With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that blms management of reclamation project was not a discrete agency action under  7061
B: holding that material prejudice was not present under the facts however an agency of the state was not a party to the action
C: holding fda seizure action did not constitute final agency action
D: holding that ftc issuance of a complaint meets the apa definition of order and therefore is agency action even if not final agency action
A.