Dispensing with the Formalities: Ex Parte Quayle Actions



Checking my email after work one day, I was greeted with some unfortunate news: the application I was prosecuting had received yet another Office action.  Frustrated, I couldn’t resist skimming the substance of the rejection.  After all, like any patent practitioner, I thought my arguments were pretty irrefutable.  The news only got worse… or so it appeared.  The Office action was something called an “Ex Parte Quayle action.”  Having never received one of these actions, I started mentally preparing myself to pull out the MPEP and research some arcane rejection.

To my surprise, I didn’t find myself knee-deep in case law the following day.  Ex Parte Quayle actions, while somewhat inconvenient, are far from insurmountable.  In short, an Ex Parte Quayle action or “Quayle action” is issued when an application has objections remaining as to formal matters, but is otherwise allowable.  Accordingly, the mailing of these actions closes prosecution on the merits of the application and sets a shortened statutory period of two months to overcome the objections (with extensions available for up to four additional months).

What types of formal matters might arise to trigger a Quayle action?  Two broad categories exist, and each are subject to unique considerations.

  •      Drawing, specification, and claim language objections.  Such objections are often overcome with simple amendments.  However, avoiding such rejections at the last stage of prosecution may be preempted by holistic and detail-oriented patent application drafting at the outset.  The last thing any client wants is a two-month delay and extra prosecution fees over a misplaced lead line.  By focusing on quality over quantity during the drafting process, a patent practitioner can ensure that a Notice of Allowance is received as promptly and inexpensively as possible.Of course, these objections are not always avoidable, as Examiners may have unpredictable standards of allowance or may misuse a Quayle action when an Examiner’s amendment would suffice.  For example, an Examiner may improperly issue a Quayle action to correct antecedent basis or a minor typographical error. 
  •        Claims directed to non-elected subject matter have not been canceled.  If a requirement for restriction/election has resulted in non-elected claims being withdrawn, the patent practitioner must cancel the withdrawn claims prior to allowance.  Though this appears to be an avoidable outcome (as the claims may simply be canceled upon election), strategic advantages exist to retaining withdrawn claims through prosecution.  Expensive prosecution of child filings may be avoided by pursuing a winnable petition while having allowable subject matter in your back pocket.  However, as discussed in this post, such a course of action may provide an additional opportunity for the Examiner to prolong prosecution with further rejections.

  Overall, receiving an Ex Parte Quayle action is a positive sign.  This means that your application is likely mere weeks from allowance.  However, knowing in advance how to most effectively utilize (or avoid) Quayle actions may ultimately generate more positive outcomes for your clients.

Popular posts from this blog

Surprising Uses for Oobleck

Image
Oobleck is a common name for a non-Newtonian fluid comprising cornstarch and water. Named after a substance humorously described in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story, Bartholomew and the Ooblek, the cornstarch and water concoction is frequently used in children’s science classes as a fun way to learn about fluid mechanics. You may have fond memories, yourself, of playing with oobleck as a youth. Oobleck behaves as a fluid when touched gently, but becomes hard as a solid when hit with great velocity. For example, a person could run across a swimming pool of oobleck without getting their feet wet. However, if a person stood still on the oobleck, then they would slowly sink. Because oobleck is a children’s plaything and because of its simple recipe (cornstarch and water), one may be surprised to learn that inventors have attempted to patent serious industrial uses for the material. As an example, one current patent application, US 2015/0016885 (now abandoned), is for a system of fi
Read more

Adaptive Headlight IP

Image
The recent Infrastructure bill signed into law by President Biden affects many things, but one aspect that affects the automotive world is adaptive headlights.  As noted by Jalopnik puts it somewhat crudely, this means “our headlights will suck way less” (link to https://jalopnik.com/finally-our-headlights-will-suck-way-less-1848067412 ). But with this sudden change, adaptive headlights in the US may be in for a particular messy IP situation since many companies may have considered it was not necessary to protect their adaptive headlight innovations in the US because of the 50-year old rule preventing such technology. Recent patents in the field from applicants such as Lumileds and Arex indicate that smaller players and startups may be able to break into the market which is expected to explode in the next few years once the final rules are implemented.  For those in the industry that have typically avoided US patent filings in the adaptive headlamp area, they may want to rethink th
Read more