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 Amendment
The amendments filed with the written response received on December 4, 2025 have been considered and an action on the merits follows. As directed by the amendment, claims 1-6, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 have been amended; claims 7-10 are canceled; and claims 19-20 have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 11-20 are pending in this application, with an action on the merits to follow regarding claims 1-6 and 11-20.
Because of the applicant's amendment, the following in the office action filed September 11, 2025, are hereby withdrawn: Objections to the drawings.
Specification
The use of the term “Velcro™” (in paras. 0030, 0031, 0039, 0040, 0044, 0045, 0047, and 0048), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. 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, Applicant should recite, “VELCRO®”.
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 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: “connection mechanism” in claims 1, 12-13, and 15-16.
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(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 12 and 15 (and claims 13 and 16 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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 12 is indefinite as it recites, “a first connection mechanism located on said upper panel of said brim portion; a second connection mechanism located on said upper panel of said brim portion”. As claim 1 recites, “a first strap, connected directly to said first side wing, having a first connection mechanism; and a second strap, connected directly to said second side wing, having a second connection mechanism”, it is unclear if the first and second connection mechanisms in claim 12 are referring to the same connection mechanisms from claim 1 or to different/additional connection mechanisms. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted claim 12 to be referring to different/additional connection mechanisms.
Claim 15 is indefinite as it recites, “a first connection mechanism located on said upper panel of said brim portion; a second connection mechanism located on said upper panel of said brim portion”. As claim 1 recites, “a first strap, connected directly to said first side wing, having a first connection mechanism; and a second strap, connected directly to said second side wing, having a second connection mechanism”, it is unclear if the first and second connection mechanisms in claim 15 are referring to the same connection mechanisms from claim 1 or to different/additional connection mechanisms. For purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted claim 15 to be referring to different/additional connection mechanisms.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weaver (US 2013/0125292) in view of Hutton (US 3346876).
Regarding claim 1, Weaver discloses a hat blinder (10, Figs. 1-4) comprising: a brim portion (portion of 12 and 14 exclusive of side wings 30/32); a first side wing (30); and a second side wing (32); said brim portion being constructed of an upper panel (14) and a lower panel (12); said upper panel and said lower panel being configured to form a pocket (34), having a volume, for receiving a brim of a hat (as disclosed in para. 0030).
The embodiment of Figs. 1-3 of Weaver does not expressly disclose a first strap, connected directly to said first side wing, having a first connection mechanism; and a second strap, connected directly to said second side wing, having a second connection mechanism; said first connection mechanism being configured to connect to said second connection mechanism; said connection of said first strap to said first side wing and said connection of said second strap to said second side wing being configured to provide tension on said first side wing and said second side wing to hold said first side wing and said second side wing in a position to obstruct peripheral vision.
A further embodiment of Weaver (Fig. 19) teaches a first strap (70 on left side), having a first connection mechanism (one of the hook and loop, see para. 0041 and Examiner notes “connection mechanism” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and disclosed by Applicant as snaps or Velcro in para. 0030 of the instant application and hook and loop of Weaver is equivalent); and a second strap (70 on right side), having a second connection mechanism (the other of the hook and loop, see para. 0041 and Examiner notes “connection mechanism” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and disclosed by Applicant as snaps or Velcro in para. 0030 of the instant application and hook and loop of Weaver is equivalent); said first connection mechanism being configured to connect to said second connection mechanism (as the connection mechanisms are hook and loop that attaches together, see para. 0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add straps to the hat blinder of the first embodiment of Weaver, as taught a further embodiment of Weaver, so that, if desired, the hat blinder may be worn as a visor without the cap, thereby increasing the functionality of the hat blinder.
The modified hat blinder of Weaver does not expressly disclose wherein the first strap is connected directly to said first side wing, and the second strap is connected directly to said second side wing, said connection of said first strap to said first side wing and said connection of said second strap to said second side wing being configured to provide tension on said first side wing and said second side wing to hold said first side wing and said second side wing in a position to obstruct peripheral vision.
