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 amendment filed January 28, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the instant application. Applicant’s amendment to Claim 17 has overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 28, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (Lee, Jaesoo, Stanley F. Birch, and Bruce A. Scovill. "Airport jet plume zone mapping." Journal of aircraft 33, no. 4 (1996): 737-742.), hereinafter Lee in view of Fanti et al. (Fanti, Maria Pia, Stefano Mininel, Massimiliano Nolich, Gabriella Stecco, Walter Ukovich, Marcello Bernabò, and Giovanni Serafino. "Flight path optimization for minimizing emissions and avoiding weather hazard." In 2014 American Control Conference, pp. 4567-4572. IEEE, 2014.), hereinafter Fanti.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches A method of mapping predicted aircraft exhaust plumes within a simulated airport environment (“A software package, which maps the jet plume zones for a jet aircraft during airport ground operation, has been developed.”) (e.g., page 1, abstract).
the method comprising: generating an exhaust plume model for a simulated aircraft in a grounded position within the simulated airport environment (“The jet plume of an airplane is calculated by numerically solving the parabolized form of the Navier-Stokes equations for mass, momentum, and energy, coupled with a two-equation k-s turbulence model”) (e.g., page 1, column 2, last paragraph).
wherein the exhaust plume model is generated in response to predicted dynamic exhaust plume data for the simulated aircraft (“Normalized jet plume velocity contour plots are now generated, for each airplane, from a three-dimensional jet plume analysis at the maximum engine power setting.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 2).
generating an airport feature map for the simulated airport environment, the airport feature map comprising a digital model of the simulated airport environment (“Figure 9 shows three airplanes on a digitized map of Chicago O'Hare Airport. All three airplanes have displayed a 35-mph jet plume velocity and one plane also has a 75-mph jet plume velocity contour.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 6).
superimposing the exhaust plume model for the simulated aircraft in the grounded position onto the airport feature map to display a predicted exhaust plume on a computer display (“An example plume trace along a taxiway in O'Hare Airport is shown in Fig. 10. A trace of plume zones for the chosen 35-mph velocity contours was displayed along a taxiway. In this map, the engine power settings were gradually increased from an idle to a medium engine power. The map shows the locations of plume zones for a range of frames relative to airport buildings and the other airplanes parked nearby.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 7).
and analyzing the predicted exhaust plume to predict exhaust plume hazard zones within the simulated airport environment (“At present, the hazard zone is generally defined as the zone enclosed within a specific velocity contour, typically 35 mph.” Prediction of the exhaust plume is interpreted as comprising analysis of exhaust plume hazard zones.) (e.g., page 5, column 1, paragraph 1).
and mapping a predicted path along the ground surface of the simulated airport environment (“The movements of the airplane and the plume along a chosen path over a digitized map of an airport can be observed by playing this animation.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 3).
However, Lee does not appear to specifically teach wherein the predicted path is selected to maintain the predicted exhaust plume outside of the predicted exhaust plume hazard zones.
On the other hand, Fanti, which relates similarly to modeling a path of an aircraft an predicting exhaust, does teach wherein the predicted path is selected to maintain the predicted exhaust plume outside of the predicted exhaust plume hazard zones (“Moreover, the proposed model can consider the avoidance of the prohibited zones, i.e., regions where flights are non-permitted due to bad weather conditions [...] Hence, the optimization technique has to select an admissible path π* of G exhibiting optimal or suboptimal emission values. To this aim, an optimization problem is defined considering a single-criterion or a multi-criteria optimization, under a set of constraints obtained by the defined digraph G.” G is a directed graph modeling the simulated aircraft. The prohibited zones are interpreted as comprising exhaust plume hazard zones, and selecting path π* exhibiting optimal emission values is analogous to configuring an aircraft path to maintain exhaust out of predicted hazard zones.) (e.g., page 3, column 2, paragraph 3; page 4, column 1, paragraph 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Lee with Fanti. The claimed invention is considered to be using a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, see MPEP § 2143(I)(C). Lee teaches a method for predicting aircraft exhaust plumes along a path, superimposing the plume contours onto a simulated map of an airport, and mapping the path of the simulated aircraft. However, Lee does not appear to specifically teach wherein the predicted path is selected to maintain the predicted exhaust plume outside of predicted hazard zones. On the other hand, Fanti, which relates similarly to simulating emissions along the path of an aircraft, does teach a method for optimizing a path for an aircraft using emissions and prohibited zones as optimization parameters. As both Lee and Fanti relate to simulating aircraft and aircraft exhaust, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the optimization method of Fanti to the aircraft path simulation of Lee, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the improvement as predictably providing an optimized aircraft path that maintains predicted exhaust outside of hazard zones. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lee with Fanti in order to optimize aircraft paths reduce emissions hazards.
