Source: https://bitlaw.com/source/mpep/707_07_f.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:30:14+00:00

Document:
In order to provide a complete application file history and to enhance the clarity of the prosecution history record, an examiner must provide clear explanations of all actions taken by the examiner during prosecution of an application.
Where the requirements are traversed, or suspension thereof requested, the examiner should make proper reference thereto in his or her action on the amendment.
Where the applicant traverses any rejection, the examiner should, if he or she repeats the rejection, take note of the applicant’s argument and answer the substance of it.
If applicant’s arguments are persuasive and upon reconsideration of the rejection, the examiner determines that the previous rejection should be withdrawn, the examiner must provide in the next Office communication the reasons why the previous rejection is withdrawn by referring specifically to the page(s) and line(s) of applicant’s remarks which form the basis for withdrawing the rejection. It is not acceptable for the examiner to merely indicate that all of applicant’s remarks form the basis for withdrawing the previous rejection. Form paragraph 7.38.01 may be used. If the withdrawal of the previous rejection results in the allowance of the claims, the reasons, which form the basis for the withdrawal of the previous rejection, may be included in a reasons for allowance. See MPEP § 1302.14. If applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the examiner determines that the previous rejection should be withdrawn but that, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection should be made, form paragraph 7.38.02 may be used. See MPEP § 706.07(a) to determine whether the Office action may be made final.
If a rejection of record is to be applied to a new or amended claim, specific identification of that ground of rejection, as by citation of the paragraph in the former Office letter in which the rejection was originally stated, should be given.
After an Office action, the reply (in addition to making amendments, etc.) may frequently include arguments and affidavits to the effect that the prior art cited by the examiner does not teach how to obtain or does not inherently yield one or more advantages (new or improved results, functions or effects), which advantages are urged to warrant issue of a patent on the allegedly novel subject matter claimed.
If it is the examiner’s considered opinion that the asserted advantages are not sufficient to overcome the rejection(s) of record, he or she should state the reasons for his or her position in the record, preferably in the action following the assertion or argument relative to such advantages. By so doing the applicant will know that the asserted advantages have actually been considered by the examiner and, if appeal is taken, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will also be advised. See MPEP § 716 et seq. for the treatment of affidavits and declarations under 37 CFR 1.132.
The importance of answering applicant’s arguments is illustrated by In re Herrmann, 261 F.2d 598, 120 USPQ 182 (CCPA 1958) where the applicant urged that the subject matter claimed produced new and useful results. The court noted that since applicant’s statement of advantages was not questioned by the examiner or the Board, it was constrained to accept the statement at face value and therefore found certain claims to be allowable. See also In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 751, 34 USPQ2d 1684, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Office failed to rebut applicant’s argument).
Form paragraphs 7.37 through 7.37.13 may be used where applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Form paragraphs 7.38 through 7.38.02 may be used where applicant’s arguments are moot or persuasive.
1. The examiner must address all arguments which have not already been responded to in the statement of the rejection.
2. In bracket 2, provide explanation as to non-persuasiveness.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim  have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
The examiner must, however, address any arguments presented by the applicant which are still relevant to any references being applied.
Applicant’s arguments, see , filed , with respect to  have been fully considered and are persuasive. The  of  has been withdrawn.
1. In bracket 1, identify the page(s) and line number(s) from applicant’s remarks which form the basis for withdrawing the previous rejection/objection.
2. In bracket 3, insert claim number, figure number, the specification, the abstract, etc.
3. In bracket 4, insert rejection or objection.
4. In bracket 5, insert claim number, figure number, the specification, the abstract, etc.
Applicant’s arguments, see , filed , with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s)  under  have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of .
1. In bracket 1, identify the page(s) and line number(s) from applicant’s remarks which form the basis for withdrawing the previous rejection.
2. In bracket 3, insert the claim number(s).
3. In bracket 4, insert the statutory basis for the previous rejection.
4. In bracket 5, insert the new ground(s) of rejection, e.g., different interpretation of the previously applied reference, newly found prior art reference(s), and provide an explanation of the rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument based upon the age of the references, contentions that the reference patents are old are not impressive absent a showing that the art tried and failed to solve the same problem notwithstanding its presumed knowledge of the references. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977).
This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
In response to applicant’s argument that , the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
1. In bracket 1, briefly restate applicant’s arguments with respect to the issue of bodily incorporation.
2. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, .
1. In bracket 1, explain where the teaching, suggestion, or motivation for the rejection is found, either in the references, or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In response to applicant’s argument that  is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, .
1. In bracket 1, enter the name of the reference which applicant alleges is nonanalogous.
2. In bracket 2, explain why the reference is analogous art.
3. This form paragraph must be preceded by form paragraph 7.37.
In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In response to applicant’s argument that , the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
1. In bracket 1, briefly restate applicant’s arguments with respect to the issue of results not contemplated by the prior art.
In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
1. In bracket 1, recite the features upon which applicant relies, but which are not recited in the claim(s).
In response to applicant’s argument that , a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
1. In bracket 1, briefly restate applicant’s arguments with respect to the issue of intended use.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the recitation  has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
1. In bracket 1, briefly restate the recitation about which applicant is arguing.
Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to 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.
Applicant’s arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not 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. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

References: § 1302
 § 706
 § 716
 v. 
 art.
3
 v.