Response After Final Office Action
Dave,
No, this is not the beginning of a judicial appeal of the Examiner's rejection. It may, however, be a lookahead of what Sikorsky's appeal brief might include.
Generally, once a final rejection has issued, an applicant has 6-months to either (1) pay for another examination and file a request for continuation, or (2) appeal the rejection to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. If the applicant does neither, the application goes abandoned.
That said, an applicant may also file a response/amendment after a final office action prior to the six month period tolling. However, the proposed changes may only be minimal, and are entered only at the discretion of the examiner. The applicant no longer has the right to make amendments to the application.
Here, Sikorsky's Attorney elected to enter argument for allowability of the rejected claims and to not amend the claims further. It's a bit of Mexican standoff in that sense, and there may be a telephone discussion between the Attorney and Examiner to see if they can agree on any patentable subject matter. I have not read the references, so I can't make any statement regarding stength and weaknesses of the Attorney argument.
Proceduraly, one of two things will happen next. First, should the Examiner conclude that the argument is not persuasive, the Examiner will issue an Advisory Action explaining the reasoning for not allowing the application. Alternatively, in the event the Examiner finds this latest argument persuasive, the Examiner will issue a Notice of Allowance. And if there is a telephone call between the Examiner and Attorney of substance, an Interview Summary will put in the file.
Once one of an Advisory Action or Notice of Allowance hits the file the ball will be back in Sikorsky's court to file an RCE, appeal, or allow the application to go abandoned. The filing of a Notice of Appeal would indicate a choice to go the judicial appeal route to which I previously referred.
Cheers!