Source: https://bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2671_02.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:37:36+00:00

Document:
Although an Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) has many attributes similar to a "final rejection" made in an ex parte reexamination proceeding or in a non-provisional application, it is not a final action, and, as such, it cannot be appealed from. An appeal can only be taken after the examiner issues a Right of Appeal Notice (RAN). See MPEP § 2673.02.
Before an ACP is in order, issues should be clearly developed. When all claims are found patentable in the first action, the examiner will, at that point, issue an ACP, since the patent owner has nothing to respond to. Otherwise, it is intended that the second Office action in the reexamination proceeding will ordinarily be an ACP. The criteria for issuing an ACP is analogous to that set forth in MPEP § 706.07(a) for making a rejection final in an application.
All parties to the reexamination should recognize that a reexamination proceeding may result in the final cancellation of claims from the patent and that the patent owner does not have the right to continue the proceeding by refiling under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or 1.53(d) nor by filing a Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the patent owner cannot file an inter partes reexamination request (see MPEP § 2612). Complete and thorough actions by the examiner, coupled with complete responses by the patent owner and complete comments by the third party requester (including early presentation of evidence under 37 CFR 1.131(a) or 1.132 ) will go far in reaching a desirable early termination of the prosecution of the reexamination proceeding.
In making an ACP, (A) all outstanding grounds of rejection of record should be carefully reviewed, (B) all outstanding determinations of patentability (decisions to not make a proposed rejection) of record should be carefully reviewed, and (C) any grounds of rejection relied upon and any determinations of patentability relied upon should be reiterated.
The grounds of rejection and determinations of patentability must (in the ACP) be clearly developed to such an extent that the patent owner and the third party requester may readily judge the advisability of filing comments after an ACP pursuant to 37 CFR 1.951(a) and (b), respectively.
The ACP should address all issues as to the patents or printed publications. The ACP will clearly set forth each rejection proposed by the third party requester that the examiner refuses to adopt. Reasons why the rejection proposed by the third party requester is not appropriate (i.e., why the claim cannot be rejected under the ground proposed by the third party requester) must be clearly stated for each rejection proposed by the third party requester that the examiner refuses to adopt. Comprehensive reasons for patentability must be given for each determination favorable to patentability of claims. See MPEP § 1302.14 for examples of suitable statements of reasons for allowance.
Where a previous Office action contains a complete statement of a ground of rejection or of reasons for not making a proposed rejection, the ACP may incorporate by reference that statement. In any event, the ACP must also include a rebuttal of any arguments raised in the patent owner’s response and must reflect consideration of any comments made by the third party requester.
Where the examiner withdraws a ground of rejection originally initiated by the examiner, such withdrawal should be clearly stated in the ACP as a decision favorable to patentability with respect to the withdrawn rejection. The third party requester’s next set of comments that may be filed (after a patent owner response to an action) may propose the withdrawn rejection as a "rejection proposed by the third party requester." In the event the patent owner fails to respond to the ACP and a Right of Appeal Notice (RAN) is then issued, the third party requester may appeal this withdrawal of rejection as a final decision favorable to patentability. See 37 CFR 41.61(a)(2). Where the examiner withdraws a ground of rejection previously proposed by the third party requester, the examiner should treat the issue as rejection proposed by the third party requester that the examiner refuses to adopt.
If questions not within the scope of reexamination proceedings (for example, questions of patentability based on public use or on sale, conduct issues, abandonment under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) have been newly raised by the patent owner response or the third party requester comments being addressed by the ACP, the existence of such questions will be noted by the examiner in the ACP, using form paragraph 26.03.
Form PTOL-2065 should be used as the cover sheet for the ACP. Since the Office action is responsive to a patent owner response, and possibly the third party requester comments, the space on the PTOL-2065 for the date of the communication(s) to which the Office action is responsive to should be filled in. Generally, the patent owner is given one month to respond to the action, and thus "One" should be inserted in the appropriate space for such.
As with all other Office correspondence on the merits in a reexamination proceeding, the ACP must be signed by a primary examiner.
This is an ACTION CLOSING PROSECUTION (ACP); see MPEP § 2671.02.
(2) If the patent owner does not timely file comments and/or a proposed amendment pursuant to 37 CFR 1.951(a), then the third party requester is precluded from filing comments under 37 CFR 1.951(b).
(3) Appeal cannot be taken from this action, since it is not a final Office action.
After an examiner has determined that the reexamination proceeding is ready for the ACP action, the examiner will set up a panel review conference as per MPEP § 2671.03, to discuss the issuance of the ACP action. The examiner may prepare the action after the conference, or may prepare the action prior to the conference and revise it as needed after the conference.
If the conference confirms the examiner’s preliminary decision to reject and/or allow the claims and issue an ACP, the proposed ACP action shall be issued and signed by the examiner, with the two other conferees initialing the action (as conferee) to indicate their presence in the conference. When ready, the examiner’s action given to the CRU SPRS and/or technical support staff for processing and mailing.
Where the patent owner fails to respond to the first Office action (or any subsequent Office action which is prior to ACP) and claims have been found patentable in the first action (or a subsequent action), the examiner will issue an ACP (see MPEP § 2671). The ACP should repeat all determinations of patentability (decisions to not make a proposed rejection) applicable to the patentable claims and incorporate by reference the reasons for each determination (the reasons for not making each proposed rejection). If the examiner realizes that more explanation would be helpful, the examiner should include it. Since the patent owner failed to respond to the first Office action (or a subsequent action), the proceeding will be limited to the claims found patentable and to new claims which do not expand the scope of the claims found patentable (if the new claims have an entry right or are otherwise entered at the option of the examiner). See MPEP § 2666.10. A panel review conference pursuant to MPEP § 2671.03 will be held.
Where art is submitted in a prior art citation under 37 CFR 1.501 and/or 37 CFR 1.555 (an IDS filed in a reexamination is construed as a prior art citation) and the submission is not accompanied by a statement similar to that of 37 CFR 1.97(e), the examiner may use the art submitted and make the next Office action an ACP action whether or not the claims have been amended, provided that no other new ground of rejection is introduced by the examiner based on art not cited in the prior art citation. See MPEP § 706.07(a).

References: § 2673
 § 706
 § 2612
 § 1302
 § 2671
 § 2671
 § 2671
 § 2666
 § 2671
 § 706