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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/15/2025, have been fully considered and the examiner’s responses are given below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are withdrawn, however new grounds are presented below.
Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims alter the scope of the claims, therefore new prior art has been applied and applicant’s arguments are moot.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN 104199462 A) in view of Tillotson (US 20180343050 A1) and Stark (US 3902444 A).
Regarding claim 1, Fan discloses a computing system comprising: at least one processor (Paragraphs 0037, 0041, 0047);
based on the set of sensor data, determine (i) an instantaneous distance between the vehicle and a surface of the body of water (Paragraph 0035, Claim 5);
and (ii) an instantaneous slope of the surface of the body of water (Paragraphs 0044-0046);
based on at least one of the instantaneous distance or the instantaneous slope, determine a statistical representation of the surface of the body of water (Paragraphs 0044; Statistical representation is mapped to current and future wave pitch, movement, and parameters);
Fan does not specifically state at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium; program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to.
However, Tillotson teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (Paragraphs 0056, 0084-0093);
program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to (Paragraphs 0056, 0084-0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Fan with program instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium of Tillotson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a memory allows the aerial vehicle to store programs used for performing operations. These programs in the memory can be reconfigured at a later time or permanently configured to perform the operations. One would have been motivated to combine Fan with Tillotson as this achieves storing programs for performing operations. As stated in Tillotson, “the hardware may take a form selected from at least one of a circuit system, an integrated circuit, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic device, or some other suitable type of hardware configured to perform a number of operations. With a programmable logic device, the device may be configured to perform the number of operations. The device may be reconfigured at a later time or may be permanently configured to perform the number of operations” (Paragraphs 0080-0081).
Fan does not specifically state receive, from one or more sensors of a vehicle operating in a hydrofoil mode in a body of water, a set of sensor data; wherein determining the statistical representation of the surface of the body of water comprises determining a mean free surface of the body of water; determine a distance between the vehicle and the mean free surface of the body of water; and based on a difference between a target distance and the determined distance between the vehicle and the mean free surface of the body of water; adjust one or more control surfaces of a hydrofoil of the vehicle to change a ride height of the vehicle while operating in the hydrofoil mode.
However, Stark teaches receive, from one or more sensors of a vehicle operating in a hydrofoil mode in a body of water, a set of sensor data (Stark - Paragraphs 0008-0009, 0016-0020, Fig. 1) “utilizing a height sensor and a vertical accelerometer”
wherein determining the statistical representation of the surface of the body of water comprises determining a mean free surface of the body of water (Stark - Paragraphs 0008-0009, 0016-0020 ) “a component representative of the wave height relative to the mean water level”
determine a distance between the vehicle and the mean free surface of the body of water (Stark - Paragraphs 0008-0009) “height of the craft above the mean water level”
and based on a difference between a target distance and the determined distance between the vehicle and the mean free surface of the body of water (Stark - Paragraphs 0008-0009, 0030-0032) “an error signal for positioning a control surface”
adjust one or more control surfaces of a hydrofoil of the vehicle to change a ride height of the vehicle while operating in the hydrofoil mode (Stark - Paragraphs 0008-0009, 0014, Fig. 1) “The altitude or height of the craft is determined and maintained by the angular position of the control surface 20 and may be adjusted or changed by suitably changing the position of the control surface”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Fan with determining a distance difference between a target distance and the mean free surface of the body of water, and adjusting a hydrofoil based on the difference of Stark with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Fan and Stark are in the field of vehicle control based on sea and wave conditions. One would have been motivated to combine as this achieves a smoother ride (Stark – Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Fan discloses modify a motion plan of the vehicle based on at least one of the instantaneous distance, the instantaneous slope, or the statistical representation of the surface of the body of water (Paragraphs 0043-0048).
Fan does not specifically state program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to.
However, Tillotson teaches program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to (Paragraphs 0056, 0084-0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Fan with program instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium of Tillotson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a memory allows the aerial vehicle to store programs used for performing operations. These programs in the memory can be reconfigured at a later time or permanently configured to perform the operations. One would have been motivated to combine Fan with Tillotson as this achieves storing programs for performing operations. As stated in Tillotson, “the hardware may take a form selected from at least one of a circuit system, an integrated circuit, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic device, or some other suitable type of hardware configured to perform a number of operations. With a programmable logic device, the device may be configured to perform the number of operations. The device may be reconfigured at a later time or may be permanently configured to perform the number of operations” (Paragraphs 0080-0081).
Regarding claim 3, Fan discloses adjust one or more of the control surfaces of the vehicle based on at least one of the instantaneous distance, the instantaneous slope, or the statistical representation of the surface of the body of water (Paragraphs 0027, 0033, 0043-0048; Control surfaces is mapped to rudder 20 and steering gear 21).
