DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is made non-final in response to applicant’s Request for Continued Examination filed 10/30/25. Claims 6-8 and 19-21 are cancelled; claims 1 and 13 are amended; claims 22-24 are withdrawn. Claims 1-5 and 9-18 are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. Claims 1-5, 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US Pat. No. 8,292,627) in view of Whitehead et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0366023) and further in view of Munn (YouTube video uploaded 1/5/2020 titled “Credit Card Size Mirror” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJjrhXzKC0E)(hereianfter “Munn”) and even further in view of Burgio (US Pat. No. 5,989,033) and Smith (US Pub. No. 2020/0094129).
With respect to claims 1-5, 9-18, Lewis teaches an emotional learning system comprising: a plurality of emotion state identifiers 200 that include a plurality of emotion state definition cards 200, each including first and second sides (inherent)(column 3, lines 20-50); and a self-emotion defining device 115 that includes a visual self-emotion defining device 115, which is a reflective device configured to enable the user to see their reflection (“mirror” – column 2, lines 50-65).
It is noted the claims are directed to apparatus claims. Limitations pertaining to game rules are treated as intended use, or functional limitations. Per MPEP 2114 - a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the structure taught by Lewis –cards and mirror – are capable of being used as intended by the claim.
Lewis teaches wherein the learning system further involves utilizing various educational activities, including “word wall activity”, “story vocabulary activity”, “language activity” or “another educational activity” (column 5, lines 9-20). However, and admittedly, Lewis fails to expressly teach wherein these activities involve the use of a board. However, analogous art reference Whitehead et al. teaches such features as a learning system comprising a board used for educational, language, and vocabulary is known in the art – board 102, wherein the board 102 has regions that can be used as an emotion identifier area, a participate identifier storage area, and an emotion indication area - Fig. 1, paragraph [0032]. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the spelling aid board of Whitehead et al. to the learning system of Lewis. The motivation to combine is provide a visual and interactive game board as part of the structured educational activity expressly contemplated by Lewis. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success since the addition of the board will comport with an expressly stated purpose of Lewis (i.e. structured education activity). Moreover, the primary purpose of Lewis is not frustrated as the board is used in conjunction with the game discussed in Lewis. The board of Lewis is configured for storing a portion of the emotion state identifiers 200, configured to display a combination of at least one emotion state identifier and at least one participant identifier, wherein the combination is configured to communicate an emotion state associated with a participant corresponding to a participant identifier, and is configured for storing a plurality of participant identifiers since it is flat and traditionally structured game board (paragraph [0033]). MPEP 2114, In re Schreiber. Examiner notes the “participant identifiers” are not positively recited by the claims.
Regarding the claimed indicia on the emotion state identifiers and board, such limitations are directed to printed matter. Per MPEP 2111.05, If a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate does not exist. USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. the critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The physical configuration of the claimed apparatus in the Gulack invention comprised three key elements: (1) a band, ring, or set of concentric rings; (2) a plurality of individual digits imprinted on the band or ring at regularly spaced intervals; and (3) an algorithm by which the appropriate digits are developed. The court noted that the claims required a particular sequence of digits to be displayed on the outside surface of a band. These digits were functionally related to the band in two ways: (1) the band supports the digits; and (2) there is an endless sequence of digits — each digit residing in a unique position with respect to every other digit in an endless loop. The digits exploit the endless nature of the band, and notably, these features are critical to the invention, thus constituting a functional relationship between the digits and the band. The product performed some function with respect to the printed matter it is associated because the claimed algorithm would not be satisfied without certain physical relationships of the string of numbers. In Miller, the printed indicia on a measuring device for use in fractioning recipes was at issue. Specifically, volumetric indicia on the measuring receptacle indicated volume in a certain ratio to actual volume. This relationship was held to constitute a functional relationship between the indicia and the substrate. The printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. Evidence against a functional relationship exists where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter. See MPEP 2111.05. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. Another example in which a product merely serves as a support would occur for a deck of playing cards having images on each card. See In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished). In Bryan the applicant asserted that the printed matter allowed the cards to be "collected, traded, and drawn"; "identify and distinguish one deck of cards from another"; and "enable[] the card to be traded and blind drawn". However, the court found that these functions do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and where instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. See also Ex parte Gwinn, 112 USPQ 439, 446-47 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1955), in which the invention was directed to a set of dice by means of which a game may be played. The claims differed from the prior art solely by the printed matter in the dice. The claims were properly rejected on prior art because there was no new feature of physical structure and no new relation of printed matter to physical structure. For example, a claimed measuring tape having electrical wiring information thereon, or a generically claimed substrate having a picture of a golf ball thereupon, would lack a functional relationship as the claims as a whole are directed towards conveying wiring information (unrelated to the measuring tape) or an aesthetically pleasing image (unrelated to the substrate) to the reader. Additionally, where the printed matter and product do not depend upon each other, no functional relationship exists. For example, in a kit containing a set of chemicals and a printed set of instructions for using the chemicals, the instructions are not related to that particular set of chemicals. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339, 70 USPQ2d at 1864. Unlike the fact situations in Miller and Gulack, the substrate (cards, board surface) does not support the printed indicia and the indicia is not arranged such that it's positioned in a unique position with respect to the substrate. Moreover, the printed matter is directed towards conveying game rules to a human reader independent of the supporting product. There is not a new and unobvious functional relationship therebetween. Instead, the indicia areas are akin to the images on a playing card in In re Bryan and the dice indicia of Ex parte Gwinn, neither of which were determined to establish a new and unobvious functional relationship with the substrate. As such, no patentable weight is given to the claimed printed matter.