Hutton teaches an anti-glare visors wherein the first strap is connected directly to said first side wing, and the second strap is connected directly to said second side wing (as seen in Figs. 5-6, strap(s) 42 is connected to wings 38 at fastener 40); said connection of said first strap to said first side wing and said connection of said second strap to said second side wing being configured to provide tension on said first side wing and said second side wing to hold said first side wing and said second side wing in a position to obstruct peripheral vision (as when placed on at least one wearer, the strap(s) would stretch around the head of the wearer, thereby providing tension the wings where the strap is connected, and the wings would be held in the a downward position that obstructs peripheral vision).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the connection location of the straps of the modified hat blinder of Weaver, for the connection location of the straps, as taught by Hutton, as a simple substitution of one well known connection location for another in order to yield the predictable result of securely fastening the strap to the blinder in a manner that the strap can be worn around the head of the user. See MPEP 2143 B. Further, such a modification is merely a rearrangement of parts and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Examiner notes that italicized limitations in the prior art rejections are functional and do not positively recite a structural limitation, but instead require an ability to so perform and/or function. As Weaver discloses the structure of the blinder, there would be a reasonable expectation for the blinder to perform such functions, as Examiner has explained after each functional limitation.
Regarding claim 2, the modified hat blinder of Weaver discloses wherein said first side wing is configured to be substantially orthogonal to said brim portion when said brim portion engages the brim of the hat; said second side wing being configured to be substantially orthogonal to said brim portion when said brim portion engages the brim of the hat (as seen understood between Figs. 1A and 4).
Regarding claim 3, the modified hat blinder of Weaver discloses wherein said brim portion, said first side wing, and said second side wing are constructed of non-rigid material (as the materials creating the hat binder are neoprene and polyethylene, see paras, 0029-0030, both of which are non-rigid, at least compared to other materials).
Regarding claim 11, Weaver discloses a hat blinder (10, Figs. 1-4) comprising: a brim portion (portion of 12 and 14 exclusive of side wings 30/32); a first side wing (30); and a second side wing (32); said brim portion being constructed of an upper panel (14) and a lower panel (12); said upper panel and said lower panel being configured to form a pocket (34), having a volume, for receiving a brim of a hat (as disclosed in para. 0030).
The embodiment of Figs. 1-3 of Weaver does not expressly disclose an elastic band strap having a first end connected directly to said first side wing and a second end connected directly to the second side wing, said connection of said first end of said elastic band strap to said first side wing and said connection of said second end of said elastic band strap to said second side wing being configured to provide tension on said first side wing and said second side wing to hold said first side wing and said second side wing in a position to obstruct peripheral vision.
Hutton teaches an anti-glare visors wherein an elastic band strap (42, disclosed as elastic in col. 2, lines 55-60) having a first end connected directly to said first side wing and a second end connected directly to the second side wing (as seen in Figs. 5-6, strap 42 is connected to each of the side wings 38 at fastener 40); said connection of said first end of said elastic band strap to said first side wing and said connection of said second end of said elastic band strap to said second side wing being configured to provide tension on said first side wing and said second side wing to hold said first side wing and said second side wing in a position to obstruct peripheral vision (as when placed on at least one wearer, the strap(s) would stretch around the head of the wearer, thereby providing tension the wings where the strap is connected, and the wings would be held in the a downward position that obstructs peripheral vision)..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an elastic band strap to the hat blinder of Weaver, as taught by Hutton, in order to so that, if desired, the hat blinder may be worn as a visor without the cap, thereby increasing the functionality of the hat blinder.
Regarding claim 19, the modified hat blinder of Weaver discloses wherein said first side wing is configured to be substantially orthogonal to said brim portion when said brim portion engages the brim of the hat; said second side wing being configured to be substantially orthogonal to said brim portion when said brim portion engages the brim of the hat (as seen understood between Figs. 1A and 4).
Claim(s) 4-6, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Weaver and Hutton, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Laurence (US 4839924).
Regarding claim 4, the modified hat blinder of Weaver discloses all the limitation so claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein said brim portion, said first side wing, and said second side wing are constructed of fabric.