Fan does not specifically state program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to.
However, Tillotson teaches program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to (Paragraphs 0056, 0084-0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Fan with program instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium of Tillotson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a memory allows the aerial vehicle to store programs used for performing operations. These programs in the memory can be reconfigured at a later time or permanently configured to perform the operations. One would have been motivated to combine Fan with Tillotson as this achieves storing programs for performing operations. As stated in Tillotson, “the hardware may take a form selected from at least one of a circuit system, an integrated circuit, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic device, or some other suitable type of hardware configured to perform a number of operations. With a programmable logic device, the device may be configured to perform the number of operations. The device may be reconfigured at a later time or may be permanently configured to perform the number of operations” (Paragraphs 0080-0081).
Regarding claim 4, Fan discloses determining the statistical representation of the surface of the body of water comprises determining, for the body of water, at least one of a time-averaged wave height, a time-averaged wave amplitude, a wave height variance, a wave amplitude variance, or a wave frequency of the body of water (Paragraphs 0044-0046).
Regarding claims 13-16, all limitations have been examined with respect to the computing system in claims 1-4. The non-transitory computer-readable medium taught/disclosed in claims 13-16 can be clearly performed with the computing system of claims 1-4. Therefore, claims 13-16 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan, Tillotson, and Stark as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20170308099 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Fan discloses the instantaneous distance between the vehicle and the surface of the body of water is a first instantaneous distance (Paragraph 0035, 0044, Claim 5);
determine a second instantaneous distance between the vehicle and the surface of the body of water (Paragraph 0035, 0044, Claim 5);
Fan does not specifically state the computing system further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non- transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to.
However, Tillotson teaches the computing system further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non- transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to (Paragraphs 0056, 0084-0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Fan with program instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium of Tillotson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a memory allows the aerial vehicle to store programs used for performing operations. These programs in the memory can be reconfigured at a later time or permanently configured to perform the operations. One would have been motivated to combine Fan with Tillotson as this achieves storing programs for performing operations. As stated in Tillotson, “the hardware may take a form selected from at least one of a circuit system, an integrated circuit, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic device, or some other suitable type of hardware configured to perform a number of operations. With a programmable logic device, the device may be configured to perform the number of operations. The device may be reconfigured at a later time or may be permanently configured to perform the number of operations” (Paragraphs 0080-0081).
Fan does not specifically state determining the instantaneous slope of the surface of the body of water comprises determining the instantaneous slope of the surface of the body of water based on a difference between the first instantaneous distance and the second instantaneous distance.
However, Kim teaches determining the instantaneous slope of the surface of the body of water comprises determining the instantaneous slope of the surface of the body of water based on a difference between the first instantaneous distance and the second instantaneous distance (Paragraphs 0065, 0081-0086, 0134).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Fan with determining the instantaneous slope of the surface of a body of water of Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an aerial vehicle landing requires a relatively flat surface so sensitive equipment are not damaged. The aerial vehicle can determine the slope of the landing surface to determine if the surface is suitable for landing. One would have been motivated to combine Fan with Kim as this achieves safer landing. As stated in Kim, “However, expensive and sensitive equipment, such as various cameras and sensors included in an aircraft, are easily damaged during take-off and landing of the aircraft because outdoor ground surfaces are not uniform or have a severe slope unlike an indoor ground surface” (Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 19, all limitations have been examined with respect to the computing system in claim 7. The non-transitory computer-readable medium taught/disclosed in claim 19 can be clearly performed with the computing system of claim 7. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan, Tillotson, and Stark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Honjo (US 20220046177 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Fan discloses the surface of the body of water (Paragraphs 0006, 0041, 0044-0045).
Fan does not specifically state the computing system further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non- transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to.
However, Tillotson teaches the computing system further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non- transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to (Paragraphs 0056, 0084-0093).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Fan with program instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium of Tillotson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a memory allows the aerial vehicle to store programs used for performing operations. These programs in the memory can be reconfigured at a later time or permanently configured to perform the operations. One would have been motivated to combine Fan with Tillotson as this achieves storing programs for performing operations. As stated in Tillotson, “the hardware may take a form selected from at least one of a circuit system, an integrated circuit, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic device, or some other suitable type of hardware configured to perform a number of operations. With a programmable logic device, the device may be configured to perform the number of operations. The device may be reconfigured at a later time or may be permanently configured to perform the number of operations” (Paragraphs 0080-0081).
Fan does not specifically state the one or more sensors comprise an image sensor having an adjustable focal length; the set of sensor data comprises a value of the focal length; adjust the focal length of the image sensor to match a distance between the image sensor and the surface; determining the instantaneous distance between the vehicle and the surface comprises determining the instantaneous distance based on the adjusted focal length of the image sensor.
