近日，受美国知产届颇具知名度的波士顿专利法协会BPLA邀请，美国百琞律师事务所宋嘉瑜及叶刚律师在BPLA Newsletter Volume 52, Issue 2上发表了题为After-Final Consideration and Pilot Programs（最终驳回后需要考虑的因素及试点计划）的文章，旨在介绍美国专利申请在收到最终驳回后，从业者可以选择的各项方案和需要考虑的因素及美国专利商标局目前提供的一些试点方案。
After-Final Consideration and Pilot Programs
By Mandy J. Song, Ph.D. [1] and Gavin G. Ye, Ph.D. [2]
美国专利最终驳回后需要考虑的因素及试行计划
宋嘉瑜博士[1]，叶刚博士[2]
I. INTRODUCTION
After a final office action is issued in a U.S. patent application, the prosecution is considered “closed.” To further prosecution, applicant has a very limited opportunity to request reconsideration or make amendments in order to place the application in condition for allowance. Alternatively, applicant has to either appeal the final rejection or take additional actions, usually with fees, to “reopen” prosecution.在一项美国专利申请中，最终驳回意见发布后，审查被视为“已结束”。为继续获得审查，申请人只有极有限的机会要求重新审议或者对申请做出修改来使得申请获批。此外，申请人只有通过对最终驳回意见提出上诉或者采取其他行动，通常需付费，来“重新开始”审查。In recent years, to optimize the workflow after final rejections, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has greatly expanded the after-final opportunities for patent applicants as part of the Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative. As a result, there are now more options to resolve disputes far faster and more cost-effectively, beyond the conventional vehicles that are still available. For example, the USPTO launched a new Fast-Track Appeals Pilot program in July 2020, and also extended after-final programs such as the After-Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 program. Other USPTO programs encourage direct collaboration between applicants and examiners to increase efficiencies in patent prosecution.
近些年来，为了改进最终驳回后的操作程序，美国专利与商标局（USPTO）已经努力增加了对专利申请人在最终驳回后的回复予以再考虑的机会，以此作为增强专利质量计划的一部分。因此，除了还可以使用的传统渠道以外，现在有更多选择可以更快、更经济地解决争议。例如，美国专利与商标局在2020年7月发起了一项新的快速上诉的试点计划，并且延长了最终驳回后再考虑的项目截至期限，例如最终驳回后再考虑试行计划2.0。其他美国专利与商标局的项目鼓励申请人和审查员的直接合作关系，从而提高专利申请的效率。
Given the array of after-final options now available, practitioners who understand the unique benefits and tactical implications of each option can select the best after-final course for each application. This article summarizes the available options, considerations for selecting the right option, and some of the most effective pilot programs currently offered by the USPTO.
鉴于有一系列的最终驳回后的答复方案可供选择，从业人员了解各个方案的独特优势和战略含义，便可以为每个申请选择最佳的最终驳回后的答复方案。本文总结了一些可用的方案，还有选择正确方案时的注意事项，以及美国专利与商标局目前提供的一些最有效的试行计划。II. AFTER-FINAL OPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS最终驳回后的选择和考量
As a preliminary note, while “second or any subsequent actions on the merits shall be final,” a final rejection is not proper “where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that is neither necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims, nor based on information submitted in an information disclosure statement.”[3] Therefore, when a final office action is received, do not assume it is proper and rush to consider after-final options. Instead, check carefully if any new ground of rejection is added that is not necessitated by amendment or an information disclosure statement (IDS). For example, if the final office action newly includes a section 101 rejection of a claim not amended, finality is premature and improper. While finality is not aground for appeal, applicant can request the examiner to withdraw the final rejection [4].初步说明，尽管“关于案情实质的第二次或者后续的任何一次驳回都应是最终的”，但是如果审查员提出的新的拒绝理由，既不是因为申请人对权要的修改，也不是基于所提交的信息披露声明中的内容，那么发出最终驳回是不恰当的[3]。因此，收到最终驳回意见时，申请人不要急切地开始思考最终驳回后的回复方案，而应该仔细检查是否增加了新的拒绝理由，了解该理由是否基于权要修改或者信息披露声明。例如，如果最终驳回意见中新包含了对未修改权要的基于第101条条例的驳回，那么该最终驳回是为时过早且不当的。虽然最终驳回不是上诉的理由，但是申请人可以要求审查员撤回最终驳回[4]。