Laurence teaches a hat blinder (3) wherein said brim portion (8), said first side wing (9), and said second side wing (10) are constructed of fabric (18 and 21, see col. 5, lines 20-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use fabric in the upper and lower panels of the modified hat blinder of Weaver as taught by Laurence in order to create a more aesthetically pleasing blinder to better blend in with the baseball cap it is worn with as well as provide increased light blocking properties when the user wants to use the blinder to focus forwardly.
Regarding claim 5, the modified hat blinder of Weaver discloses all the limitation so claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose wherein said brim portion, said first side wing, and said second side wing are constructed of cloth.
Laurence teaches a hat blinder (3) wherein said brim portion (8), said first side wing portion (9), and said second side wing portion (10) are constructed of cloth (18 and 21, see col. 5, lines 20-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use cloth in the upper and lower panels of the modified hat blinder of Weaver as taught by Laurence in order to create a more aesthetically pleasing blinder to better blend in with the baseball cap it is worn with as well as provide increased light blocking properties when the user wants to use the blinder to focus forwardly.
Regarding claim 6, the modified hat blinder of Weaver discloses wherein said brim portion is made of neoprene (as at least the top panel 14 of the brim portion is neoprene, see para. 0030), but does not expressly disclose wherein said first side wing, and said second side wing are constructed of neoprene.
Laurence teaches a hat blinder (3) wherein said first side wing portion (9), and said second side wing portion (10) are constructed of the same materials as the brim portion (8) (materials 18, 20, and 21, see col. 5, lines 20-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the neoprene material of the top panel of the modified hat blinder of Weaver, as taught by Laurence in order to create a more aesthetically pleasing blinder to better blend in with the baseball cap it is worn with as well as provide increased light blocking properties when the user wants to use the blinder to focus forwardly.
When in combination, as the top panel material is extended to the side wing portions, the side wing portions would also be made of neoprene.
Regarding claim 14, the modified hat blinder of Weaver discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly disclose wherein said first side wing is constructed of said upper panel and said lower panel; said second side wing is constructed of said upper panel and said lower panel.
Laurence teaches a hat blinder (3) wherein said first side wing (9), and said second side wing (10) are constructed of said upper panel (18) and said lower panel (21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the material of the top panel of the modified hat blinder of Weaver over the wing portions as well, as taught by Laurence in order to create a more aesthetically pleasing blinder to better blend in with the baseball cap it is worn with as well as provide increased light blocking properties when the user wants to use the blinder to focus forwardly.
Regarding claim 20, the modified hat blinder of Weaver discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly disclose wherein said first side wing is constructed of said upper panel and said lower panel; said second side wing is constructed of said upper panel and said lower panel.
Laurence teaches a hat blinder (3) wherein said first side wing (9), and said second side wing (10) are constructed of said upper panel (18) and said lower panel (21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the material of the top panel of the modified hat blinder of Weaver over the wing portions as well, as taught by Laurence in order to create a more aesthetically pleasing blinder to better blend in with the baseball cap it is worn with as well as provide increased light blocking properties when the user wants to use the blinder to focus forwardly.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Weaver and Hutton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Veridiano (US 6079052).
Regarding claim 12, the modified hat blinder of Weaver discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose further comprising: a first connection mechanism located on said upper panel of said brim portion; a second connection mechanism located on said upper panel of said brim portion; a third connection mechanism located on said first side wing; and a fourth connection mechanism located on said second side wing; said first connection mechanism being configured to connect to said third connection mechanism; said second connection mechanism first connection mechanism being configured to connect to said fourth connection mechanism.