However, Honjo teaches the one or more sensors comprise an image sensor having an adjustable focal length (Paragraphs 0061-0065);
the set of sensor data comprises a value of the focal length (Paragraphs 0061-0065);
adjust the focal length of the image sensor to match a distance between the image sensor and the surface (Paragraphs 0061-0065);
determining the instantaneous distance between the vehicle and the surface comprises determining the instantaneous distance based on the adjusted focal length of the image sensor (Paragraphs 0061-0065; The object/subject of Honjo is mapped to the surface of the body of water of Fan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Fan with adjusting a focal length of an image sensor, and determining the distance between the vehicle and an object/subject based on the focal length of Honjo with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a camera can autofocus its lens to a certain focal length. Based on this focal length, the distance from the lens to the surface of the object can be determined. An aerial vehicle can use this distance to control movement of itself. One would have been motivated to combine Fan with Honjo as this achieves better vehicle movement control. As stated in Honjo, “The plurality of camera devices 60 are sensing cameras for photographing the surroundings of the UAV 1000 in order to control flight of the UAV 1000” (Paragraph 0084).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan, Tillotson, and Stark as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lustig (US 20230358888 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Fan discloses the surface of the body of water (Paragraphs 0006, 0041, 0044-0045).
Fan does not specifically state the one or more sensors comprise an image sensor configured to measure a respective time-of-flight for each pixel of a plurality of pixels of an image captured by the image sensor; the set of sensor data comprises a respective time-of-flight value for each respective pixel of the plurality of pixels; determining the instantaneous distance between the vehicle and the surface comprises determining a respective instantaneous distance between the vehicle and the surface for each respective time-of-flight value.
However, Lustig teaches one or more sensors comprise an image sensor configured to measure a respective time-of-flight for each pixel of a plurality of pixels of an image captured by the image sensor (Paragraph 0086-0090);
the set of sensor data comprises a respective time-of-flight value for each respective pixel of the plurality of pixels (Paragraph 0086-0090);
determining the instantaneous distance between the vehicle and the surface comprises determining a respective instantaneous distance between the vehicle and the surface for each respective time-of-flight value (Paragraph 0086-0090, 0094-0100; The surface of objects and the floor of Lustig is mapped to the surface of the body of water of Fan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Fan with an image sensor, a time-of-flight for each pixel of an image, and determining an instantaneous distance of Lustig with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an aerial vehicle can determine distances from the surface of the body of water in order to plan its motion. An image sensor can be used to measure distances for each pixel, and relatively similar distances can be combined to determine distances to objects and the water surface. One would have been motivated to combine Fan with Lustig as this achieves successful motion planning for the aerial vehicle. As stated in Lustig, “It may be desirable for a robot 102 to identify objects within its environment to avoid collisions and/or perform tasks. Robotic devices may utilize one or more computer readable maps to navigate and perceive their environments, wherein the use of raw point cloud data may be computationally taxing and may be inaccurate because the points do not define volumes of objects. Accordingly, point clouds are discretized into voxel space and projected into a two-dimensional (“2D”) plane to form maps, which enable the controller 118 to more readily utilize the point cloud data to perceive its surrounding environment” (Paragraph 0091).
Regarding claim 11, Fan discloses the surface of the body of water (Paragraphs 0006, 0041, 0044-0045).
Fan does not specifically state determining the instantaneous slope of the surface comprises determining the instantaneous slope of the surface based on a difference between a first one of the determined respective instantaneous distances and a second one of the determined respective instantaneous distances.
However, Lustig teaches determining the instantaneous slope of the surface comprises determining the instantaneous slope of the surface based on a difference between a first one of the determined respective instantaneous distances and a second one of the determined respective instantaneous distances (Paragraphs 0098-0104; The surface of objects and the floor of Lustig is mapped to the surface of the body of water of Fan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Fan with determining an instantaneous slope based on a difference between the first and second respective instantaneous distances of Lustig with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that determining the slope of a height map allows the aerial vehicle to determine which pixels are water surfaces and which pixels are objects. This is necessary to allow the aerial vehicle to land on the water safely. One would have been motivated to combine Fan with Lustig as this achieves safer vehicle maneuvers. As stated in Lustig, “The slope of the height map may be useful in determining which pixels 406 are floor and which pixels 406 are occupied by an object, such as wall 400, because floor space should include an approximately zero, or flat, slope. Stated differently, if pixels 406 represent floor, it would be expected that a surface normal unit vector of the slope represented by the height map 502 are substantially vertical” (Paragraph 0100).
Claims 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN 104199462 A) in view of Stark (US 3902444 A).
