These movements plus the three patents (presumeably the '336, '148 and '584) being "docketed" to a single examiner kinda all fits together IMO.

I gave this some thought today, and here's my WAG:

I believe we know that all three patents were being worked, by two or three examiners. So they had the electronic version of the patent files available in their offices (PC). The hard copies of those files were in storage (Franconia).

These examiners generated more paper for those files, and the newly associated re-exam files.

A decision (which I'll address further) was made to place all three patent re-exams, as work-in-process (not complete through Cert), in the hands of a single examiner.

That new examiner doesn't want all this paper dumped in his office, so the patent files are pulled from storage to the Record Room, the newly generated paper and in-process re-exam paper are scanned into the data system (PALM), the paper is organized and consolidated into respective patent files and patent re-exam files, then sent back to storage. The new examiner has access to all via the data system (PALM). This may explain the otherwise unexplicable file movements.

Now, why the sudden shift to placing ("docketing") all three patents (at least we presume they're the '336. '148, and '584) into the hands of a single examiner?

I'm so glad you asked! LOL

Put yourself in their situation. You've got two or three people working the re-exams of three patents that are integral/interdependent to a large degree. Once you finish the basic re-exam, there is a multi-examiner review, then scrutiny by the legal department. Keep in mind that these re-exams are significant, and a lot of people/companies are also going to be looking very closely at the results. These aren't patents for a new-type whirly-gig (no offense to whirly-gig lovers).

Can you afford to have any of the re-exam results include language that might be perceived as "in conflict" with the language in one of the other results?

I think not. It would create an unintentional nightmare, causing probable embarrassment, and probably more work/rework.

So how to best resolve this potential problem?

Have the final results of each re-exam prepared by one person.

Then, when the results of all three are prepared, and are reconciled/in harmony, have the prior examiners as (part of) the multi-examiner re-exam review panel. In this way, the prior examiners can verify that the intent of their language was not altered in the reconciliation effort.

That's how I'd handle it, anyway. And IMO it appears to be the way the PTO is handling it. Remove the risk! - of embarrassment if nothing else.

Now, if you read between the lines of the above, you may have picked up on something.

IMO, efficiency would be lost if the re-exams were passed to the single examiner in an incomplete state. The objective is to reconcile, not to rework or complete the work of others already intimately familiar (as that would be a major efficiency loss).

So what all this suggests to me is that maybe, just maybe, the basic re-exams for all three patents is essentially complete. All that remains is the reconciliation effort, the multi-examiner review, and the legal review (more at format/process than technical content, I suspect), then to Publications for the Certs (assuming no problems are encountered in any of these steps).

I can't resist looking to the optimistic view, but this is what it looks like to me. It all makes sense IMO. The PTO is a Gov't under-resourced papermill - efficiency is everything, don't waste a single manhour. The above scenario deals with the risk inherent to this situation with the greatest efficiency, IMO. Surely PTO management is as witty as I. And they've probably encountered similar situations before (i.e., it's probably SOP).

JMHOs, and I KNOW nuttin'!

SGE