Source: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2271.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 13:20:57+00:00

Document:
Before a final action is in order, a clear issue should be developed between the examiner and the patent owner. To bring the prosecution to a speedy conclusion and at the same time deal justly with the patent owner and the public, the examiner will twice provide the patent owner with such information and references as may be useful in defining the position of the Office as to unpatentability before the action is made final. Initially, the decision ordering reexamination of the patent will contain an identification of the substantial new questions of patentability that the examiner considers to be raised by the cited prior art. In addition, the first Office action will reflect the consideration of any arguments contained in the request, any amendments submitted with a request under 35 U.S.C. 302, any owner’s statement filed pursuant to 37 CFR 1.530, and any reply thereto by the requester, and should fully apply all relevant grounds of rejection to the claims.
The statement which the patent owner may file under 37 CFR 1.530 and the response to the first Office action should completely respond to and/or amend with a view to avoiding all outstanding grounds of rejection.
It is intended that the second Office action in the reexamination proceeding following the decision ordering reexamination will generally be made final. The criteria for making a rejection final in an ex parte reexamination proceeding is analogous to that set forth in MPEP § 706.07(a) for making a rejection final in an application. Both the patent owner and the examiner 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 renew or continue the proceedings by refiling under 37 CFR 1.53(b) or 37 CFR 1.53(d) or former 37 CFR 1.60 or 1.62, nor by filing a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114. Complete and thorough actions by the examiner coupled with complete responses by the patent owner, including early presentation of evidence under 37 CFR 1.131(a) or 37 CFR 1.132, will go far in avoiding such problems and reaching a desirable early termination of the reexamination prosecution.
In making the final rejection, all outstanding grounds of rejection of record should be carefully reviewed and any grounds or rejection relied on should be reiterated. The grounds of rejection must (in the final rejection) be clearly developed to such an extent that the patent owner may readily judge the advisability of an appeal. However, where a single previous Office action contains a complete statement of a ground of rejection, the final rejection may refer to such a statement and also should include a rebuttal of any arguments raised in the patent owner’s response.
After an examiner has determined that the reexamination proceeding is ready for the final Office action, the examiner will set up a panel review conference, as per MPEP § 2271.01, to discuss the issuance of the 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 a final Office action, the proposed final Office action shall be issued and signed by the examiner, with the two, or more, other conferees initialing the action (as “conferee”) to indicate their presence in the conference.
The final rejection letter should conclude with one of form paragraphs 22.09 or 22.10.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire  from the mailing date of this action.
Extensions of time in reexamination proceedings are provided for in 37 CFR 1.550(c). A request for extension of time must specify the requested period of extension and it must be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g). Any request for an extension in a third party requested ex parte reexamination must be filed on or before the day on which action by the patent owner is due, and the mere filing of a request will not effect any extension of time. A request for an extension of time in a third party requested ex parte reexamination will be granted only for sufficient cause, and for a reasonable time specified. Any request for extension in a patent owner requested ex parte reexamination (including reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257) for up to two months from the time period set in the Office action must be filed no later than two months from the expiration of the time period set in the Office action. A request for an extension in a patent owner requested ex parte reexamination for more than two months from the time period set in the Office action must be filed on or before the day on which action by the patent owner is due, and the mere filing of a request for an extension for more than two months will not effect the extension. The time for taking action in a patent owner requested ex parte reexamination will not be extended for more than two months from the time period set in the Office action in the absence of sufficient cause or for more than a reasonable time.
The filing of a timely first response to this final rejection will be construed as including a request to extend the shortened statutory period for an additional two months. In no event, however, will the statutory period for response expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final action. See MPEP § 2265.
1. This form paragraph may be used only in reexamination proceedings.
2. In bracket 1, insert the appropriate period for response, which is normally TWO (2) MONTHS.
Patent owner’s amendment filed  necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
2. In bracket 1, insert filing date of amendment.
3. In bracket 2, insert the appropriate period for response, which is normally TWO (2) MONTHS.
4. As with all other Office correspondence on the merits in a reexamination proceeding, the final Office action must be signed by a primary examiner.
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 final whether or not the claims have been amended, provided that no other new ground of rejection is introduced by the examiner based on the new art not cited in the prior art citation. See MPEP § 706.07(a).
As with all other Office correspondence on the merits in a reexamination proceeding, the final Office action must be signed by a primary examiner.
A panel review will be conducted at each stage of the examiner’s examination in an ex parte reexamination proceeding, other than for actions such as notices of informality or incomplete response. Matters requiring decision outside of the examiner’s jurisdiction (e.g., decisions on petitions or extensions of time, or Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) support staff notices) will not be reviewed by a panel.
The panel review is carried out for each Office action. The panel reviews the examiner’s preliminary decision to reject and/or allow the claims in the reexamination proceeding, prior to the issuance of each Office action.
The panel will consist of three, or more, members, one of whom will be a manager. The second member will be the examiner in charge of the proceeding. The manager may select the third member. The examiner-conferees will be primary examiners, or examiners who are knowledgeable in the technology of the invention claimed in the patent being reexamined and/or who are experienced in reexamination practice. The majority of those present at the conference will be examiners who were not involved in the examination or issuance of the patent. An “original” examiner (see MPEP § 2236) should be chosen as a conferee only if that examiner is the most knowledgeable in the art, or there is some other specific and justifiable reason to choose an original examiner as a participant in the conference.
The examiner must inform his/her manager of his/her intent to issue an Office action. The manager will then convene a panel and the members will confer and review the patentability of the claim(s). If the conference confirms the examiner’s preliminary decision to reject and/or allow the claims, the Office action shall be issued and signed by the examiner, with the two, or more, other conferees initialing the action (as “conferee”) to indicate their participation in the conference. All conferees will initial, even though one of them may have dissented from the 3-party conference decision as to the patentability of claims. If the conference does not confirm the examiner’s preliminary decision, examiner will reevaluate and issue an appropriate Office action.
Where the examiner in charge of the proceeding is not in agreement with the conference decision, the manager will generally assign the proceeding to another examiner.
Each conference will provide a forum to consider all issues of patentability as well as procedural issues having an impact on patentability. Review of the patentability of the claims by more than one primary examiner should diminish the perception that the patent owner can disproportionately influence the examiner in charge of the proceeding. The conferences will also provide greater assurance that all matters will be addressed appropriately. All issues in the proceeding will be viewed from the perspectives of three examiners. What the examiner in charge of the proceeding might have missed, the other two, or more, conference members would likely detect. The conference will provide for a comprehensive discussion of, and finding for, each issue.
Should the examiner issue an Office action without panel review, the patent owner or the third party requester who wishes to object must promptly file a paper alerting the Office of this fact. (The failure to provide panel review would be noted by the parties where there are no conferees’ initials at the end of the Office action.) Any challenge of the failure to hold a panel review conference must be made within two weeks of receipt of the Office action issued, or the challenge will not be considered. In no event will the failure to hold a panel review conference, by itself, be grounds for vacating any Office decision(s) or action(s) and “restarting” the reexamination proceeding.

References: § 706
 § 2271
 § 2265
 § 706
 § 706
 § 2236