Regarding Claim 2, Lee in view of Fanti teaches The method of claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein the exhaust plume model is further generated in response to static exhaust plume data for the simulated aircraft (“Normalized plots of the calculated velocity fields downstream of a single- and a four-engine airplane for idle, breakaway, and takeoff thrust levels are shown in Figs. 4 and 5.” Idle thrust from figure 4 is interpreted as static exhaust plume data.) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 1 and figure 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee in view of Fanti teaches The method of claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein the airport feature map comprises non-movable features, configured to be fixed relative to a ground surface of the simulated airport environment (“The present airport plume zone mapping tool displays the locations of plume zones relative to airport terminal buildings and the other airplanes parked nearby.” Airport terminal buildings are interpreted as non-movable map features.) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 4).
and movable features, configured to be movable relative to the ground surface of the simulated airport environment (“Several airplane positions with different thrust levels may be chosen, and with a linear interpolation, a smooth animated playback will be created. The movements of the airplane and the plume along a chosen path over a digitized map of an airport can be observed by playing this animation.” The simulated airplanes are interpreted as movable features.) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee in view of Fanti teaches The method of claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein the exhaust plume model for the simulated aircraft in the grounded position comprises a thrust level of at least one engine of the simulated aircraft (“Figure 8 shows one of the interactive user input windows. The input data required to use the software are the airplane configuration, the velocity contour level of interest (default = 35 mph), the coordinates along a taxiway, and the history of engine power setting along the taxiway.” Figure 8 discloses an input for the thrust level of two engines.) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 5; column 2, figure 8).
Regarding Claim 5, in view of Fanti Lee teaches The method of claim 4. Lee further teaches wherein the thrust level of the at least one engine of the simulated aircraft is between ground idle thrust and maximum takeoff thrust of the simulated aircraft (“Normalized plots of the calculated velocity fields downstream of a single- and a four-engine airplane for idle, breakaway, and takeoff thrust levels are shown in Figs. 4 and 5.” Breakaway thrust is interpreted as a thrust between idle and maximum takeoff.) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee in view of Fanti teaches The method of claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein: the simulated aircraft is movable about the ground surface of the simulated airport environment (“Several airplane positions with different thrust levels may be chosen, and with a linear interpolation, a smooth animated playback will be created. The movements of the airplane and the plume along a chosen path over a digitized map of an airport can be observed by playing this animation.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 3).
the step of generating the exhaust plume model for the simulated aircraft further comprises generating the exhaust plume model for the simulated aircraft at a plurality of grounded positions within the simulated airport environment (“Several airplane positions with different thrust levels may be chosen, and with a linear interpolation, a smooth animated playback will be created. The movements of the airplane and the plume along a chosen path over a digitized map of an airport can be observed by playing this animation.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 3).
and the step of superimposing the exhaust plume model for the simulated aircraft further comprises superimposing the exhaust plume model for the simulated aircraft at each one of the plurality of grounded positions onto the airport feature map to display the predicted exhaust plume at each one of the plurality of grounded positions within the simulated airport environment on the computer display (“An example plume trace along a taxiway in O'Hare Airport is shown in Fig. 10. A trace of plume zones for the chosen 35-mph velocity contours was displayed along a taxiway.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 7 and figure 10).
Regarding Claim 7, Lee in view of Fanti teaches The method of claim 6. Lee further teaches further comprising: mapping the predicted path along the ground surface of the simulated airport environment from among the plurality of grounded positions (“The movements of the airplane and the plume along a chosen path over a digitized map of an airport can be observed by playing this animation.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 3).
wherein: the predicted path comprises at least one of the plurality of grounded positions (“The movements of the airplane and the plume along a chosen path over a digitized map of an airport can be observed by playing this animation,” wherein the chosen path is along grounded positions in the map of an airport.) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 3).
