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 .
This office action is in response to applicant amendment/remarks filed 08/01/2025. Claims 1-15, 17-27, and 29 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled and claims 31-34 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-34 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/12/2025 have been fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 08/01/2025, with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 08/01/2025, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the resulting 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-18 filed 08/01/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant discloses that claim 1 of example 40 of the Office’s 101 example guidance, and that similarly, claim 1 of this invention is directed to a particular improvement in magnetic mapping, since magnetic maps can be regularly updated with increasingly accurate information and transmit new information the system’s servers. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Maps such as magnetic maps and updating magnetic maps is common in the field. Furthermore, Example 40 is geared towards a particular improvement in collecting traffic data. Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Net flow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. Claim 1 of the present application does not analyze an abnormal condition, or collect data that reflects an abnormal condition which avoids excess traffic volume and hindrance of network performance. The limitations of claim 1 are geared towards taking magnetic measurements and incorporating them into a map, and does not relate to the improvements of example 40. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection remains.
Additionally, the applicant points towards claim 1 of example 42, and that it allows magnetic maps to be regularly updated with increasingly accurate information. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 42 is geared towards storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Example 42 does not relate to the present invention of collecting magnetic measurements and incorporating them into a map. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection remains.
Additionally, the applicant points towards claim 2 of example 45, however example 45 is geared towards sending control signals instructing the apparatus to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane from the mold once the polyurethane has reached a target percentage. Example 45 does not relate to the present invention of collecting magnetic measurements and incorporating them into a map. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection remains.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-18 filed 08/01/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant discloses that the elements of claim 1 such as “incorporating the magnetic measurements taken by a magnetometer into a magnetic map and recording in a memory of the device the magnetic measurements as incorporated into the magnetic map” are not disclosed in the primary reference He et al. US20180283882A1 and that the LBS feature map is updated with the navigation solution and not the sensor data. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Para. 0124 of He directly recites “the LBS feature map 142 may be generated and/or updated by using the sensor data collected while a movable object 108 traverses the site 102. In particular, the collected sensor data is analyzed to obtain observations as the LBS features. The obtained LBS features are associated with respective keys and types to form the LBS feature map.” The magnetic measurements are incorporated into the magnetic map. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C 102 rejection remains.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. With respect to independent claims 1 and 17, the claims recite “taking magnetic measurements as the device traverses a path, wherein the magnetic measurements correspond to positions of the device along the path”, and “incorporating the magnetic measurements into a magnetic map, and recording in a memory the magnetic measurements as incorporated into the magnetic map”. Since these limitations can be done mentally, they are directed towards an abstract idea.
The limitations recited above is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a magnetic-measurement device” (as recited in independent claim 1) or “by a magnetic-sensor system” (as recited in independent claim 17), nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, regarding independent claims 1 and 17, the limitation “taking magnetic measurements as the device traverses a path, wherein the magnetic measurements correspond to positions of the device along the path” and “incorporating the magnetic measurements into a magnetic map, and recording in a memory the magnetic measurements as incorporated into the magnetic map” in the context of the claim encompasses the user writing down magnetic measurements as the user is traversing a path. This can be done using a compass and writing down measurements while walking along a path. Since this limitation can be done using a pen and a paper, then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, the limitation “navigating or localizing by the processor based at least in part on the magnetic measurements” in the context of the claim encompasses the user using the magnetic measurements for localization. Since can be done by reading the recorded measurements and following the path using these measurements, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, the limitation “determining the positions corresponding to the magnetic measurements; and recording the positions with the magnetic measurements in the memory” in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining the position that corresponds to the magnetic measurements (i.e. the position that the measurements were recorded) and writing the positions down on a piece of paper. Since this limitation can be done by hand using previously recorded measurements, then the claims fall within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 4 and 20, the limitation, “wherein the positions are determined at least in part by dead reckoning using the magnetic measurements” in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining the positions by dead reckoning using the magnetic measurements. This can be done by retracing the user’s steps using the magnetic measurements and determining the positions by dead reckoning. Since this can be done mentally, then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 5 and 21, the limitation, “wherein the positions are determined at least in part using inertial measurements taken by an inertial-navigation system (INS) of the device as the device traverses at least a portion of the path” in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining positions from collected information from an INS. Since this limitation can be done by determining the positions using a pen and paper, and from the sensor data collected from an INS. Therefore, this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 6 and 22, the limitation, “wherein the positions are determined at least in part using global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signals received by a GNSS receiver of the device as the device traverses at least a portion of the path” in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining position from collected information from a GNSS. Since this limitation can be done by determining the position using a pen and paper, and from the data collected from a GNSS, then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 8 and 24, the limitation “wherein the apparatus is one or more of a mobile phone, unmanned aerial vehicle, personal digital assistant, server, tablet computer system, or augmented or virtual reality device” is recitation of generic computer components and does not recite any additional steps. Therefore, the abstract idea of the independent claims have not been affected and remains the same. