How are multiple amendments handled after an Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)?

According to MPEP 2673, when multiple amendments are submitted after an Action Closing Prosecution (ACP), only the first amendment will be considered. The MPEP explicitly states: “Where multiple amendments are submitted after the ACP, all amendments except for the first one will be returned without consideration, since they are improper submissions. Thus, if prosecution is…

Read More

When is reopening prosecution mandatory after Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) in inter partes reexamination?

Reopening prosecution is mandatory when the examiner decides to modify their position after receiving a submission from the patent owner pursuant to 37 CFR 1.951(a) and (b). This is necessary to give the patent owner an opportunity to address any changes adverse to their position. According to MPEP 2673.01: “The examiner should reopen prosecution where…

Read More

Why can’t examiners use interviews or examiner’s amendments to resolve minor issues after ACP in inter partes reexamination?

In inter partes reexamination, examiners cannot use interviews or examiner’s amendments to resolve minor issues after Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) due to the presence of the third party requester and procedural restrictions. MPEP 2673.01 explains: “The examiner cannot telephone the owner to obtain the minor change(s) and then issue a RAN because interviews are not…

Read More

What happens after the patent owner responds and third party comments in an inter partes reexamination?

After the patent owner responds and any third party comments are received, the patent under reexamination is reconsidered. The MPEP states: “The patent owner and the third party requester will be notified as to any claims rejected, any claims found patentable and any objections or requirements made.” This process continues until the examiner determines the…

Read More

How does reopening prosecution after ACP affect patent owner’s amendment rights?

Reopening prosecution after Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) can significantly affect a patent owner’s amendment rights. If prosecution is reopened at the ACP stage, the patent owner’s ability to amend claims is limited. MPEP 2673.01 states: “If prosecution were reopened at the ACP stage, the patent owner loses rights as to amending the claims in response…

Read More

How does an examiner handle withdrawals of rejections in an Action Closing Prosecution (ACP)?

When an examiner withdraws a rejection in an Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) during inter partes reexamination, they must handle it carefully. According to MPEP 2671.02: For rejections initiated by the examiner: “Where the examiner withdraws a ground of rejection originally initiated by the examiner, such withdrawal should be clearly stated in the ACP as a…

Read More

What are the circumstances for discretionary reopening of prosecution after ACP?

Examiners are encouraged to be liberal in reopening prosecution after Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) when the equities of the situation make it appropriate. This is because patent owners cannot continue the proceeding through other means such as refiling or requesting continued examination. MPEP 2673.01 provides an example: “Patent owner might submit an amendment after the…

Read More