DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The previous objection to the drawings is withdrawn in light of the amended drawings, filed 01/16/2026.
New rejections of Claims 11-12, 14, and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been raised as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 01/16/2026, as presented in detail below.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the prior art of record does not teach or suggest “a pre-marked surface representing a workflow for the distribution center, the pre-marked surface being an elongated surface configured to accommodate a plurality of users simultaneously performing distribution operations” (Remarks, filed 01/16/2026, pp. 2-5). Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs Applicant’s attention to figure 8, the abstract, and paragraphs 0123-0158 of Frech’s specification. Frech discloses an elongated pre-marked surface which supports a plurality of users simultaneously performing a variety of distribution-related operations, such as “fill[ing], pack[ing], and ship[ping] customer orders” (par. 0134),“[l]oading the truck” (par. 0158), and delivering orders (par. 0126). Frech’s pre-marked surface represents a workflow pertaining to the process behind a supply chain—part of which depicts a generalized and simplified workflow of a distribution center specifically. However, as described in detail below, the limitation “a pre-marked surface representing a workflow for the distribution center” is directed to printed matter which does not have a functional relationship with the substrate that it is printed on. See below rejections and MPEP § 2112.01-III, which includes the following: “Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art.”
Applicant also argues that the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitations “the plurality of sections including an inbound section, a storing section, a picking section, a packing section, and an outbound section arranged sequentially along the elongated pre-marked surface,” “an inbound area disposed in the inbound section, the inbound area including visual elements that depict (i) a manual dock and (ii) an automated conveyor belt configured to receive a plurality of modular pieces,” or the other limitations of amended claim 1 which further describe each of the plurality of sections (Remarks, filed 01/16/2026, pp. 2-5). Examiner reiterates each of these limitations is directed to printed matter which does not have a functional relationship with the substrate that it is printed on and therefore cannot be used to distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See again rejections presented in detail below and MPEP § 2112.01-III.
Applicant finally argues that the prior art of record does not teach or suggest “any physically structured distribution-center system having conveyors spanning sections, aisle type differentiation, staging areas, repalletization lines, or store-assigned packing modules” (Remarks, filed 01/16/2026, pp. 4-5). Under Examiner’s interpretation of the claims, Applicant’s claims are not directed to a physically structured distribution-center system of this manner and instead merely recite a flat, elongated pre-marked surface (such as a rectangular playing board) on which there are visual depictions of these distribution center elements, which would all be categorized as non-functional printed matter. See again rejections presented below and MPEP § 2112.01-III.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-12, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second user at the second section" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 introduces these elements, but claim 11, which was previously dependent upon claim 4, has been amended to instead depend upon claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the second user at the second section” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 introduces these elements, but claim 12, which was previously dependent upon claim 4, has been amended to instead depend upon claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the third user” in lines 2 and 4 and “the third section” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 4 introduces these elements, but claim 14, which was previously dependent upon claim 4, has been amended to instead depend upon claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the fourth user at the fourth section” in lines 3 and 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 introduces these elements, but claim 16, which was previously dependent upon claim 4, has been amended to instead depend upon claim 1. Claim 17 is also rejected for depending upon claim 16.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the fourth user” in line 2 and “the fourth section” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 4 introduces these elements, but claim 17, which was previously dependent upon claim 4, has been amended to instead depend upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frech.
