MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, pro se, Jackson Leeds brings this action against the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for a declaratory judgment that the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has failed to index and produce certain agency decisions as required by 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2). By Memorandum of Opinion and Order dated March 26, 1990, the Court held that PTO is not required to index decisions in pending and abandoned patent applications,1 but requested further briefing as to whether PTO is required to index those decisions in final patent files.2

Section 552(a)(2)(A) requires each agency to make available for public inspection and copying:

final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(A).

The section also provides that agencies:

maintain and make available for public inspection and copying current indexes providing identifying information for the public as to any matter issued, adopted, or promulgated after July 4, 1967, and required by the paragraph to be made available or published. Id.

It is the PTO’s position that, “under section (a)(2), only rulings which result in a final disposition of the ultimate matter before the PTO for adjudication (e.g., the applicant’s right to a patent in a patent case) are “final opinions” subject to the indexing requirement.” Commissioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 8. Under this analysis, the PTO indexes only four categories of decisions: (1) whether patent rights are to be granted, main*2tained, extended or reexamined; (2) whether a trademark is entitled to the benefits of Federal registration; (3) whether penalties are to be imposed on an individual for violation of regulations relating to the use of PTO records or search facilities; and (4) whether individuals are entitled to practice before the PTO.3

Plaintiff Leeds, however, has requested, and insists that the PTO should maintain, indexes for various petition decisions rendered during the patent application process. At issue are petition decisions rendered under 37 C.F.R. sections 1.14 (petitions for access to pending or abandoned applications), 1.56 (petitions seeking to have an application stricken from the files), 1.103 (petition for suspension of action), 1.127 (petition from refusal to admit amendment), 1.144 (petition from requirement for restriction), 1.181 (petition to Commissioner seeking relief from requirement or actions of patent examiner), 1.182 (petitions to Commissioner from any requirement of patent examiner or to invoke Commissioner’s supervisory powers), 1.312 (petition to permit amendment of a patent application after patent examiner has allowed the case), 1.313 (petition to withdraw the case from issue), 1.314 (petition to defer issuing a patent) and 1.193(a) (petition to Commissioner regarding an examiner’s finding that appeal is not regular in form).4 The requested decisions contained in patent application files for issued ■patents are available to the public. The question presented here is whether the decisions are “final opinions” under section 552(a)(2)(A) that must be indexed. This determination is to be based in large measure on principles of finality articulated in NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975). See Irons & Sears v. Dann, 606 F.2d 1215, 1223, n. 40 (D.C.Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1075, 100 S.Ct. 1021, 62 L.Ed.2d 757 (1980).

In NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., the Supreme Court held that memoranda explaining decisions by NLRB General Counsel not to file a unfair labor practice complaints were “final opinions” made in the “adjudication of cases,” while similar mem-oranda explaining decisions to file a complaint and commence litigation before the NLRB were not. NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 148, 95 S.Ct. 1504, 1515, 44 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975). In reaching its conclusion, the Court focused on whether the agency’s action disposed of the case, whether the adjudicative process would continue or end after issuance of the opinion. Id. at 158-160, 95 S.Ct. at 1520-1521. Under the Court’s analysis, a “final opinion” is one that effectuates a final disposition. See id. at 158, 95 S.Ct. at 1520 (“an ‘order’ is defined as ‘the whole or part of a final disposition ... ’ ”); id. at 159, 95 S.Ct. at 1520 (“the decision in the § 10(k) proceeding ... did not finally decide anything ...”); id. at 159, 95 S.Ct. at 1520 (“... Memorandum which directed the filing of a complaint” was not a final order; “the filing of a complaint does not finally dispose even of the General Counsel’s responsibility with respect to the case”); id. *3at 160, 95 S.Ct. at 1521 (“although not a ‘final opinion’ in the ‘adjudication’ of a ‘case’ because it does not effect a ‘final disposition,’

None of the decisions at issue effect a final disposition of a patent application. In each case, the application process either continues or is abandoned and the application is exempt from FOIA.5 Accordingly, none of the decisions are final orders under the Supreme Court’s analysis. Each decision is an integral part of the entire patent application process and can not treated as a discrete final action.

Accordingly, defendant PTO’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The defendant has no duty to index the petition decisions requested by the plaintiff.