Final Office Action - M.P.E.P. 706.07 (a)

Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.

當回覆non-Final Office Action (如第一次審查意見)後, 經審查委員判斷未完全或部份克服核駁理由時, 將可能發出第二次審查意見, 通常也就是Final Office Action, 除非另有考量(如提出新證據)而發出第二次non-Final Office Action

MPEP 706.07(a)有敘述:
Under present practice, second or any subsequent actions on the merits shall be final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant's amendment of the claims nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed during the period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) (提出IDS的時機) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p).

這段提到, 除非審查委員在非由申請人的修正, 也不是基於所提出的IDS所提出引用新證據的核駁理由, 則第二次或是隨後的office action應為Final Office Action, 也就是說:

1. 如果審查委員是針對申請人前次Office Action答辯時的修正所提出的核駁意見, 再次的Office Action, 應為Final Office Action
2. 如果審查委員根據申請人提出的IDS的資料提出核駁意見, 再次的Office Action, 應為Final Office Action
3. 若是在修正, 或是IDS以外所提的新證據, 再次的Office Action, 非為non-Final Office Action

值得一提的是, 上述USPTO發出Final OA或是non-Final OA的原則不僅是在一般申請案中答辯程序中, 也適用於專利無效(再審, reexamination)的程序中判
原文:
Furthermore, a second or any subsequent action on the merits in any application or patent undergoing reexamination proceedings will not be made final if it includes a rejection, on newly cited art, other than information submitted in an information disclosure statement filed under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p), of any claim not amended by applicant or patent owner in spite of the fact that other claims may have been amended to require newly cited art. Where information is submitted in a reply to a requirement under 37 CFR 1.105, the examiner may NOT make the next Office action relying on that art final unless all instances of the application of such art are necessitated by amendment.

706.07(a)後半段提及在具有相同專利權或是申請權的擁有人的情況下, 無法引用符合102(e)(引用申請日較早的前案)的引證案所提出的103核駁理由, 如果申請人引用此理由答辯時, 且申請專利範圍當下並無修正, 若審查委員在隨後的Office Action提出新證據(因為前次證據因為有相同擁有人而無效)時, 並不能判為Final Office Action
原文:
When applying any 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/ 103 references against the claims of an application ** the examiner should anticipate that a statement averring common ownership at the time the invention was made may disqualify any patent or application applied in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on 35 U.S.C. 102(e). If such a statement is filed in reply to the 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/ 103 rejection and the claims are not amended, the examiner may not make the next Office action final if a new rejection is made. See MPEP § 706.02(l)(3).

但在另一情況中, 在答辯中說明因為在103(c)規定下簽署的共同研發協定, 當下的引證案為無效時, 若審查委員在隨後的Office Action提出(新的)重複專利(double patenting)的核駁理由, 即使申請人並未修正申請專利範圍(無新證據)時, 此OA可為Final Office Action
原文:
If a reference is disqualified under the joint research agreement provision of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and a new subsequent double patenting rejection based upon the disqualified reference is applied, the next Office action, which contains the new double patenting rejection, may be made final even if applicant did not amend the claims (provided that the examiner introduces no other new ground of rejection that was not necessitated by either amendment or an information disclosure statement filed during the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p)). The Office action is properly made final because the new double patenting rejection was necessitated by amendment of the application by applicant.

Ron