Regarding Claim 1, Frech discloses a pre-marked surface representing a workflow for the distribution center (Examiner notes the underlined portion will be further addressed below; figs. 1-2, 4, 8: pre-marked surface represents workflow pertaining to the process behind a supply chain—i.e., receipt of customer order, obtaining and transporting of raw materials, manufacturing, distributing, etc.—and depicts a distribution center), the pre-marked surface being an elongated surface configured to accommodate a plurality of users simultaneously performing distribution operations (fig. 8: the pre-marked surface is longer horizontally than it is vertically; abstract: “model is adapted to educate and train a number of workshop participants in supply chain logistics through interactive role-playing carried out in a simulated supply chain system”), the pre-marked surface defining a plurality of sections that represent the distribution operations at the distribution center (Examiner notes the underlined portion will be further addressed below; figs. 1-2, 4, 8: surface split into various sections which represent different operations of the supply chain, one of these sections being a distribution center) and are configured to be assigned to a plurality of users who demonstrate the distribution operations (figs. 2, 4, 8: plurality of sections on boards; pars. 0123-00158: a plurality of roles, one assigned to each user, is defined and each role pertains to relevant sections on the board, e.g., the user role of “Regional Sales Manager” corresponds to the “Data Terminal” section of the board; Examiner notes that the various users being assigned roles which are each responsible for tending to a designated section on the board is equivalent to those sections being assigned directly to the users without the step of naming roles);
a plurality of instruction instruments configured to be randomly selected by the plurality of users (par. 0112: “Model simulation includes the use of numerous forms and cards, discussed below, which provide information functionality and realism to model simulation and execution;” par. 0125: “the Customer(s) will sit at his or her workstation and begin to generate customer orders. This is done by spinning a Customer Order Entry Gauge for five cycles, and recording the proper widget order on one of five Customer Order Cards;” Examiner further notes that the order cards are randomly filled out and then users will randomly select an order card to practice filling such an order), each instruction instrument being configured to initiate one of the plurality of users to perform an action at one of the plurality of sections that is assigned to the one of the plurality of users (par. 0125: “After all order cards are complete, [one user] then updates a Customer Order Log with the same labels and quantities, and then transfers this information to the Customer Delivery Satisfaction Chart’” par. 0131: “[a different] individual will visit the Customer for each order cycle to receive customer orders, and make sure that each order has been entered on a Customer Order Transaction Screen at the sales office computer terminal. The Sales Manager works with the Distribution Warehouse Manager to share order information, assist with order filling activities and with truck dispatching”), the action being configured to cause another of the plurality of users to take an action at another of the plurality of sections (par. 0134: “[another user] exchanges information with the Regional Sales Managers and interfaces with them to fill, pack, and ship customer orders. The Warehouse Manager is responsible for requesting the Blue Truck Line drivers for delivery of customer order shipments;” Examiner notes that every randomized order card requires each user to perform an action at their designated section, one after another, in modeling the supply chain process); and
a plurality of modular pieces representing components at the distribution center (fig. 3: modular pieces) and configured to, based on selection of the plurality of instruction instruments, be interlocked with each other at the plurality of sections (fig. 3: modular pieces which can be interlocked to form the assembled widgets; par. 0026: “workshop participant role-plays a notional manufacturer who assembles raw components to create product ordered by the customer;” par. 0149: “A part kit is a unique accumulation of parts required to go to the widget plant and be assembled into a finished good widget”) and delivered across the plurality of sections at the pre-marked surface (figs. 1-2, 8; par. 0133: “Finished goods widgets arrive based upon plant production schedules at the three Widget Plants. Widgets arrive after plants produce and ship them via the Red Truck Line. However, if there is a shortage of widgets in the warehouse, the Warehouse Manager can issue a Warehouse Replenishment Order for expediting additional widgets to the warehouse”).
Frech does not disclose the pre-marked surface representing a workflow for the distribution center, the plurality of sections that represent the distribution operations at the distribution center, or the plurality of sections including an inbound section, a storing section, a picking section, a packing section, and an outbound section arranged sequentially along the elongated pre-marked surface; an inbound area disposed in the inbound section, the inbound area including visual elements that depict (i) a manual dock and (ii) an automated conveyor belt configured to receive a plurality of modular pieces; the automated conveyor belt extending across at least the inbound section and the storing section and being configured to transport the plurality of modular pieces from the inbound section to the storing section; a storing area disposed in the storing section, the storing area including visual elements that depict conveyable aisles and non-conveyable aisles; an additional conveyor belt depicted on the pre-marked surface and configured to receive the plurality of modular pieces from the storing section and move the plurality of modular pieces to the picking section; a picking area disposed in the picking section, the picking area including visual elements that depict a re-palletization line having a