Veridiano teaches a hat blinder (14/20) comprising a first connection mechanism (left 40L; Examiner notes “connection mechanism” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and the connection mechanisms of the instant application are disclosed as snaps or Velcro in para. 0047 of the instant application, and 40 and 30 of Veridiano can also be Velcro or snaps, see col. 4, lines 15-25) located on said upper panel of said brim portion (top of 14, see Fig. 1); a second connection mechanism (right 40L) located on said upper panel of said brim portion (as shown in Fig. 1); a third connection mechanism (30 on left 20) located on said first side wing (left 20); and a fourth connection mechanism (40 on right 20) located on said second side wing (right 20); said first connection mechanism being configured to connect to said third connection mechanism; said second connection mechanism first connection mechanism being configured to connect to said fourth connection mechanism (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 4, lines 10-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add connection mechanisms to the brim portion and side wings the modified hat blinder of Weaver, as taught by Veridiano, so that the wings “may be folded upwardly so as to be out of sight of the wearer” when not needed (col. 3, lines 5-10 of Veridiano).
Regarding claim 13, the modified hat blinder of Weaver discloses wherein said first connection mechanism is configured to connect to said third connection mechanism independently of said second connection mechanism first connection mechanism being connected to said fourth connection mechanism (as seen in Figs. 1-2 of Veridiano).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Weaver, Hutton, and Laurence, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Veridiano.
Regarding claim 15, the modified hat blinder of Weaver discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 14 above, but does not expressly disclose further comprising: a first connection mechanism located on said upper panel of said brim portion; a second connection mechanism located on said upper panel of said brim portion; a third connection mechanism located on said first side wing; and a fourth connection mechanism located on said second side wing; said first connection mechanism being configured to connect to said third connection mechanism; said second connection mechanism first connection mechanism being configured to connect to said fourth connection mechanism.
Veridiano teaches a hat blinder (14/20) comprising a first connection mechanism (left 40L; Examiner notes “connection mechanism” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) and the connection mechanisms of the instant application are disclosed as snaps or Velcro in para. 0047 of the instant application, and 40 and 30 of Veridiano can also be Velcro or snaps, see col. 4, lines 15-25) located on said upper panel of said brim portion (top of 14, see Fig. 1); a second connection mechanism (right 40L) located on said upper panel of said brim portion (as shown in Fig. 1); a third connection mechanism (30 on left 20) located on said first side wing (left 20); and a fourth connection mechanism (40 on right 20) located on said second side wing (right 20); said first connection mechanism being configured to connect to said third connection mechanism; said second connection mechanism first connection mechanism being configured to connect to said fourth connection mechanism (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 4, lines 10-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add connection mechanisms to the brim portion and side wings of the modified hat blinder of Weaver, as taught by Veridiano, so that the wings “may be folded upwardly so as to be out of sight of the wearer” when not needed (col. 3, lines 5-10 of Veridiano).
Regarding claim 16, the modified hat blinder of Weaver discloses wherein said first connection mechanism is configured to connect to said third connection mechanism independently of said second connection mechanism first connection mechanism being connected to said fourth connection mechanism (as seen in Figs. 1-2 of Veridiano).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references of Weaver and Hutton, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gilbert (US 5007110).
Regarding claim 17, Weaver discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but does not expressly disclose further comprising: a first stitched boundary between said brim portion and said first side wing; and a second stitched boundary between said brim portion and said second side wing.
Gilbert teaches a hat blinder (12/14/16) comprising: a first stitched boundary (20) between said brim portion (12) and said first side wing (14); and a second stitched boundary (22) between said brim portion and said second side wing (16) (see col. 2, lines 25-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include stitched boundaries between the brim portion and the side wings of the modified hat blinder of Weaver, as taught by Gilbert so that the side wing portions have an “inward bias” (see col. 2, lines 25-30 of Gilbert) thereby helping to maintain side protection of the wearer’s eyes.
Regarding claim 18, the modified hat blinder of Weaver discloses wherein said first side wing is configured to be substantially orthogonal, at said first stitched boundary, to said brim portion when said brim portion engages the brim of the hat; said second side wing being configured to be substantially orthogonal, at said second stitched boundary, to said brim portion when said brim portion engages the brim of the hat (as seen in Figs. 1A of Weaver and understood from Fig. 1 of Gilbert).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 4, 2025, with respect to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. In view of Applicant’s amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant’s arguments, which appear to be drawn only to the newly amended limitations and previously presented rejections, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0673. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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 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.
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732