Admittedly, the self-emotion defining device does not have a generally similar form factor as the plurality of emotional state definition cards as claimed as the mirror 115 is attached to base back component 120. However, it is known for reflective devices (i.e., mirrors) to be structured as a card as evidenced by Munn. A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the mirror of Lewis to be structured as a card, as taught by Munn. The rationale to make the simple substitution of mirror structures is to provide a known means for a small mirror suitable for a person seeing their reflection. This will also reduce the footprint of the game components, making it easier to package and transport/stow. The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success. Lewis expressly admits the mirror could be utilized as a “stand-alone” component “without being coupled to a common base” (column 3, lines 7-15).
Lewis teaches wherein the cards 200 are corralled in bins 105, as opposed to being coupled together via a coupling device including a ring assembly as claimed. Similarly, Munn fails to expressly teach wherein the self-emotion defining device comprises an opening ring as claimed. However, analogous art reference Burgio teaches wherein it is known to couple game cards together via a ring assembly (Fig.’s 10-12; column 4, lines 14-29). At time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the bins of Lewis with the ring coupling assembly. The motivation to make the simple substitution is to provide a known means to couple cards together and provide convenience access to the various cards. Moreover, the ring will expectantly prevent cards from being lost and allow for the game to be easily transported and stowed. The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success as Lewis expressly contemplates wherein the game can be modified such that there are no bins (column 3, lines 6-7). Regarding the claim limitation requiring the self-emotion defining device to also comprise an opening ring assembly like the cards, the rationale to combine the teachings of Burgio is the same as the rationale to coupling the cards via the ring assembly. Namely, the game components will be conveniently accessed and organized together. This will expectantly allow easy set-up, disassembly and stowage/portability of the game assembly. The modification has a reasonable expectation of success since the cards and self-emotion defining device each have the same “card” structure.
Lastly, Lewis as modified above fails to expressly teach wherein the plurality of emotion state identifiers are magnetic and configured to be releasably attachable to one or more of the emotion identifier storage area and the emotion indication area. Lewis as modified above also fails to expressly teach wherein the plurality of participant identifiers are magnetic and configured to be releasably attachable to one or more of the participant identifier storage area and the emotion indication area. However, within the art, Smith teaches that it is known to for game cards 104 to be magnetic such that they are configured to be releasably attachable to a game board 300 (paragraph [0044]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the playing board taught by Lewis as modified by Whitehead out of magnetic material providing a releasable connection to the magnetic game cards (i.e. emotion state identifiers, participant identifiers). The rationale to combine is to prevent the cards from “fall[ing] of the board” and “any unwanted movement” (See Lewis at paragraph [0044]). The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the functionality of the game is not frustrated. See also MPEP 2114, In re Schreiber
4. Claims 1-5, 9-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (US Pat. No. 8,292,627) in view of Whitehead et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0366023) and further in view of Burgio (US Pat. No. 5,989,033) and Smith (US Pub. No. 2020/0094129).
With respect to claims 1-5, 9-11 and 13-17, Lewis teaches an emotional learning system comprising: a plurality of emotion state identifiers 200 that include a plurality of emotion state definition cards 200 (i.e. cards representing “happiness”, “sadness”, “anger”), each including first and second sides (inherent)(column 3, lines 20-50). A single card within the set of cards 200 provided by Lewis is construed as reading on a visual self-emotion defining device, which has a generally similar form factor as the remainder emotion state definition cards 200 within the set of cards 200. That is to say, within the total set of “Emotion Cards 200” provided by Lewis, a single card 200 is construed as teaching a visual “self-emotion defining device” configured to allow a user to identify their own emotional state and then comparing it to the plurality of emotional states of the rest of the cards 200 within the set of emotion cards 200.
