« on: 10-06-10 at 06:07 am »
I have a case where upon a first office action rejecting all claims I submitted a very thorough amendment traversing all rejections - where in my opinion the rejection quality I would probably give a grade of "C" or "D" - not very good. I recently received a second office action, again rejecting all claims. This time, the rejections were word-for-word identical to the rejections made in the first office action. There was a response to arguments section in the second office action where the examiner tried to boil down in 2-3 pages all of the arguments to seven high-level arguments - where no specific claims or arguments were referenced. The perhaps greater problem, though, was the seven arguments mischaracterized my traversed rejections, and conveniently left out key language so that the seven arguments do not at all accurately represent what I stated in the initial amendment.
I have an interview scheduled with the Examiner next week, and have a very detailed agenda prepared where I discuss the mischaracterized arguments as well as many traversed rejections I made that were not included in the most recent "response to arguments" section. While I don't expect any success in the interview, I am thinking it is probably a good idea to go through the motions since this smells to me like an appeal. I see no reason whatsoever to amend any claims. I'm thinking appeal since the way this has gone I don't believe I can make any headway with an unreasonable examiner who is motivated to put minimal time in furthering prosecution, or so it appears.
So my questions is if you would recommend the same course of action, or something different?