examiner include in the first action after an interference?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-30 10 Rules 5 Related FAQs This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice. In the first action after an interference or derivation proceeding, the examiner has specific responsibilities regarding references. The MPEP states: Moreover, in the first action after termination of an interference or derivation, the examiner should make of record in each application all references not already of record which were pertinent to any preliminary motions and which were discussed in the decision on motion. This means the examiner should include: References relevant to preliminary motions References discussed in the decision on motion Any other pertinent references not already in the record This ensures that all relevant prior art and discussions from the interference proceeding are properly documented in the application’s examination history. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse Examiner Must Maintain Rejection Unless Overcome MPEP 2308 Required Estoppel After Judgment Disposes of Issues MPEP 2308 Prohibited Losing Party Cannot Take Inconsistent Action Post-Judgment MPEP 2308 Prohibited Examiner Can Reexamine Same or Different Application After Interference Judgment MPEP 2308 Losing Party Cannot Reopen Issues Adjudicated Against Them MPEP 2308 Prohibited Estoppel After Judgment for Properly Decided Issues MPEP 2308 Prohibited Adverse Judgment Requires No Further Office Action MPEP 2308 Prohibited Adverse Judgment Is Final Disposal of Claim MPEP 2308 Prohibited Examiner Must Resume Prosecution After Interference Ends MPEP 2308 Examiner Must Reopen Prosecution for Further Action Recommendations MPEP 2308 Required Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse Does an interference judgment prevent an examiner from making new rejections? Are examiners r...