It is noted the claims are directed to apparatus claims. Limitations pertaining to game rules are treated as intended use, or functional limitations. Per MPEP 2114 - a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). If a prior art structure is inherently capable of performing the intended use as recited, then it shifts the burden to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Here, the structure taught by Lewis –cards and mirror – are capable of being used as intended by the claim.
Lewis teaches wherein the learning system comprises engaging in a structured educational activity, including “word wall activity”, “story vocabulary activity”, “language activity” or “another educational activity” (column 5, lines 9-20). However, and admittedly, Lewis fails to expressly teach wherein these activities involve the use of a board. However, analogous art reference Whitehead et al. teaches such features as a learning system comprising a board used for educational, language, and vocabulary is known in the art – board 102, wherein the board 102 has regions that can be used as an emotion identifier area, a participate identifier storage area, and an emotion indication area - Fig. 1, paragraph [0032]. At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the spelling aid board of Whitehead et al. to the learning system of Lewis. The motivation to combine is provide a visual and interactive game board as part of the structured educational activity expressly contemplated by Lewis. The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success since the addition of the board will comport with an expressly stated purpose of Lewis (i.e. structured education activity). Moreover, the primary purpose of Lewis is not frustrated as the board is used in conjunction with the game discussed in Lewis. The board of Lewis is configured for storing a portion of the emotion state identifiers 200, configured to display a combination of at least one emotion state identifier and at least one participant identifier, wherein the combination is configured to communicate an emotion state associated with a participant corresponding to a participant identifier, and is configured for storing a plurality of participant identifiers since it is flat and traditionally structured game board (paragraph [0033]). See MPEP 2114, In re Schreiber. Examiner notes the “participant identifiers” are not positively recited by the claims.
Regarding the claimed indicia on the emotion state identifiers and board, such limitations are directed to printed matter. Per MPEP 2111.05, If a new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate does not exist. USPTO personnel need not give patentable weight to printed matter. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Where the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability …. the critical question is whether there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The physical configuration of the claimed apparatus in the Gulack invention comprised three key elements: (1) a band, ring, or set of concentric rings; (2) a plurality of individual digits imprinted on the band or ring at regularly spaced intervals; and (3) an algorithm by which the appropriate digits are developed. The court noted that the claims required a particular sequence of digits to be displayed on the outside surface of a band. These digits were functionally related to the band in two ways: (1) the band supports the digits; and (2) there is an endless sequence of digits — each digit residing in a unique position with respect to every other digit in an endless loop. The digits exploit the endless nature of the band, and notably, these features are critical to the invention, thus constituting a functional relationship between the digits and the band. The product performed some function with respect to the printed matter it is associated because the claimed algorithm would not be satisfied without certain physical relationships of the string of numbers. In Miller, the printed indicia on a measuring device for use in fractioning recipes was at issue. Specifically, volumetric indicia on the measuring receptacle indicated volume in a certain ratio to actual volume. This relationship was held to constitute a functional relationship between the indicia and the substrate. The printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. Evidence against a functional relationship exists where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter. See MPEP 2111.05. These situations may arise where the claim as a whole is directed towards conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the supporting product. Another example in which a product merely serves as a support would occur for a deck of playing cards having images on each card. See In re Bryan, 323 Fed. App'x 898 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished). In Bryan the applicant asserted that the printed matter allowed the cards to be "collected, traded, and drawn"; "identify and distinguish one deck of cards from another"; and "enable[] the card to be traded and blind drawn". However, the court found that these functions do not pertain to the structure of the apparatus and where instead drawn to the method or process of playing a game. See also Ex parte Gwinn, 112 USPQ 439, 446-47 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1955), in which the invention was directed to a set of dice by means of which a game may be played. The claims differed from the prior art solely by the printed matter in the dice. The claims were properly rejected on prior art because there was no new feature of physical structure and no new relation of printed matter to physical structure. For example, a claimed measuring tape having electrical wiring information thereon, or a generically claimed substrate having a picture of a golf ball thereupon, would lack a functional relationship as the claims as a whole are directed towards conveying wiring information (unrelated to the measuring tape) or an aesthetically pleasing image (unrelated to the substrate) to the reader. Additionally, where the printed matter and product do not depend upon each other, no functional relationship exists. For example, in a kit containing a set of chemicals and a printed set of instructions for using the chemicals, the instructions are not related to that particular set of chemicals. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1339, 70 USPQ2d at 1864. Unlike the fact situations in Miller and Gulack, the substrate (cards, board surface) does not support the printed indicia and the indicia is not arranged such that it's positioned in a unique position with respect to the substrate. Moreover, the printed matter is directed towards conveying game rules to a human reader independent of the supporting product. There is not a new and unobvious functional relationship therebetween. Instead, the indicia areas are akin to the images on a playing card in In re Bryan and the dice indicia of Ex parte Gwinn, neither of which were determined to establish a new and unobvious functional relationship with the substrate. As such, no patentable weight is given to the claimed printed matter.
