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 .
Status of the Claims
As directed by the amendment received on July 21, 2025, claims 1-4 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-4 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on July 21, 2025, have been considered and an action on the merits follows. Any objections and rejections previously put forth in the Office Action dated January 22, 2025, are hereby withdrawn unless specifically noted below.
Examiner’s Comment
Applicant is respectfully reminded of the proper manner of making amendments to the claims, specification, and drawings in future correspondence. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived (See 37 CFR 1.121(C)(2)). Additionally, in the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following status identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), etc. (See 37 CFR 1.121(C)). In general, information for making amendments to the claims, specification, and drawings can be found in MPEP 714(II). Examiner notes that all of the amendments were improperly indicated by Applicant in the response. As a courtesy to Applicant and in an effort to promote compact prosecution, the claim amendments have been entered and considered despite use of improper notation. Applicant is advised that any future correspondence having improperly indicated amendments may be met with a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that although Applicant appears to reference an amended specification, no amended specification was included in Applicant’s response other than the provided replacement abstract.
Patent Practitioner
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “100” has still been used to designate the various different structures indicated in each of Figs. 1-5. Applicant also appears to have included additional, smaller reference characters in each figure with no lead lines or apparent relation to the depicted structures. The size of the reference characters should be of an appropriate size to be legible. For example, in the portion of Fig. 1 reproduced below, the figure also includes reference characters “101” and “111” without associated lead lines that are of insufficient size.
PNG
media_image1.png
340
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Example of improper reference characters
As stated in the previous office action, different reference characters should be used to designate each different structure in Figs. 1-5. For example, the overall structure of Figs. 1-2 (i.e., a footwear) could be designated with reference character “100”, the overall structure of Figs. 3-4 (i.e., a pad) could be designated with reference character “200”, and the overall structure of Fig. 5 (i.e., a user wearing the footwear) could be designated with reference character “300”. Furthermore, reference character “100” has also been used to designate “an audible sound” with respect to Fig. 5 as described in the specification at [0030]. Any changes to the reference characters in the drawings should be reflected in the specification as well.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“101” and “111” as depicted in Fig. 1
“103” and “121” as depicted in Fig. 2.
“113” and “125” as depicted in Fig. 3
“109” and “119” as depicted in Fig. 4
“115” and “117” as depicted in Fig. 5
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “100” has been used to designate both the “example implementations”, as discussed above, as well as “an audible sound” as discussed with respect to Fig. 5 and as described in the specification at [0030]. It is suggested that reference character “118” be used to designated “an audible sound”.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
“an alarm mechanism embedded within the sole of the footwear” as recited in claim 1
“a triggering system” as recited in claim 1
“a battery” as recited in claim 2
“a mobile device” as recited in claims 3-4
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification – Disclosure
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
“a triggering system” as recited in claim 1
“a battery” as recited in claim 2
As discussed above, Examiner notes that although Applicant appears to reference an amended specification, no amended specification was included in Applicant’s response other than the provided replacement abstract. Therefore, the following objections to the specification as originally filed still apply.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At [0025], “footwear bottom side 102” should read “footwear bottom side 108”
At [0026], “a bottom side opposite the top side” should read “a bottom side 108 opposite the top side 106”
At [0030], “an audible sound 100” should read “an audible sound 118” (See drawing objection above)
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “Bluetooth”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application at [0024]. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. For example, it is suggested that the term read “BLUETOOTH®”. Examiner notes that Applicant has already provided the generic terminology in the specification.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because at line 1, “uses” should instead read “is configured to use”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: in claim “alarm mechanism” as recited in claims 1-3
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a triggering system configured to activate the alarm mechanism to produce the audible sound when the adhesive patch is lifted from contact with a surface” at lines 6-7. This subject matter was not described in the specification as originally disclosed. Any communication with or triggering of the alarm system in response to a lifting of the adhesive patch from contact with a surface was not disclosed in the application as originally filed. Indeed, the adhesive patch and the electronic alarm mechanism are only ever seemingly discussed separately with no relation or interaction between the two seemingly separate embodiments being disclosed. Furthermore, a “triggering system” was not described in the application as originally filed. Therefore, the limitation constitutes new matter and should be removed from the claims.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “an alarm mechanism” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as discussed above. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function (i.e., emitting an audible sound when pressure is applied to the alarm mechanism). Indeed, the written disclosure merely references the presence of the alarm mechanism without discussing what it actually is. Examiner notes that merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. Furthermore, no examples are provided in the written description or the drawings for performing the associated function. Therefore, for at least these reasons, there is inadequate written description for the limitation in the specification. See MPEP 2181(IV). See also rejection under 112(b) below for additional discussion.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a battery” at line 1. This subject matter was not described in the specification as originally disclosed. Indeed, the term “battery” or some other power source does not appear in the application as originally filed. Therefore, the limitation constitutes new matter and should be removed from the claims.
Claims 2-4 are also similarly rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-4 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 1 recites the limitation “the sole of the footwear” at line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a sole of the footwear”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “an alarm mechanism” at line 5 which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as discussed above. However, as previously discussed above, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function (i.e., emitting an audible sound when pressure is applied to the alarm mechanism). Indeed, the written disclosure merely references the presence of the alarm mechanism without discussing what it actually is. Examiner notes that merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. Furthermore, no examples are provided in the written description or the drawings for performing the associated function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the alarm mechanism is powered by a battery located within the footwear and is activated upon detection of pressure” at lines 1-2. It is unclear which of the previously recited structures is being activated upon detection of pressure (e.g., the alarm mechanism, the battery, the footwear). Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, and the claim is rendered indefinite. Based on Applicant’s disclosure, it is suggested that the limitation instead read “wherein the alarm mechanism is powered by a battery located within the footwear, and wherein the alarm mechanism is configured to be activated upon detection of pressure”. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claim 4 contains the trademark/trade name “Bluetooth” at line 1. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe “a short-range radio frequency” and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation instead read “a short-range radio frequency” as discussed in and supported by Applicant’s original disclosure. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood according to the suggested language above when applying prior art.
