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
Applicant’s amendment, filed 14 January 2026, is reviewed and entered. This Office Action is a final rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Status of Claims
Amended
1, 8
Withdrawn
13-20
Canceled
2
Pending
1, 3-20
Presented for Examination
1, 3-12
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Drawing Objections
The replacement drawings are not acceptable to enter and the response fails to overcome the drawing objections.
Specification Objections
The amendments to the specification introduce new matter and fail to overcome the specification objections.
101 Rejections
Overcome and withdrawn.
112(b) Rejections
Overcome and withdrawn. The claim amendments raise new 112 rejections as set forth below.
102 Rejections
Overcome and withdrawn.
103 Rejections
Regarding previous claim 2, now incorporated into claims 1 and 8, Applicant argues neither Johnson nor Grilliot teaches a measurement indication based on the adjusted position of the connectors. This is not persuasive. Claims 1 and 8 recite a first and second measurement position. As set forth in the drawing objection below, it is not clear if the “position” is a point on the garment (e.g., a first measurement position at a top end and a second measurement position at a bottom end) or if it is a configuration of the garment (e.g., a first measurement position when the fasteners are engaged and a second measurement position when the fasteners are disengaged). Without any explanation in the disclosure, Examiner is interpreting the “positions” as points on the garment of the primary reference. Grilliot teaches a measuring tape on the garment. The Grilliot measuring tape extends along a garment length (i.e., length of sleeve, length of center back) and as best understood, “provides a measurement of a garment length” such as the length of the sleeve and/ or length of the center back. Therefore, the Grilliot measuring tape corresponds to the claimed “measurement indication.” When the Grilliot measuring tape is provided on the primary reference garment, the result is Grilliot’s measurement indication providing a measurement of the primary reference garment length according to the primary reference garment first or second measurement position (e.g., positions or points on the sleeve or center back). Applicant’s argument regarding the “adjusted position of the connectors” is not clear as there is no adjusted position claimed.
Applicant does not argue the rejection of any other claims.
In light of the above, the rejection is believed to be proper.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 14 January 2026. These drawings are not acceptable to enter.
Replacement FIG 1 introduces new matter which is 131 being a vertical line on the front left portion of the waistband. Para. 0017 identifies 131 as a seam “included on the center back of the AGFT 100.” There is no disclosure of center back seam 131 being anywhere other than the center back.
Furthermore, if 131 was added as an attempt to show support for the seam around a waist portion as recited in claim 3, then please note that newly added 131 does not extend “around” a waist portion as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, but appears to be a seam along the height of the waist portion instead, and Replacement FIG 1 would not overcome the drawing objection with respect to claim 3.
Replacement FIG 1 introduces new matter which is a second 140 that appears to be the same size and shape as original 140, but without the broken horizontal line at the top. There is no disclosure of the structure of any other pockets other than the original pocket 140, such that it can be determined that the plurality of pockets have the structure shown in Replacement FIG 1. Examiner suggests providing a broken line box for the plurality of pockets.
Replacement FIG 5 introduces new matter which is a second 510 that appears to be the same size and shape as original 510, but unshaded. There is no disclosure of the structure of any other lapels other than the original lapel 510, such that it can be determined that the plurality of lapels have the structure shown in Replacement FIG 5. Examiner suggests providing a broken line box for the plurality of lapels.
Furthermore, if the second 510 was added in an attempt to show support for the plurality of lapels recited in claim 6, then please note that it is not clear which of the elements 510 in FIG 5 is the lapel and which is the alternative lapel 510 such that it cannot be determined if FIG 5 is showing a plurality of lapels 510 or a single lapel 510 and a single alternative lapel 510. Therefore, Replacement FIG 5 would not overcome the drawing objection with respect to claim 6.