plurality of zones, a full pallet staging area, and a carton air staging area, wherein the re-palletization line, the full pallet staging area, and the carton air staging area are disposed within the picking section, wherein the full pallet staging area and the carton air staging area are physically distinct from the re-palletization line; a packing area disposed in the packing section, the packing area including a plurality of mods, each mod being assigned to a store amongst a plurality of stores and configured to receive the plurality of modular pieces that are ready to be transported to the store. However, each of these limitations is printed matter which does not have a functional relationship with the substrate that it is printed on. “Where the only difference between a prior art product and a claimed product is printed matter that is not functionally related to the product, the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339, 70 USPQ2d 1862, 1864 (Fed. Cir. 2004)” (see MPEP § 2112.01-III).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to visually depict any kind of workflow, such as a distribution center workflow, and the relevant sections which represent operations within that workflow, such as various distribution operations, because these visual depictions do not functionally relate to the substrate and because the visual depictions do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Frech further discloses the plurality of instruction instruments include a plurality of cards providing instructions configured to initiate the plurality of users to perform actions at the plurality of sections (par. 0125: “After all order cards are complete, [one user] then updates a Customer Order Log with the same labels and quantities, and then transfers this information to the Customer Delivery Satisfaction Chart’” par. 0131: “[a different] individual will visit the Customer for each order cycle to receive customer orders, and make sure that each order has been entered on a Customer Order Transaction Screen at the sales office computer terminal. The Sales Manager works with the Distribution Warehouse Manager to share order information, assist with order filling activities and with truck dispatching;” par. 0134: “[another user] exchanges information with the Regional Sales Managers and interfaces with them to fill, pack, and ship customer orders. The Warehouse Manager is responsible for requesting the Blue Truck Line drivers for delivery of customer order shipments;” Examiner notes that every randomized order card requires each user to perform an action at their designated section, one after another, in modeling the supply chain process).
Regarding Claim 4, Frech further discloses the plurality of users include first, second, third, fourth, and fifth users (par. 0026: “A first workshop participant… A second workshop participant… A third workshop participant;” par. 0029: “fourth and fifth workshop participants”), and the plurality of sections includes first, second, third, fourth, and fifth sections that are assigned to the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth users respectively (fig. 8; par. 0131: the (first) user assigned the role of “Regional Sales Manager” uses the “Data Terminal” section of the board; par. 0134: the (second) user assigned the role of “Distribution Warehouse manager uses the “Packing” section of the board; par. 0138: the (third) user assigned the role of “Plant Manager” uses the “Assembly and Fabrication” section of the board; par. 0143: the (fourth) user assigned the role of “Supplier” uses the “Raw Materials” section of the board; pars. 0149-0150: the (fifth) user assigned the role of “Consolidator” uses the section depicting the shipping boxes in figure 8 or “Plant #1 and Plant #2” depicted in figure 4; Examiner notes that the various users being assigned roles which are each responsible for tending to a designated section on the board is equivalent to those sections being assigned directly to the users without the step of naming roles).
Regarding Claim 5, Frech further discloses the plurality of users include a sixth user (pars. 0152-0154: a sixth, different user is assigned the role of “Truck Driver”), and the interlocked modular pieces are assigned to the sixth user and delivered, by the sixth user, to each of the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth sections (pars. 0153-0154: “The Truck Driver is responsible for transporting all raw materials, part kits, and finished goods around Widget Land… This concept allows for very real simulated driving times from one location to the next… The trucks have a maximum capacity of four containers that can either store four full boxes of raw material, or four shipping containers that can contain a maximum of eight finished goods widgets;” Examiner notes that the full board represents “Widget Land,” and furthermore, the raw materials, part kits, and finished goods are parts which are received or sent from the described first, second, third, fourth, and fifth sections).
Regarding Claim 6, Frech does not explicitly disclose the first section is the inbound section that corresponds to an inbound department at the distribution center, the second section is the storing section that corresponds to a storing department at the distribution center, the third section is the picking section that corresponds to a picking department at the distribution center, the fourth section is the packing section that corresponds to a packing department at the distribution center, and the fifth section is the outbound section corresponds to an outbound department at the distribution center. However, each of these limitations is printed matter which does not have a functional relationship with the substrate that it is printed on, and therefore the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See Claim 1 above and MPEP § 2112.01-III).
Regarding Claim 7, Frech does not explicitly disclose the first section further includes visual elements that depict: at least one store and a manual dock pallet staging area. However, each of these limitations is printed matter which does not have a functional relationship with the substrate that it is printed on. See Claim 1 above and MPEP § 2112.01-III).
