Man oh man! Things are getting confused for no good reason IMO.
First, our team did not respond within 60 days because if we provided a response, that enables the applicant for re-exam to rebut our response. So providing a (unnecessary) response opens an opportunity for our adversary to provide input which would probably not be in our best interest.
Second, there was nothing "magical" about the code change on the 23rd. This has been covered already. That is the day that documents were delivered from elsewhere within the PTO to the examiner for his action. Thus the code change - not because of some ambiguous phone call, but because of standard procedure.
Yes, there is an expectation of action very soon on the '336, because per Eggbert's research the first OA is due 6 weeks after the date on which the 60 day window for a patentee's statement was due. That would be today, in the strickest sense.
All of these things have been addressed previously, and thoroughly.
Please do not get so excited about these phone contacts with the PTO. They will not and can not comment specifically about actions on a specific application. Hence my use of the word "ambiguous" above. And such phone calls most certainly will not prompt any actions by the PTO, or affect the process at all.
My apologies for being a bit "preachy", but when things erupt in mass confusion for no good reason, I get frustrated. Please try harder to retain pertinent info already shared.
Thank you,
SGE