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 first measurement position (claim 1; providing a reference number for the position would be sufficient to overcome this objection; it is not clear if the “position” is a point on the garment or if it is a configuration of the garment), second measurement position (claim 1; providing a reference number for the position would be sufficient to overcome this objection; it is not clear if the “position” is a point on the garment or if it is a configuration of the garment), waist portion of the garment and the first seam being around the waist portion of the garment (claim 3, the figures only support the seam being on the back of the sleeve; providing a reference number for the waist portion would be sufficient to overcome that part of the objection but there would still be no support for the first seam being around the waist portion), back portion of the garment (claim 4; providing a reference number for the back portion would be sufficient to overcome this objection), plurality of pockets (claims 5 and 11, the figures only support a single pocket 140 and not a plurality; providing a broken line box for the plurality of pockets would be sufficient to overcome this objection), plurality of lapels (claims 6 and 12, the figures only support a single lapel 510 and not a plurality, providing a broken line box for the plurality of lapels would be sufficient to overcome this objection) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “510” has been used to designate both “lapel” and “alternative lapel.” 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. 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
The amendment filed 14 January 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the new matter is the first underlined recitation in para. 0017.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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: back portion of the garment (claim 4).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: replace “first seam” with –seam—for proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: replace “have each have” with –each have—for proper grammar. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-12 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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rendered indefinite by the recitation “that provides a measurement.” How and by what means does the “measurement indication” provide a measurement?
Claims that depend from a rejected claim are also rejected.
All of the claims are examined as best understood.
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: first and second plurality of attachment mechanisms in claims 8-10.
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.
Para. 0015 discloses the attachment mechanisms may be magnetic material, “hook and loop attachment (Velcro®), snaps, ties, buttons, adhesives, rubbers and plastics that rely on static electricity or friction to hold together, and any other attachment mechanism.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DuFaux (US 20070266472 A1) in view of Grilliot (US 20080072360 A1).
As to claim 1, DuFaux discloses a system for custom clothing fitting (“ADJUSTABLE GARMENT,” title), the system comprising:
a garment (FIG 3), the garment including a seam (between 143 and 144), the first seam not sewn together (see FIG 3); a first plurality of magnetic materials on a first side of the first seam (143 which may be magnets as disclosed in para. 0017); and a second plurality of magnetic materials on a second side of the first seam (144 which may be magnets as disclosed in para. 0017) wherein the first plurality of magnetic materials and the second plurality of magnetic materials hold the first side and the second side of the seam releasably together in a first measurement position and a second measurement position (capable of having and intended to have, see FIG 3 and para. 0031).
DuFaux does not disclose wherein the first measurement position and the second measurement position have each have a measurement indication that provides a measurement of a garment length according to the first measurement position or the second measurement position.
Grilliot teaches a similar garment (“Garment and measuring scale combination,” title) including “a measurement indication that provides a measurement of a garment length according to the first measurement position or the second measurement position” (measuring tape 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the first and second measurement positions of DuFaux with the measurement indication/ measuring tape taught by Grilliot, for the purpose of facilitating tailoring the garment to fit the wearer (Grilliot para. 0015).
As to claim 3, DuFaux discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first seam is around a waist portion of the garment (DuFaux FIG 3).
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20120096622 A1) in view of DuFaux (US 20070266472 A1) and Grilliot (US 20080072360 A1).
As to claim 1, Johnson discloses a system for custom clothing fitting (ADJUSTABLE FIT JACKET), the system comprising:
a garment (100), the garment including a seam (26 in FIG 1B), the first seam not sewn together (the seam is zipped together), but does not disclose a first plurality of magnetic materials on a first side of the first seam; and a second plurality of magnetic materials on a second side of the first seam wherein the first plurality of magnetic materials and the second plurality of magnetic materials hold the first side and the second side of the seam releasably together in a first measurement position and a second measurement position.
Johnson does disclose that the first and second sides of the seam are mating fasteners such as zippers, snaps, buttons, hook and loop type fasteners (e.g. Velcro.TM.), and/or any combination of different detachable fasteners (para. 0033).
It is noted that Applicant’s para. 0015 discloses all of these fasteners as alternatives to magnets. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these fasteners are all interchangeable depending on the intended end use and aesthetic.