Lewis teaches wherein the cards 200 are corralled in bins 105, as opposed to being coupled together via a coupling device including a ring assembly as claimed. However, analogous art reference Burgio teaches wherein it is known to couple game cards together via a ring assembly (Fig.’s 10-12; column 4, lines 14-29). At time of applicant’s effective filing, one ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the bins of Lewis with the ring coupling assembly. The motivation to make the simple substitution is to provide a known means to couple cards together and provide convenience access to the various cards. Moreover, the ring will expectantly prevent cards from being lost and allow for the game to be easily transported and stowed. The proposed modification is considered to have a reasonable expectation of success as Lewis expressly contemplates wherein the game can be modified such that there are no bins (column 3, lines 6-7). Regarding the claim limitation requiring the self-emotion defining device to also comprise an opening ring assembly like the cards, the combination of Lewis and Burgio will meet this element since the combination provides each of the cards within the set of cards 200 assembled together on the ring assembly.
Lastly, Lewis as modified above fails to expressly teach wherein the plurality of emotion state identifiers are magnetic and configured to be releasably attachable to one or more of the emotion identifier storage area and the emotion indication area. Lewis as modified above also fails to expressly teach wherein the plurality of participant identifiers are magnetic and configured to be releasably attachable to one or more of the participant identifier storage area and the emotion indication area. However, within the art, Smith teaches that it is known to for game cards 104 to be magnetic such that they are configured to be releasably attachable to a game board 300 (paragraph [0044]). At time of applicant’s effective filing, a person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to make the playing board taught by Lewis as modified by Whitehead out of magnetic material providing a releasable connection to the magnetic game cards (i.e. emotion state identifiers, participant identifiers). The rationale to combine is to prevent the cards from “fall[ing] of the board” and “any unwanted movement” (See Lewis at paragraph [0044]). The proposed modification has a reasonable expectation of success as the functionality of the game is not frustrated. See also MPEP 2114, In re Schreiber.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
6. Claims 1-5, 9-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23-25 of copending Application No. 17/489097 in view of Whitehead et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0366023) and Munn.
With respect to claims 1-5, 9-18, copending claims 23-25 substantially teach the claimed elements, including emotional state definition cards and a self-emotion defining device, an emotion identifier storage area, participant identifier cards, participant identifier storage area, and an emotion indication area. The emotional state definition cards and participant identifier cards are taught to be magnetic, releasably attachable to the emotion indication area. See claims 24-25.
As set forth above in the prior art rejections, the claimed indicia on the emotion state identifiers and board are directed to printed matter and not given patentable weight in view of MPEP 2111.05. See legal analysis above.
The co-pending claims do not expressly teach wherein the emotion identifier storage area, participant identifier storage area, and emotion indication area are part of a “board” as claimed. However, analogous art reference Whitehead teaches such features as providing a game board as part of an interactive board system is known in the art. A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize the claimed areas as part of a game board as this is a known component of a board system suitable to store cards.
Lastly, the self-emotion defining device is not expressly taught to have a generally similar form factor as the plurality of emotional state definition cards as claimed. However, it is known for reflective devices (i.e., mirrors) to be structured as a card as evidenced by Munn. A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize a self-emotion defining device structured as a mirror card, as taught by Munn. The rationale to combine is to provide a known means for a self-emotion defining device suitable for a person seeing their reflection. This will also reduce the footprint of the game components, making it easier to package and transport/stow. Regarding the limitation that the self-emotion defining device also comprise a ring opening, claim 23 expressly teaches coupling the cards using a ring assembly. A person ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to also couple the card shaped mirror self-emotion defining device in the same manner as the state identifiers. This will provide organization of the game pieces, and improve stowage/portability.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL DAVID DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3538. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272 4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711