Regarding claim 20, Fan discloses a method performed by a computing system, the method comprising (Paragraphs 0006, 0037, 0041, 0047).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the computing system in claim 1. The method taught/disclosed in claim 20 can be clearly performed with the computing system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 23, Fan discloses a vehicle comprising: a hull; a main wing (Paragraphs 0033-0034, Fig. 1);
a control system, wherein the control system is configured to (Paragraphs 0037, 0041, 0047).
All other limitations have been examined with respect to the computing system in claim 1. The vehicle taught/disclosed in claim 23 can be clearly performed with the computing system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan, Tillotson, and Stark, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Breton (US 20210223385 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Fan discloses the determined statistical representation of the surface of the body of water comprises a first determined statistical representation of the surface of the body of water (Paragraphs 0044; Statistical representation is mapped to current and future wave pitch, movement, and parameters).
Fan does not specifically state the computing system further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to; based on the determined second statistical representation of the surface of the body of water, adjust one or more control surfaces of a wing of the vehicle to change one or more of a speed, altitude, heading, or attitude of the vehicle.
However, Tillotson teaches the computing system further comprises program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor such that the computing system is configured to (Paragraphs 0056, 0084-0093);
based on the determined second statistical representation of the surface of the body of water,
adjust one or more control surfaces of a wing of the vehicle to change one or more of a speed,
altitude, heading, or attitude of the vehicle (Paragraphs 0046, 0062-0064, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Fan with a program stored in a memory and adjusting surfaces of a wing of the vehicle based on the second statistical representation of Tillotson with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand an aerial vehicle can determine the average wave heights to determine its altitude, and maintain an altitude. The aerial vehicle needs computers to adjust its control surfaces, such as in a wing, in order to change its attitude and maintain a target altitude. One would have been motivated to combine Fan with Tillotson as this achieves changing and maintaining flying altitudes. As stated in Tillotson, “Flight management computer 106 then commands autopilot 114 to command flight controls 116 and engine 118 to fly aircraft 100 at assigned altitude 604” (Paragraph 0104).
Fan does not specifically state determine a second statistical representation of the surface of the body of water comprises determining a mean free surface of the body of water.
However, Breton teaches determine a second statistical representation of the surface of the body of water comprises determining a mean free surface of the body of water (Paragraphs 0026, 0074-0075, 0112-0113).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Fan with a statistical representation comprising determining a mean free surface of the body of water of Breton with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the aerial vehicle needs to determine the wave heights in order to land safely on the water. If the mean free surface of the water waves is over a certain height, it may be unsafe to land the aerial vehicle. One would have been motivated to combine Fan with Breton as this achieves safe aerial vehicle landing. As stated in Breton, “To land on water in total safety, these seaplanes have to monitor the height of the waves in order to check that it is below a safety threshold” (Paragraph 0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claim 9 recites (emphasis added):
“The computing system of claim 8, wherein adjusting the focal length of the image sensor comprises:
determining a previously measured slope of the surface of the body of water; and
adjusting the focal length of the image sensor based on the previously measured slope of the surface of the body of water by (i) decreasing the focal length of the image sensor if the previously measured slope indicates that the surface is rising along a direction of travel of the vehicle or (ii) increasing the focal length of the image sensor if the previously measured slope indicates that the surface is falling along the direction of travel of the vehicle”.
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Fan (CN 104199462 A) discloses an aerial vehicle.
Fan, however, does not teach an image sensor.
Honjo (US 20220046177 A1) teaches adjusting the focal length of the image sensor (Paragraphs 0061-0065).
Honjo, however, does not teach adjusting the focal length of the image sensor based on the slope of the surface of the body of water.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 9 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 9 is objected to.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claim 12 recites (emphasis added):
“The computing system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more sensors configured to measure a deflection of one or more wings of the vehicle, wherein the set of sensor data comprises data indicating the deflection of the one or more wings, and
wherein determining the instantaneous distance between the vehicle and the surface of the body of water comprises determining the instantaneous distance based on the data indicating the deflection of the one or more wings”.
The prior art does not teach, disclose, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of the claims.
Fan (CN 104199462 A) discloses an aerial vehicle with a wing and determining an instantaneous distance between the vehicle and the body of water.
Fan, however, does not teach determining the instantaneous distance based on the deflection of the one or more wings.
Lavretsky (US 20220223049 A1) teaches determining an altitude rate based on the elevator angle, and controlling the elevator based on the altitude command.
Lavretsky, however, does not teach determining the instantaneous distance based on the deflection of the one or more wings.
These differences between the subject matter of claim 12 and the prior art are not taught or otherwise rendered obvious by any available evidence in the remaining prior art. Accordingly, claim 12 is objected to.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights