POSTGRANTREVIEW.com Notes from a Post Grant Review

Dispatch No. 7 ← Previous ↰ All Next →

Progress — A Final Rejection

Cartoon illustration: a weary USPTO examiner slumped at a cluttered cubicle desk, holding a paper stamped 'FINAL REJECTION' in red; towers of paperwork, an overflowing trash can, a coffee cup, and a stray sneaker surround him, with USPTO documents and procedure notes pinned to the cubicle walls.
His heart clearly wasn’t in the examination.

Nothing is less final than a final rejection at the USPTO.

By The Inventor

Background — part of my pro se Post Grant Review of U.S. Patent 12,460,537, which I believe copies work I disclosed first. By now Big Corp's application had drawn a rejection, but my prior-art submission was barely engaged. This one is that “final” rejection — and why the word means almost nothing. New here? Start at Dispatch No. 1.

Spoiler: a Final Rejection isn't really final — after one lands, the applicant can reopen the whole thing with a Request for Continued Examination (an RCE), file amendments after final, or appeal to the Board. “Final” ends this round of prosecution, not the fight. But at least it was progress. By this point my patent had issued, but Big Corp was still ignoring me.

Here's the examiner's (non)Final Rejection.

Cartoon: a frazzled USPTO examiner pilots a rusty boat labeled 'USSPTO' flying a government flag, towing the masked Corporate IP Pirate on water skis as he grins and gestures rudely, while the marooned white-haired inventor stands on a small island with 'S.O.S.' written in the sand; jagged rocks lie in the boat's path.
I could only watch.

When they got the final rejection, I already knew how non-final those really are. What I was most concerned about were the arguments their examiner brought forth. The arguments were exceedingly weak and did not use that highly relevant document that was used against mine (remember the one that wasn't actually prior art for me… but certainly is for them — see Dispatch No. 4).

Hey, but at least it was something. I don't care how it was rejected, just that it was rejected.

For what it's worth, the examiner confirmed for a second time that I disclosed all these elements from claim 7 — again under § 102(a)(1). I'll come back to this eventually.

By this time they probably realized this examiner wasn't paying attention. The examiner's heart clearly wasn't in it — you can tell from the office actions. And my third-party preissuance submission was way too detailed to wave through without real work: actually engaging with it took effort, while a quick rejection made the whole case go away. Maybe he just wanted it off his desk? Is there any penalty for a poor examination? Of course not — this is government work. There are quotas to be met.

One note so this isn't misread: a weak examination isn't itself a reason to cancel a patent. In a PGR the Board re-examines the claims on their merits — the prior art and §§ 102/103/112 — no matter how little effort went into it the first time. The examiner's heart is the backstory; the prior art does the legal work.

Discussion