Fanti further teaches wherein the simulated aircraft is configured to move along the predicted path while maintaining the predicted exhaust plume out of the predicted exhaust plume hazard zones (“Moreover, the proposed model can consider the avoidance of the prohibited zones, i.e., regions where flights are non-permitted due to bad weather conditions [...] Hence, the optimization technique has to select an admissible path π* of G exhibiting optimal or suboptimal emission values. To this aim, an optimization problem is defined considering a single-criterion or a multi-criteria optimization, under a set of constraints obtained by the defined digraph G.” G is a directed graph modeling the simulated aircraft. The prohibited zones are interpreted as comprising exhaust plume hazard zones, and selecting path π* exhibiting optimal emission values is analogous to configuring an aircraft path to maintain exhaust out of predicted hazard zones.) (e.g., page 3, column 2, paragraph 3; page 4, column 1, paragraph 8).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee in view of Fanti teaches The method of claim 1. Lee further teaches wherein generating the exhaust plume model for the simulated aircraft at the grounded position within the simulated airport environment comprises receiving at least one of: information defining a headwind at the grounded position; information defining a tailwind at the grounded position; information defining a crosswind at the grounded position; information defining an ambient temperature at the grounded position; information defining a thrust level of the aircraft at the grounded position; information defining aircraft engine configuration data of the simulated aircraft; and information defining aircraft geometry and weight data of the simulated aircraft (The Examiner notes the use of at least one of, and the prior art provides information defining a thrust level of the aircraft. “Figure 8 shows one of the interactive user input windows. The input data required to use the software are the airplane configuration, the velocity contour level of interest (default = 35 mph), the coordinates along a taxiway, and the history of engine power setting along the taxiway.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 5; column 2, figure 8).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee in view of Fanti teaches The method of claim 1. Lee further teaches further comprising: generating an exhaust plume model for a secondary simulated aircraft at a secondary grounded position within the simulated airport environment (“Figure 9 shows three airplanes on a digitized map of Chicago O'Hare Airport. All three airplanes have displayed a 35-mph jet plume velocity and one plane also has a 75-mph jet plume velocity contour.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 6).
wherein the exhaust plume model is generated in response to predicted dynamic exhaust plume data for the simulated secondary aircraft (“Normalized jet plume velocity contour plots are now generated, for each airplane, from a three-dimensional jet plume analysis at the maximum engine power setting.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 2).
superimposing the exhaust plume model for the simulated secondary aircraft at the secondary grounded position onto the airport feature map to display a predicted secondary exhaust plume within the simulated airport environment on the computer display (“An example plume trace along a taxiway in O'Hare Airport is shown in Fig. 10. A trace of plume zones for the chosen 35-mph velocity contours was displayed along a taxiway. In this map, the engine power settings were gradually increased from an idle to a medium engine power. The map shows the locations of plume zones for a range of frames relative to airport buildings and the other airplanes parked nearby.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 7).
and analyzing the exhaust plume model for the simulated aircraft and the exhaust plume model for the simulated secondary aircraft to determine if the exhaust plume model of the simulated aircraft merges with the exhaust plume model of the simulated secondary aircraft (Figures 6 and 7 disclose velocity contour plots for exhaust plumes from twin-engine and four-engine models, respectively. Analyzing the exhaust plume from multiple engines on the same plane is analogous to analyzing the exhaust plume from multiple engines on different planes. The hazard zone is considered to be the exhaust plume area.) (e.g., page 3, column 2, figure 6 and 7).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee in view of Fanti teaches The method of claim 1. Lee further teaches further comprising: analyzing the predicted exhaust plume and the predicted secondary exhaust plume to predict exhaust plume hazard zones within the simulated airport environment (“An example plume trace along a taxiway in O'Hare Airport is shown in Fig. 10. A trace of plume zones for the chosen 35-mph velocity contours was displayed along a taxiway [...] At present, the hazard zone is generally defined as the zone enclosed within a specific velocity contour, typically 35 mph.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 7; page 4, column 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee in view of Fanti teaches A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing code for mapping predicted aircraft exhaust plumes within a simulated airport environment, the code being configured to be executable by a processor to perform operations (“A software package, which maps the jet plume zones for a jet aircraft during airport ground operation, has been developed.”) (e.g., page 1, abstract).