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 7 and 23, the limitation, “wherein the positions are determined at least in part using wireless-communication signals received by a communication module of the device as the device traverses at least a portion of the path” in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining position from collected information from a communication module. Since this limitation can be done by determining the position using a pen and paper, and from the data collected from a communication module, then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 9 and 25, the limitation, “wherein incorporating the magnetic measurements into the magnetic map comprises generating one or more portions of the magnetic map with at least some of the magnetic measurements” in the context of the claim encompasses the user drawing a magnetic map using the magnetic measurements and their corresponding positions. Since this limitation can be done by hand (i.e. drawing a map), then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 10 and 26, the limitation, “wherein incorporating the magnetic measurements into the magnetic map comprises updating one or more portions of the magnetic map with at least some of the magnetic measurements” in the context of the claim encompasses the user drawing an updated magnetic map using the magnetic measurements and their corresponding positions. Since this limitation can be done by hand (i.e. drawing a map), then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 12, the limitation “wherein the device comprises the mapping server ” is recitation of generic computer components and does not recite any additional steps. Therefore, the abstract idea of the independent claims have not been affected and remains the same. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 13 and 27, the limitation “wherein the magnetic map comprises one or more representations of one or more paths traversed by the device” in the context of the claim encompasses the user drawing paths that was traversed by the device. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 14 and 28, the limitation “wherein the magnetic-measurement device further comprises one or more of: a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver; an inertial navigation system (INS); or a communication module” is recitation of generic computer components and does not recite any additional steps. The abstract idea of the independent claims have not been affected and remains the same. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 15 and 29, the limitation “navigating or localizing comprises re-traversing with the device at least a portion of the path using the magnetic measurements” in the context of the claim encompasses the user doing localization based on the magnetic measurements and re-traversing the path using the measurements. This can be done by drawing a map using the magnetic measurements and following the map, and going back to the magnetic measurements to navigate. Since this can be done by using a map, such that the user is able to navigate, then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 16 and 30, the limitation “determining that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside a predetermined range; and communicating a signal indicating that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside the predetermined range to trigger a predetermined action” in the context of the claim encompasses the user looking at the magnetic measurements and determining if they are outside a predetermined range. If the user determines that they are, then they can use their voice to communicate a signal such that an action can be triggered. Since this limitation can be done by hand and by using their voice, then this limitation falls within the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 31, 33 and 34, the limitation “wherein the magnetometer comprises the processor” and “comprising the mapping server” is recitation of generic computer components and does not recite any additional steps. Therefore, the abstract idea of the independent claims have not been affected and remains the same. Therefore, the claim recite an abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using a processor to perform the recited steps. The “by a magnetic-measurement device” (as recited in independent claim 1) or “by a magnetic-sensor system” (as recited in independent claim 17), in the above steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, claims 11 and 32 recites “communicating at least some of the magnetic measurements and corresponding positions to a computing device to be incorporated into one or more portions of a magnetic map”. This limitation is insignificant post-solution activity and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “ magnetic-measurement device” (as recited in independent claim 1) or “a magnetic-sensor system” (as recited in independent claim 17), to perform the recited steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the step of “communicating at least some of the magnetic measurements and corresponding positions to a computing device to be incorporated into one or more portions of a magnetic map” is taught in the primary prior art reference He et al. US20180283882A1 in Para. 0144-0145, “The sensor data statistics on the node’s positions can be extracted and stored”. Accordingly, the step of communicating data to be incorporated on a map is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15, 17-29, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al. US20180283882A1 (henceforth He).
Regarding claim 1,
He discloses:
A method comprising: by at least one magnetometer in a device, taking magnetic measurements as the device traverses a path, wherein the magnetic measurements correspond to positions of the device along the path;
(See Para. 0101, “At step 152, the processing structure 122 collects data from sensors 104 and 118. At step 154, the processing structure 122 analyzes the collected data to obtain navigation observations (or simply “observations”). The observations may be any suitable characteristics related to the movement of the movable object 108, and may be generally categorized as environmental observations such as points cloud, magnetic anomalies, barometer readings, and/or the like, along the movement path or trajectory of the movable object 108.” Magnetic measurements are taken as the device traverses a path, wherein the measurements correspond to positions of the device along the path.)
By at least one processor in the device and coupled to the magnetometer:
Incorporating the magnetic measurements into a magnetic map; and recording in a memory the magnetic measurements as incorporated into the magnetic map, wherein the memory is in the device and coupled to the processor; and in the memory storing the magnetic measurements as recorded
(See at least Fig. 6, Fig. 17 and Para. 0144, “FIG. 17 shows a region of the LBS feature map 142 with a portion of a skeleton 542 formed by nodes and links. The shaded areas in FIG. 17 represent a background heat-map showing the distribution of the magnetometer norm (i.e., anomalies mean) over the region. The dots and links respectively represent the nodes and links of the skeleton 542 generated with consideration of the spatial structure and the magnetometer observation distribution. The sensor data statistics on the nodes' positions can be extracted and store”. The magnetic map is shown in Fig. 17 and incorporates the magnetic measurements into a magnetic map.