For a properly made final rejection, applicant’s options to respond can include:(1) Request for Reconsideration under 37 C.F.R. §1.116(2) Amendment after Final under 37 C.F.R. §1.116(3) Amendment after Final under the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0) program [5](4) Amendment with a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 37 C.F.R. §1.114(5) Request for a pre-appeal brief conference under the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Pilot Program [6](6) Appeal under 37 C.F.R. §41.31, possibly under the Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program [7]（1） 根据美国专利法37 C.F.R. 1.116条，要求重新考虑（2） 根据美国专利法37 C.F.R. 1.116条，最终驳回后进行权要修改（Amendment after Final）（3） 根据最终驳回后考虑试行计划2.0，最终驳回后进行权要修改[5]（4） 根据美国专利法37 C.F.R. 1.114条，进行权要修改并提出继续审查请求(RCE)（5） 根据上诉前会议试行计划，提出上诉前会议请求[6]（6） 根据美国专利法37 C.F.R. 41.31条或者可能根据快速上诉试行计划，提出上诉[7]
To make the right choice among these options, a key decision to make is whether applicant would like to make further amendments. The decision whether to amend is largely dictated by the strength of the pending claims in light of the final rejection as well as the protection scope applicant would like to pursue. For example, if the prior art of record is close and applicant is willing to budge on the claim scope, making further amendment may be the best way to advance prosecution. On the other hand, if the prior art can be distinguished or it is crucial for the applicant to obtain the claim scope asis, no amendment will be necessary. Based on the decision whether to amend, the after-final options generally split into two groups, as shown in the figure below.要在这些选择中做出最佳选择，关键的一个决定在于申请人是否愿意做进一步的权要修改。是否进行修改很大程度上取决于被最终驳回的权要的强度以及申请人希望寻求的保护范围。例如，如果现有技术很相近，而且申请人愿意在权利范围上做出让步，那么进行进一步的权要修改可能是推进申请的最佳方案。反之，如果可以区分现有技术或者对于申请人来说，获得现有权要的权利范围是至关重要的，那么没必要进行修改。根据是否做进一步修改的决定，最终驳回后的答复选项通常可以分为两组，如下图表所示：The final office action typically gives applicant three months from the mailing date of the action to response, which is known as the shortened statutory period. Although extensions are available with requisite fees, in any event, the response period cannot be extended beyond 6 months after the action mailing date, which is known as the statutory period. Among the options that allow amendments, it is important to note that filing an Amendment after Final or an AFCP 2.0 request does not stop the running of the shortened statutory period or the statutory period. The response period is tolled only if the USPTO agrees to enter the amendment and issues a notice of allowance or the applicant files an RCE.最终驳回意见通常允许申请人在最终驳回意见发出的三个月内做出答复，即缩短法定期限。虽然可以通过缴费来获得延期，但无论如何，答复期限都不能超过终审意见发出后的六个月，即法定期限。在允许权要修改的选项中，重点注意的是，最终驳回后所提交的权要修改和最终驳回后再考虑的试行计划（AECP）2.0的要求都无法暂停缩短法定期限或者法定期限。只有美国专利与商标局同意权要修改并且发放授权及缴费通知（Notice of Allowance），答复期限才算停止。
A major difference among the three options is the extent of amendments that can be made. In an Amendment after Final under 37 C.F.R. §1.116, amendments are limited to “canceling claims or complying with any requirement of form expressly set forth in a previous office action,”“presenting rejected claims in better form for consideration on appeal,” or with “showing of good and sufficient reasons why the amendment is necessary andwas not earlier presented.”[8] Otherwise, the examiner will decline to enteror consider the amendment and issue an advisory action. According to PTO statistics for after final responses, the vast majority receive an advisory action, while others may receive a notice of allowance or a non-final rejection [9]. In comparison, if filed with AFCP 2.0, the Amendment after Final may potentially present more substantive amendments than those discussed above, as long as the amendment “does not broaden the scope in any aspect” and does not require additional search of more than 3 hours [10]. Filing an Amendment with an RCE is the option that enjoys most flexibility in amendments. In an RCE response, applicant could even cancel all pending claims and present an entirely new claim set, as long as the claims have written description support in the originally filed application.