DuFaux teaches a similar garment closure, including “zippers, hook-and-loop type materials (e.g., Velcro), buttons, snaps including metallic or plastic snaps, magnets, or any other mechanism that may be used to conveniently attach and detach sections of clothing from each other” (para. 0017).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide magnetic materials such as magnets as taught by DuFaux instead of zippers for the seam closures of Johnson, for the purpose of providing a known fastener for releasably closing the seam.
Johnson does not disclose wherein the first measurement position and the second measurement position have each have a measurement indication that provides a measurement of a garment length according to the first measurement position or the second measurement position.
Grilliot teaches a similar garment (“Garment and measuring scale combination,” title) including “a measurement indication that provides a measurement of a garment length according to the first measurement position or the second measurement position” (measuring tape 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the first and second measurement positions of Johnson with the measurement indication/ measuring tape taught by Grilliot, for the purpose of facilitating tailoring the garment to fit the wearer (Grilliot para. 0015).
As to claim 4, Johnson as modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first seam is in a back portion of the garment, the garment being a jacket (Johnson FIG 1B).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20120096622 A1) in view of DuFaux (US 20070266472 A1) and Grilliot (US 20080072360 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gauthier (US 20150201686 A1).
As to claim 5, Johnson as modified does not disclose the system of claim 4, further comprising a plurality of pockets, the plurality of pockets attachable in various locations to the garment.
Gauthier teaches a similar garment (Modifiable garment 200) including a plurality of pockets, the plurality of pockets attachable in various locations to the garment (para. 0029, the pockets are capable of being attached in various locations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the garment of Johnson with a plurality of pockets, for the purpose of providing a means for carrying objects without employing the wearer’s hands.
As to claim 6, Johnson as modified does not disclose the system of claim 5, further comprising, a plurality of lapels, each of the lapels attachable to the garment.
Gauthier teaches a similar garment (Modifiable garment 200) including a plurality of lapels, each of the lapels attachable to the garment (Accoutrement sections 220 and 230 shown in FIG 2 and described in para. 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the garment of Johnson with a plurality of lapels, for the purpose of allowing the garment to have different appearances for aesthetics, to provide lapels that can be removed for washing, and to provide lapels that are replaceable when damaged.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serbu (US 3827019 A) in view of Grilliot (US 20080072360 A1).
As to claim 1, Serbu discloses a system for custom clothing fitting (“MAGNETIC CLOSURE,” title), the system comprising: a garment (FIG 6), the garment including a seam (between 21 and 22), the first seam not sewn together (see FIG 6); a first plurality of magnetic materials on a first side of the first seam (21, which may be permanent magnets as disclosed in col 5 line 10-20); and a second plurality of magnetic materials on a second side of the first seam (22, which may be permanent magnets as disclosed in col 5 line 10-20) wherein the first plurality of magnetic materials and the second plurality of magnetic materials hold the first side and the second side of the seam releasably together in a first measurement position and a second measurement position (capable of holding in a first and second position, such as a first position that is fully open and a second position that is fully closed, or a first position that is partially closed as shown in FIG 6 and a second position that is fully closed).
Serbu does not disclose wherein the first measurement position and the second measurement position have each have a measurement indication that provides a measurement of a garment length according to the first measurement position or the second measurement position.
Grilliot teaches a similar garment (“Garment and measuring scale combination,” title) including “a measurement indication that provides a measurement of a garment length according to the first measurement position or the second measurement position” (measuring tape 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the first and second measurement positions of Serbu with the measurement indication/ measuring tape taught by Grilliot, for the purpose of facilitating tailoring the garment to fit the wearer (Grilliot para. 0015).
As to claim 7, Serbu discloses the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first plurality of magnetic materials and the second plurality of magnetic materials are permanent magnets (Serbu col 5 line 10-20).
Claim(s) 1 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier (US 20150201686 A1) in view of Grilliot (US 20080072360 A1).