Regarding Claim 8, Frech further discloses the plurality of instruction instruments include a subset of cards providing instructions, to the first user at the first section, to perform actions with the plurality of modular pieces (pars. 0130-0131: “the [first user] is responsible for taking customer sales orders and scheduling customer shipments… to share order information, assist with order filling activities and with truck dispatching” after selecting a card which details an order to fill).
Frech does not explicitly disclose the actions including using the manual dock depicted on the pre- marked surface. However, this limitation refers to printed matter which does not have a functional relationship with the substrate that it is printed on, and therefore the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See Claim 1 above and MPEP § 2112.01-III).
Regarding Claim 9, Frech further discloses the plurality of instruction instruments include a subset of cards providing instructions, to the first user at the first section, to perform actions with the plurality of modular pieces (pars. 0130-0131: “the [first user] is responsible for taking customer sales orders and scheduling customer shipments… to share order information, assist with order filling activities and with truck dispatching” after selecting a card which details an order to fill),
Frech does not explicitly disclose the actions including using the automated conveyor belt depicted on the pre-marked surface. However, this limitation refers to printed matter which does not have a functional relationship with the substrate that it is printed on, and therefore the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See Claim 1 above and MPEP § 2112.01-III).
Regarding Claim 11, Frech further discloses the plurality of instruction instruments include a subset of cards providing instructions, to the second user at the second section, to perform actions with the plurality of modular pieces (pars. 0132-0136: “ [the second user] is responsible for insuring that there are sufficient finished good widgets in the warehouse at all times… fill, pack, and ship customer orders… will take a complete physical inventory of finished widgets” after selecting a card which details an order to fill),
Frech does not explicitly disclose the actions including using the non-conveyable aisles depicted on the pre-marked surface. However, this limitation refers to printed matter which does not have a functional relationship with the substrate that it is printed on, and therefore the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See Claim 1 above and MPEP § 2112.01-III).
Regarding Claim 12, Frech further discloses the plurality of instruction instruments include a subset of cards providing instructions, to the second user at the second section, to perform actions with the plurality of modular pieces (pars. 0132-0136: “ [the second user] is responsible for insuring that there are sufficient finished good widgets in the warehouse at all times… fill, pack, and ship customer orders… will take a complete physical inventory of finished widgets” after selecting a card which details an order to fill).
Frech does not explicitly disclose the actions including using the conveyable aisles depicted on the pre-marked surface. However, this limitation refers to printed matter which does not have a functional relationship with the substrate that it is printed on, and therefore the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See Claim 1 above and MPEP § 2112.01-III).
Regarding Claim 16, Frech further discloses the plurality of instruction instruments include: a first subset of cards providing instructions, to the fourth user at the fourth section, to perform actions with the plurality of modular pieces (pars. 0142-0145: “[the fourth user] is responsible for producing and shipping all component parts that are used by the downstream widget plants… primary functions include manufacturing and storing finished goods components, filling Supplier Purchase Order requests from widget plants and working with the Red Line Truck organization to deliver products to the plants after selecting a card which details an order to fill); and
a second subset of cards providing instructions, to the fourth user at the fourth section, to perform actions with the plurality of modular pieces (pars. 0142-0145: “[the fourth user] is responsible for producing and shipping all component parts that are used by the downstream widget plants… primary functions include manufacturing and storing finished goods components, filling Supplier Purchase Order requests from widget plants and working with the Red Line Truck organization to deliver products to the plants after selecting a card which details an order to fill).
Frech does not explicitly disclose the actions including break packing actions and actions with the plurality of modular pieces that include packing actions. However, each of these limitations is printed matter (printed instructions on a card) which does not have a functional relationship with the substrate that it is printed on, and therefore the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See Claim 1 above and MPEP § 2112.01-III).
Regarding Claim 19, Frech further discloses the plurality of modular pieces are different colors and different sizes, wherein the different colors and the different sizes indicate at least one of units of inventory at the distribution center, quantity of the inventory at the distribution center, size of the inventory at the distribution center, a store, type of supplies used at the distribution center as part of the workflow, or type of the inventory at the distribution center (fig. 3: modular pieces are different sizes (such as large, medium, or small) and colors (such as red, green, blue, or yellow); par. 0125: “Red, blue and green widgets can be ordered in quantities from one to four, and yellow widgets can be ordered in quantities of one or two;” Examiner notes that the color indicates the possible units of each item of inventory and the size of the pieces differentiates the types of inventory).