三种选项的主要区别在于所能做出的权要修改的程度。根据美国专利法37 C.F.R. 1.116条，最终驳回后进行权要修改，其权要修改限定于“取消权利要求或用以满足上一OA中明确指出的形式要求，”“让权利要求处于更好的状态以供上诉考虑，”或者“以更好且更充分的理由说明修改是必要的，并且恰逢其时”[8]。否则，审查员会拒绝接受或者考虑权要修改并且发出指导意见（advisory action）。根据美国专利商标局所统计的最终驳回答复的数据，大多数答复都收到了指导意见（advisory action），其余则为收到授权及缴费通知（notice of allowance）或者非最终驳回（ Non-Final Rejection）[9]。相比之下，如果最终驳回后的权要修改是根据AFCP 2.0一起提交的，则该修改可能会提出比上述讨论更为实质性的权要修正，只要该权要修改“不扩大任何方面的范围”并且审查员不需要进行3个小时以上的额外检索即可[10]。同时提交权要修改和继续审查要求（RCE）是允许最灵活修改的选择方案。在RCE答复中，只要权利要求在原本提交的申请中有书面描述支持，申请人甚至可以取消所有悬而未决的权利并且提出一系列全新的权要。Other differences among the three options include the pendency of decision, PTO fees involved and attorney fees, as summarized in the table below:这三种选择方案的不同之处还包括待决时间、所涉及的PTO费用以及律师费，如下表格所示：The three options available when applicant does not wish to make any amendment also differ in their effect on the response period. In particular, pre-appeal brief conference and formal appeal both require the filing of a Notice of Appeal, which can effectively toll the response period. In contrast, like an Amendment after Final, a Request for Reconsideration filed under 37 C.F.R. §1.116 does not stop the clock. Other differences among the three options include the decision maker, the pendency of decision, PTO fees involved and attorney fees, as summarized in the table below:申请人不希望进行任何修改是所能采用的三个选择方案对答复期的影响也有所不同。其中，上诉前会议请求和正式上诉都需要递交上诉通知（Notice of Appeal），这有效地满足了答复期限。相比之下，根据美国专利法37 C.F.R. 1.116条来递交的复审请求不会停止答复期的计时，这和最终驳回后的权要修改的情况是一样的。这三种选择方案的其余不同之处还在于决策者、待决时间、所涉及的PTO费用以及律师费，如下表格所示：No one option is absolutely better than others. Each option is valuable for applications with certain characteristics and therefore, after-final response involves many strategic considerations. Among these considerations include the effectiveness to advance prosecution, speed for a resolution, and fees (both attorney fees and PTO fees).没有哪个选择绝对优于其他。每种选择方案对于具有特定特征的申请都是有价值的，因此最终驳回后再考虑的答复涉及很多战略性的考量。这些考量包括回复的效力，解决的速度以及费用（律师费和PTO费）。
1 Mandy Song is the founding and managing partner of a full-service intellectual property law firm Bayes PLLC. Mandy’s practice includes patent prosecution, client counseling, patent portfolio management & transactions, patent litigation in U.S. federal districtcourts and Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), and post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Mandy serves clients around the globe and has extensive experience working with clients oversea to address their intellectual property needs in the United States.
2 Gavin Ye is a partner of Bayes PLLC. Gavin’s practice includes patent prosecution, patent litigation, patent invalidity proceedings, patent portfolio management, counseling for start-up companies, and intellectual property right enforcement on e-commerce platforms.
3 See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (R-10.2019 last revised June 2020) (hereafter, MPEP) §706.07(a).
4 See MPEP §706.07(d).
5 After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/after-final-consideration-pilot-20.
6 See MPEP §1204.02. 7 Fast-track appeals pilot program, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/fast-track-appeals-pilot-program.
8 37 C.F.R. §1.116(b).
9 See Patents After Final Response Data February 2021, https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/patents/after-final-response.html (statistics subject to change).
10 See After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0, https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/after-final-consideration-pilot-20
1. 宋嘉瑜 (Mandy J. Song) ，美国百琞律师事务所创始合伙人、管理合伙人。2. 叶刚 (Gavin G. Ye) ，美国百琞律师事务所合伙人。
文章来源：
本文由GDOIP海外战略合作单位——美国百琞律师事务所供稿。仅供学习交流，不代表本号观点。
百琞是一家专注于美国知识产权的卓越律师事务所。合伙人团队均是中国名校工程专业毕业，赴美国深造获得工程学博士及法律博士，并在美国执业十余年的美国华人律师。
百琞服务范围包括美国专利撰写和申请、专利复审与PTAB无效程序、联邦法院和337专利诉讼、全球专利组合规划和管理、商标注册和异议程序、版权注册和纠纷、知产许可和交易、企业出海知产尽调、电商平台或展会相关知产纠纷、商业秘密和出口管制等领域。
