{"id":1028,"date":"2022-02-03T02:54:29","date_gmt":"2022-02-03T02:54:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/?page_id=1028"},"modified":"2022-02-03T20:30:38","modified_gmt":"2022-02-03T20:30:38","slug":"non-final-office-action","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/inventedly.com\/index.php\/resources\/patent-prosecution\/non-final-office-action\/","title":{"rendered":"Non-Final Office Action"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n
\n\t\t\tHome<\/a>\n\t\t<\/span>»<\/span>\n\t\t\tResources<\/a>\n\t\t<\/span>»<\/span>\n\t\t\tPatent Prosecution<\/a>\n\t\t<\/span>»<\/span>\n\t\t\tNon-Final Office Action\n\t\t<\/span><\/div>\n\n\n

Non-Final Office Action<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Rejections are typically found in an office action from the USPTO.  Typically, the first office action received is a non-final office action.  In responding to such an action, the M.P.E.P. indicates that: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

(b) In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner\u2019s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The applicant\u2019s or patent owner\u2019s reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.<\/p>

(c) In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.[1]<\/sup><\/a>M.P.E.P. \u00a7 714.02; 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 1.111. <\/span><\/span>