obtained jurisdiction for the reasons explained above. 10 . Six of the 80 applications were already under examination during the time that plaintiff had attempted to appeal the examiner’s decisions on the other applications. 11 . The PTO has grouped plaintiff's patent applications into twelve “families”. 12 . It is worth noting that because the statutory framework has changed, this situation will not likely arise again. 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(A) now provides that the PTO provide at least one § 132 notification (i.e. notification of rejection or reexamination) not later than 14 months after the application is filed. Further, § 154(b)(1)(B) “guarantee[s]” that the examination of a patent application will be complete within three years. If it is not, th tes, 709 F.3d 798 (9th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). 16 . Sheldon v. Vilsack, 538 Fed.Appx. 644
holding that ftc issuance of a complaint meets the apa definition of order and therefore is agency action even if not final agency action holding fda seizure action did not constitute final agency action holding that material prejudice was not present under the facts however an agency of the state was not a party to the action holding that the contribution by a federal agency of 531 million toward a project did not constitute a major federal action because the funding represented less than 10 of the 584 billion project cost holding that blms management of reclamation project was not a discrete agency action under  7061