Claims 2-4 are also rejected for being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, as best can be understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of US 2019/0174863 to McClain (hereinafter, “McClain”) in view of USPN 3,561,140 to Ludwig (hereinafter, “Ludwig”).
Regarding claim 1, McClain teaches a movement tracking device for producing an audible sound when lifted from a surface, the device comprising: a footwear (See McClain, Figs. 1-2; footwear (10) having system of Fig. 2 is capable of tracking movement of a wearer and producing an audible sound; [0015]-[0016]); an alarm mechanism embedded within the sole of the footwear (See McClain, Fig. 2; system (12) located inside sole of footwear (10)); and a triggering system configured to activate the alarm mechanism to produce the audible sound (See McClain, Figs. 1-2; sensor (28) of system of Fig. 2 is capable of triggering emission of an audible sound via speaker (14) when a pressure is applied to sensor (28); [0015]-[0016]).
That said, McClain is silent to an adhesive patch attached to a bottom surface of the footwear and the triggering system being configured to activate the alarm mechanism to produce the audible sound when the adhesive patch is lifted from contact with a surface.
However, Ludwig, in a related footwear accessory art, is directed to a non-skid patch safety device for footwear (See Ludwig, Figs. 1-4; abstract). More specifically, Ludwig teaches an adhesive patch attached to a bottom surface of the footwear (See Ludwig, Figs. 1-4; non-skid patch (10) is attached to bottom surface of footwear (18) via adhesive (14)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include the non-skid pad disclosed by Ludwig on the bottom surface of the footwear of McClain for a variety of reasons including for example, but not limited to, providing additional grip and prevent the user from slipping and falling (See Ludwig, Col. 3, lines 29-37; abstract). As a result of the above modification, the modified movement tracking device of McClain (i.e., McClain in view of Ludwig as discussed above) would further teach the triggering system being configured to activate the alarm mechanism to produce the audible sound when the adhesive patch is lifted from contact with a surface (the system of McClain is capable of emitting an audible sound in response to pressure including a change in applied pressure resulting from a user lifting the modified footwear, and the attached adhesive patch, from contact with some hypothetical surface).
Regarding claim 2, the modified movement tracking device of McClain (i.e., McClain in view of Ludwig, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches wherein the alarm mechanism is powered by a battery located within the footwear and is activated upon detection of pressure (See McClain, Figs. 1-2; system of Fig. 2 is powered by power source (30) which can be a battery; sensor (28) of system of Fig. 2 is capable of triggering emission of an audible sound via speaker (14) when a pressure is applied to sensor (28); [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 3, the modified movement tracking device of McClain (i.e., McClain in view of Ludwig, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above) further teaches a wireless transmitter configured to send an alert to a mobile device when the alarm mechanism is activated (See McClain, Figs. 1-2; system of Fig. 2 includes wireless communication (26) capable of transmitting an alert message to a hypothetical mobile device; [0016], [0022]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified movement tracking device of McClain (i.e., McClain in view of Ludwig, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 3 above) further teaches wherein the wireless transmitter uses Bluetooth or a cellular signal to communicate with the mobile device (See McClain, Figs. 1-2; system of Fig. 2 includes wireless communication (26) which is capable of using Bluetooth to communicate with a hypothetical mobile device; [0016], [0020]).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, filed July 21, 2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as Applicant’s arguments appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections.
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Pro se Disclaimer
While an applicant may prosecute the application and file papers in their application, lack of skill in this field usually acts as a liability in affording the maximum protection for the invention disclosed. Applicants are advised to secure the services of a registered patent attorney or agent to draft and prosecute a patent application, since the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. USPTO employees (including Pro Se Assistance and the examiner of record) cannot give legal advice. To assist applicants in making informed decisions, Pro Se Assistance can provide assistance in helping applicants navigate http://www.uspto.gov/ and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) to locate publicly available educational resources.
Responding to an Office Action
Examiner wished to direct applicant’s attention to the following information on how to respond to an office action by visiting https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions. About halfway down the page, you will find a section titled “How to respond to Official Letters”, this is where you will find how to send your response to the office. At template for such a response can be found at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/formatrevamdtprac.pdf.
Amendments
Examiner wishes to direct applicant's attention to publicly available claim drafting assistance available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/inventor-info-chat#step3 (see the February 15, 2018, program titled “Claim Drafting”).
Further, Examiner wishes to direct application’s attention to MPEP 714 and 37 CFR 1.121 which can be found at https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/current#/result/d0e85040.html?q=1.121&ccb=on&ncb=off&icb=off&fcb=off&ver=current&syn=adj&results=compact&sort=relevance&cnt=25&index=7 and provides information on how to properly make amendments.
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 MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA whose telephone number is (571) 272-4038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, CLINTON T OSTRUP can be reached at (571) 272-5559. 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.
/MATTHEW R MARCHEWKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/JAMESON D COLLIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732