Non-Final Responses
Full response to non-final office actions with arguments and, where needed, amendments.
Service · Filing & Prosecution
Hashi prepares USPTO Office Action responses that are technically grounded and strategically structured — addressing 102/103 rejections, 101 eligibility, 112 clarity, restriction requirements, RCEs, examiner interviews and appeals — with claim and prior-art analysis informing every strategy decision.
Business problems
01
Repeat final rejections and RCE cycles driving up prosecution spend.
02
Amendments that surrender claim scope needed for enforcement and licensing.
03
No visibility into examiner allowance behaviour before choosing a strategy.
04
Deadline pressure forcing rushed responses with thin technical arguments.
Our solution
Every response starts with a rejection breakdown and an examiner analytics review — allowance rate, appeal history, interview responsiveness and typical path to allowance. We then choose between argument, amendment, interview, RCE or appeal, and draft the response with prosecution-history estoppel and downstream enforcement in mind.
Offerings
Full response to non-final office actions with arguments and, where needed, amendments.
After-final practice, AFCP 2.0 requests, and the RCE-versus-appeal decision.
Alice/Mayo two-step rebuttals with technical-improvement framing and evidence.
Element-by-element art analysis, motivation-to-combine and secondary-consideration arguments.
Written description, enablement, indefiniteness and means-plus-function responses.
Election strategy with divisional planning to preserve full family coverage.
Interview agendas, proposed claim sets and post-interview summaries.
RCE filings plus continuation and divisional strategy for portfolio depth.
Pre-appeal briefs, appeal briefs and reply briefs when the record supports it.
Methodology
01
Every rejection, reference and cited passage mapped against the pending claims.
02
Allowance rate, interview and appeal history reviewed to select the highest-yield path.
03
Recommended route — argue, amend, interview, RCE or appeal — with claim-scope trade-offs.
04
Technical specialist drafts; US-qualified practitioner reviews and finalises.
05
Filing, interview support and next-action planning through to allowance.
Deliverables
Benefits
Scope preserved
Amendments made only where argument cannot carry the rejection.
Enforcement-safe
Prosecution history managed with litigation and licensing in mind.
Deadline certainty
Docketed milestones with drafts well ahead of the statutory date.
Predictable cost
Fixed-fee options per response type with no surprise line items.
Industries served
FAQ
Technical specialists in the relevant field draft the substantive analysis, and a US-qualified patent practitioner reviews, signs and files. We can also deliver response drafts to your existing US counsel for filing.
A first strategy memo is typically ready within 48 hours of receiving the office action and file wrapper, with a full draft response in 5–10 business days depending on complexity.
We frame the claimed invention as a specific technical improvement, anchor it to the specification and, where useful, support it with evidence and precedential decisions aligned to current USPTO eligibility guidance.
We compare the examiner's allowance and affirmance history, the strength of the record and your commercial timeline, then recommend after-final practice, an RCE or an appeal with the expected cost and duration of each.
Yes — we prepare the agenda and proposed claim set, join or brief the interview, and document the outcome in the follow-up response.
Yes. We integrate with your docketing system or run a shared docket, and can take over mid-prosecution families without disrupting deadlines.
Related services
Let's build