While I realize that every situation is different, do you have a take on this process? IE, non-final rejection we have been lead to believe is no big deal--examiner sticking to his prior art claims(not convinced by what was said/demonstrated at the meeting) obviously not good, but really bad? After he reads our final written argument is it reasonable to think he could do a 180 and say everything is good? Or is he looking for a tweeking of the wording that will make everything OK? Or are we probably up you know what creek without a paddle? I'm just looking for an educated guess which is much more than I could come up with. Thanks