No. A rejection on any claim can be made final after it’s gone through two “rounds,” i.e., the attorney has argued it twice (more or less). Most non-final rejections also address all the claims. There isn’t really a difference in degree or “finality” between a “non-final” and “final” rejection, despite the name! Just pay a fee for a continuation and you can argue your final rejection again.

Seems like the USPTO could use a patent for implementing exponential backoff and double the fee every time it comes back.

The fee would have to increase exponentially, and that still probably wouldn't work.

You know double is exponential right?

Ugh no need to downvote him, just wanted to make sure his mental model was in check. Exponential growth is a life skill a lot of the population lacks.

Like parking fines in some cities?

Thank you for citing the rules. Most of the comments here are based on assumptions.

Why can't a lawsuit be made immediately by owners of prior art (and I'm guessing HN, Reddit both have prior art around this..)

> Why can't a lawsuit be made immediately by owners of prior art (and I'm guessing HN, Reddit both have prior art around this..)

It's called an IPR, an inter partes review [0] in the USPTO. Most potential challengers, though, are likely to save their ammunition for if and when they get sued on the patent. (And they might quietly let Facebook know they have prior art, so as to discourage FB from getting aggressive — FB might want its patent to remain officially valid, so as to be able to continue to rattle its saber at others, instead of having invalidity officially confirmed.)

[0] https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Inter_partes_review

It's called an IPR

Overcoming a "final" rejection can be as simple as moving a sentence from one of your dependent claims into an independent one. It doesn't necessarily mean every single claim is utterly un-patentable.

Obligatory warning: I'm not a patent lawyer but I've responded to both final and non-final office actions, eventually getting a patent