The remaining limitations of Claim 17 recite substantially similar material to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 18-20, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 2, 3, and 6, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view Fanti, further in view of Lamkin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0032687 A1), hereinafter Lamkin.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee teaches A system for mapping predicted aircraft exhaust plumes, the system comprising […] non-transitory computer readable storage media storing code, the code being executable by the processor to perform operations (“A software package, which maps the jet plume zones for a jet aircraft during airport ground operation, has been developed.”) (e.g., page 1, abstract).
comprising: generating an exhaust plume model for a simulated aircraft in a plurality of grounded position within a simulated airport environment (“The jet plume of an airplane is calculated by numerically solving the parabolized form of the Navier-Stokes equations for mass, momentum, and energy, coupled with a two-equation k-s turbulence model.”) (e.g., page 1, column 1, last paragraph).
wherein: the simulated aircraft is configured to simulate movement of the aircraft (“Several airplane positions with different thrust levels may be chosen, and with a linear interpolation, a smooth animated playback will be created. The movements of the airplane and the plume along a chosen path over a digitized map of an airport can be observed by playing this animation.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 3).
and the exhaust plume model is generated in response to predicted dynamic exhaust plume data for the simulated aircraft (“Normalized jet plume velocity contour plots are now generated, for each airplane, from a three-dimensional jet plume analysis at the maximum engine power setting.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 2).
generating an airport feature map for the simulated airport environment, the airport feature map comprising a digital model of the simulated airport environment (“Figure 9 shows three airplanes on a digitized map of Chicago O'Hare Airport. All three airplanes have displayed a 35-mph jet plume velocity and one plane also has a 75-mph jet plume velocity contour.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 6).
superimposing the exhaust plume model for the simulated aircraft at each one of the plurality of grounded positions onto the airport feature map to display a predicted exhaust plume at each one of the plurality of grounded positions on a computer display (“An example plume trace along a taxiway in O'Hare Airport is shown in Fig. 10. A trace of plume zones for the chosen 35-mph velocity contours was displayed along a taxiway. In this map, the engine power settings were gradually increased from an idle to a medium engine power. The map shows the locations of plume zones for a range of frames relative to airport buildings and the other airplanes parked nearby.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 7).
analyzing the predicted exhaust plume at each one of the plurality of grounded positions to predict exhaust plume hazard zones within the simulated airport environment (“At present, the hazard zone is generally defined as the zone enclosed within a specific velocity contour, typically 35 mph.”) (e.g., page 5, column 1, paragraph 1).
and mapping a predicted path along the ground surface of the simulated airport environment […] wherein: the predicted path comprises at least one of the plurality of grounded positions (“The movements of the airplane and the plume along a chosen path over a digitized map of an airport can be observed by playing this animation.”) (e.g., page 4, column 1, paragraph 3).
However, Lee does not appear to specifically teach the system comprising an aircraft in a grounded position within an airport environment; a processor communicatively coupled with the aircraft […] wherein the predicted path is selected to maintain the predicted exhaust plume outside of the predicted exhaust plume hazard zones […] and the simulated aircraft is configured to move along the predicted path while maintaining the predicted exhaust plume outside of the predicted exhaust plume hazard zones and wherein the aircraft is configured to move along a path in response to the predicted path within the airport environment.