As to claim 1, Gauthier discloses a system for custom clothing fitting (“MODIFIABLE GARMENT WITH ADHESIVE SEAM,” title), the system comprising:
a garment (Modifiable garment 200), the garment including a seam (the vertical center front seam), the first seam not sewn together (see FIG 2);
a first plurality of magnetic materials on a first side of the first seam (212 on the left side); and a second plurality of magnetic materials on a second side of the first seam (212 on the right side) wherein the first plurality of magnetic materials and the second plurality of magnetic materials hold the first side and the second side of the seam releasably together in a first measurement position and a second measurement position (claim 14 discloses “magnetic sections,” which are capable of holding the first and second sides releasably together in a first position and a second position, e.g., a first open position and a second closed position, or a first partially closed position and a second fully closed position by fastening all or only some of the attachment mechanisms).
Gauthier does not disclose wherein the first measurement position and the second measurement position have each have a measurement indication that provides a measurement of a garment length according to the first measurement position or the second measurement position.
Grilliot teaches a similar garment (“Garment and measuring scale combination,” title) including “a measurement indication that provides a measurement of a garment length according to the first measurement position or the second measurement position” (measuring tape 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the first and second measurement positions of Gauthier with the measurement indication/ measuring tape taught by Grilliot, for the purpose of facilitating tailoring the garment to fit the wearer (Grilliot para. 0015).
As to claim 8, Gauthier discloses a system for custom clothing fitting (“MODIFIABLE GARMENT WITH ADHESIVE SEAM,” title), the system comprising:
a garment (Modifiable garment 200), the garment including a seam (the vertical center front seam), the first seam not sewn together (as best understood, see FIG 2);
a first plurality of attachment mechanisms on a first side of the seam (212 on the left side); and a second plurality of attachment mechanisms on a second side of the seam (212 on the right side) wherein the first plurality of attachment mechanisms and the second plurality of attachment mechanisms hold the first side and the second side of the seam releasably together in a first measurement position and a second measurement position (claim 14 discloses “the adhesive seam comprises an attachment mechanism selected from a button, a metallic snap, a plastic snap, Velcro.RTM., magnetic sections, hook and eye devices, and a zipper device,” and all of these attachment mechanisms are capable of holding the first and second sides releasably together in a first position and a second position, e.g., a first open position and a second closed position, or a first partially closed position and a second fully closed position by fastening all or only some of the attachment mechanisms).
Gauthier does not disclose wherein the first measurement position and the second measurement position have each have a measurement indication that provides a measurement of a garment length according to the first measurement position or the second measurement position.
Grilliot teaches a similar garment (“Garment and measuring scale combination,” title) including “a measurement indication that provides a measurement of a garment length according to the first measurement position or the second measurement position” (measuring tape 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the first and second measurement positions of Gauthier with the measurement indication/ measuring tape taught by Grilliot, for the purpose of facilitating tailoring the garment to fit the wearer (Grilliot para. 0015).
As to claim 9, Gauthier discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the first plurality of attachment mechanisms and the second plurality of attachment mechanisms include magnetic material (Gauthier claim 14 discloses “magnetic sections”).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauthier (US 20150201686 A1) in view of Grilliot (US 20080072360 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Serbu (US 3827019 A).
As to claim 10, Gauthier discloses he system of claim 9, wherein at least one of the first plurality of attachment mechanisms and the second plurality of attachment mechanisms are “magnetic sections” (claim 14) but does not disclose the magnetic sections are permanent magnets.
Serbu teaches a similar garment (FIG 6), including permanent magnets (col 5 line 10-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the magnetic sections as permanent magnets for the purpose of avoiding “avoid possible problems of magnetic deterioration due to the Curie effect” (Serbu col 5 line 20-25).
As to claim 11, Gauthier discloses a plurality of pockets, the plurality of pockets attachable in various locations to the garment (Gauthier para. 0029, the pockets are capable of being attached in various locations).
As to claim 12, Gauthier discloses a plurality of lapels, each of the lapels attachable to the garment (Gauthier Accoutrement sections 220 and 230 shown in FIG 2 and described in para. 0029).
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 SALLY HADEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
SALLY HADEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3732
/SALLY HADEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732