Regarding Claim 20, Frech further discloses the components at the distribution center represented by the plurality of modular pieces include at least one of inventory, pallets, or warehouse equipment (fig. 3: modular pieces, which represent inventory; par. 0135: “the Warehouse Manager will take a complete physical inventory of finished widgets”).
Claims 3, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frech as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martin.
Regarding Claim 3, Frech does not disclose a die. However, Martin discloses the plurality of instruction instruments include a die (col. 3, lines 13-20: “[after rolling the dice] the player moves one of his pieces 38 from Drill 26 to the numbered playing region corresponding to the dice total;” Examiner notes this is being interpreted as a die/dice providing instruction which is used to determine a zone or region on the board). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the die of Martin with the board game training system of Frech because dice are very common instruments to use and to convey information in board games (Martin, abstract; col. 1, lines 21-40).
Regarding Claim 14, Frech does not disclose a die. However, Martin discloses the plurality of instruction instruments includes a die configured to be rolled, by the third user at the third section (col. 3, lines 13-20: “[after rolling the dice] the player moves one of his pieces 38 from Drill 26 to the numbered playing region corresponding to the dice total;” Examiner notes this is being interpreted as a die/dice providing instruction which is used to determine a zone or region on the board). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the die of Martin with the board game training system of Frech because dice are very common instruments to use and to convey information in board games (Martin, abstract; col. 1, lines 21-40).
Frech modified by Martin does not explicitly disclose to determine a zone amongst a plurality of zones at the re-palletization line depicted on the pre-marked surface, the zone being configured to allow the third user to perform at least one repalletization action with the plurality of modular pieces. However, each of these limitations is printed matter which does not have a functional relationship with the substrate that it is printed on, and therefore the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See Claim 1 above and MPEP § 2112.01-III).
Regarding Claim 17, Frech does not disclose a die. However, Martin discloses the plurality of instruction instruments further includes a die configured to be rolled, by the fourth user at the fourth section (col. 3, lines 13-20: “[after rolling the dice] the player moves one of his pieces 38 from Drill 26 to the numbered playing region corresponding to the dice total;” Examiner notes this is being interpreted as a die/dice providing instruction which is used to determine a zone or region on the board). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the die of Martin with the board game training system of Frech because dice are very common instruments to use and to convey information in board games (Martin, abstract; col. 1, lines 21-40).
Frech modified by Martin does not disclose to determine a zone depicted in the fourth section of the pre-marked surface, the zone being configured to allow the fourth user to perform the actions with the plurality of modular pieces. However, each of these limitations is printed matter which does not have a functional relationship with the substrate that it is printed on, and therefore the content of the printed matter will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See Claim 1 above and MPEP § 2112.01-III).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frech as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Campbell.
Regarding Claim 18, Frech discloses modular pieces which can be interlocked but does not disclose that the modular pieces are stackable bricks. However, Campbell discloses the plurality of modular pieces are stackable bricks (figs. 7-9: modular pieces which are stackable bricks of varying shapes), and wherein the action performed by the one of the plurality of users includes stacking the bricks according to instructions provided by an instruction instrument amongst the plurality of instruction instruments that is randomly selected by the one of the plurality of users (col. 3, lines 45-55: “Depending upon the roll of a die and resulting movement of playing pieces 34, chance instructions… contained in the deck of cards 33 are directed to each player. These instructions regulate the assembly of successive layers of building blocks 20-22 within the player's assigned playing area. Each player sequentially adds or removes building blocks in the possession of the player to or from predetermined patterns of layers of building blocks within the player's assigned playing area 18 as regulated by the chance instructions”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the stackable bricks of Campbell as the modular pieces of Frech because stackable bricks are simply one type of interlocking modular pieces and in order to use pieces which may be easier to interlock or otherwise connect with each other (Campbell, abstract; figs. 5, 7-9).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE DOSHER whose telephone number is (571) 272-4842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/J.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715