On the other hand, Lamkin, which relates to onboard and off board path following systems for aircraft, does teach the system comprising: an aircraft in a grounded position within an airport environment (“Referring now to FIG. 1, an automatic in/out aircraft taxiing, terminal gate locator and/or aircraft positioning system 100 may include an aircraft 105 proximate an airport terminal 110 (e.g., a control tower, airport control authority, etc.).”) (e.g., paragraph [0017]).
a processor communicatively coupled with the aircraft (“A processor ( e.g., processor 220a of FIG. 2A) may execute the route optimization algorithm 152 to, for example, cause the processor 220a to optimize taxiing routes associated with a plurality of aircraft.”) (e.g., paragraph [0020]).
wherein the aircraft is configured to move along a path in response to the predicted path within the airport environment (“Referring now to FIG. 3, a flow diagram of a method for an automatic in/out aircraft taxiing, terminal gate locator and/or aircraft positioning system 300 may include generating taxiing paths for a plurality of aircraft proximate a terminal of an airport (block 330) [...] The method 300 may include a decision whether to maintain current aircraft path(s) (block 335) coinciding with any given decision points (block 345) along given aircraft path(s).” The aircraft path may be the simulated path from Lee.) (e.g., paragraph [0032]).
However, neither Lee nor Lamkin appears to specifically teach wherein the predicted path is selected to maintain the predicted exhaust plume outside of the predicted exhaust plume hazard zones […] and the simulated aircraft is configured to move along the predicted path while maintaining the predicted exhaust plume outside of the predicted exhaust plume hazard zones.
On the other hand, Fanti, which relates similarly to modeling a path of an aircraft an predicting exhaust, does teach wherein the predicted path is selected to maintain the predicted exhaust plume outside of the predicted exhaust plume hazard zones […] and the simulated aircraft is configured to move along the predicted path while maintaining the predicted exhaust plume outside of the predicted exhaust plume hazard zones (“Moreover, the proposed model can consider the avoidance of the prohibited zones, i.e., regions where flights are non-permitted due to bad weather conditions [...] Hence, the optimization technique has to select an admissible path π* of G exhibiting optimal or suboptimal emission values. To this aim, an optimization problem is defined considering a single-criterion or a multi-criteria optimization, under a set of constraints obtained by the defined digraph G.” G is a directed graph modeling the simulated aircraft. The prohibited zones are interpreted as comprising exhaust plume hazard zones, and selecting path π* exhibiting optimal emission values is analogous to configuring an aircraft path to maintain exhaust out of predicted hazard zones.) (e.g., page 3, column 2, paragraph 3; page 4, column 1, paragraph 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Lee with Fanti for the same reasons as in Claim 1, above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine the modified reference of Lee in view of Fanti with Lamkin. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Lee teaches a method for predicting aircraft exhaust plumes along a path and superimposing the plume contours onto a simulated map of an airport. However, Lee does not appear to specifically teach providing the simulated path to a physical aircraft, wherein the physical aircraft follows the path. On the other hand, Lamkin, which relates similarly to managing pathing for aircraft, does teach providing a path to a physical aircraft to follow. The only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a lack of actual combination of the path simulation of Lee with the physical aircraft of Lamkin. Furthermore, as both Lee and Lamkin relate to aircraft and airport management, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the simulation of Lee with the aircraft and path management of Lamkin; in combination, the exhaust modeling of Lee and the path management of Lamkin merely perform the same functions as they do separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the plume exhaust simulation of Lee with the path management of Lamkin to actually implement the simulated path of Lee in the real world.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 2, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 in substantially the same way.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee in view of Fanti and Lamkin teaches The system of claim 11. Lamkin further teaches wherein the processor is remote from the aircraft (“The airport terminal 110 (e.g., a control tower, airport control authority, etc.) may include an airport terminal server computer 150 (e.g., a computing device 200a of FIG. 2A).” (e.g., paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee in view of Fanti and Lamkin teaches The system of claim 11. Lamkin further teaches wherein the processor is onboard the aircraft (“The aircraft 105 may include an aircraft server computer 115 (e.g., a computing device 200a of FIG. 2A).”) (e.g., paragraph [0017]).
Regarding Claim 15, Lee in view of Fanti and Lamkin teaches The system of claim 11. Lamkin further teaches wherein the predicted path is mapped in real-time as the aircraft is moved along the path in response to the predicted path within the airport environment (“A combination of systems may be installed on any given aircraft, such as the anti-collision system, the engine off taxiing system, and/or the positioning/location system, as well as systems installed in an airport facility, similar to a ground control tower which may, for example, direct and give path assignments to autonomous taxi compatible aircraft.”) (e.g., paragraph [0021]).
Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to Claim 8, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 in substantially the same way.
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 KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. 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.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189