Additionally, see Para. 0146, “ the system 100 accumulates and stores historical observations, and uses the accumulated historical observations for updating the LBS feature map as described above. In another embodiment, the system 100 does not accumulate historical observations. Rather, the system 100 uses a suitable pooled statistics method to process the current LBS feature map with current observations to update the LBS feature map.” Furthermore, see Para. 0124, “the LBS feature map 142 may be generated and/or updated by using the sensor data collected while a movable object 108 traverses the site 102. In particular, the collected sensor data is analyzed to obtain observations as the LBS features. The obtained LBS features are associated with respective keys and types to form the LBS feature map.” The magnetic measurements are incorporated into the magnetic map.)
Regarding claim 2,
He discloses:
Navigating or localizing by the processor based at least in part on the magnetic measurements.)
(See Para. 0237-0238, wherein a portion of the path is re-traversed (i.e. forwards or backwards) using the magnetic measurements, such that the measurements are compared along the path.)
Regarding claim 3,
He discloses:
determining the positions corresponding to the magnetic measurements; recording the positions with the magnetic measurements in the memory.
(See Para. 0144, “FIG. 17 shows a region of the LBS feature map 142 with a portion of a skeleton 542 formed by nodes and links. The shaded areas in FIG. 17 represent a background heat-map showing the distribution of the magnetometer norm (i.e., anomalies mean) over the region. The dots and links respectively represent the nodes and links of the skeleton 542 generated with consideration of the spatial structure and the magnetometer observation distribution. The sensor data statistics on the nodes' positions can be extracted and stored.” The positions of the magnetic measurements are determined and stored. Further see Para. 0028, wherein the features of the LBS feature map is stored in the memory.)
Regarding claim 4,
He discloses:
wherein positions are determined at least in part by dead reckoning using the magnetic measurements.
(See Para. 0227-0232, wherein magnetometers are used to provide an absolute heading for dead reckoning navigation solutions.)
Regarding claim 5,
He discloses:
wherein at least the positions are determined at least in part using inertial measurements taken by an inertial-navigation system (INS) in the device as the device traverses at least a portion of the path. (See Para. 0156, “the LBS-feature-map-based processing section 340, the processing structure 122 may use a location or (location, device) as the key 342 to obtain statistics of observations from the LBS feature map 142. For example, the processing structure 122 may extract a sensor error model 346A from the LBS feature map 142 using the above-described key, and process available IMU data 22A using an INS and/or PDR method and the extracted sensor error model 346A for updating the position/velocity/attitude 24A.“ The position is determined and updated using an INS sensor as the device traverses the path.)
Regarding claim 6,
He discloses:
wherein the positions are determined at least in part using global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signals received by a GNSS receiver in the device as the device traverses at least a portion of the path.
(See Para. 0019, “The sensors of the devices may or may not be calibrated or aligned, and the device or an object carrying the device may be stationary or moving. In some embodiments, the system and method disclosed herein may work with an absolute navigation system such as global navigation satellite systems (GNSS). In some other embodiments, the system and method may work without any absolute navigation systems. The systems and methods disclosed herein can provide improved indoor/outdoor seamless navigation solutions.” Wherein the position is determined in part using GNSS signals as the device traverses at least a portion of the path. Further see Para. 0083, wherein the survey sensors 118 may comprises GNSS receivers while traversing the path.)
Regarding claim 7,
He discloses:
wherein the positions are determined at least in part using wireless-communication signals received by a communication module in the device as the device traverses at least a portion of the path. (See Para. 0083, wherein GNSS signals are wireless-communication signals which are used as survey sensors 118 when traversing the path (see Para. 0101).)
Regarding claim 8,
He discloses:
wherein the device is one or more of a mobile phone, unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), personal digital assistant (PDA), server, tablet computer system, or augmented or virtual reality device
(See at least Para. 0087, “The one or more computing devices 106 may be one or more stand-alone computing devices, servers, or a distributed computer network such as a computer cloud. In some embodiments, one or more computing devices 106 may be portable computing devices such as laptops, tablets, smartphones, and/or the like, integrated with the movable object 108 and movable therewith.”)
Regarding claim 9,
He discloses:
wherein incorporating the magnetic measurements into the magnetic map comprises generating one or more portions of the magnetic map with the magnetic measurements.
(See Fig. 17 and Para. 0144, which shows the magnetic measurements incorporated on a map (i.e. generated on a map), which includes the position of the magnetic measurements.)
Regarding claim 10,
He discloses:
wherein incorporating the magnetic measurements into the magnetic map comprises updating one or more portions of the magnetic map with the magnetic measurements.
(See Para. 0145, “the processing structure 122 repeatedly or periodically executes a process of encoding the spatial structure to LBS features with the consideration of the spatial structure and the observation distributions, and combining and updating LBS features in the LBS feature map. Therefore, the corresponding skeleton and the LBS feature map may evolve over time thereby adapting to the navigation environment and the changes there.” The skeleton on the map that is formed by nodes and links, which is generated with the magnetometer observations, is updated and evolves over time by adapting the navigation environment with respect to the observation distributions of the magnetometer data.)
Regarding claim 11,
He discloses:
further comprising communicating the magnetic map with the magnetic measurements as incorporated to a mapping server. (See Fig. 17 and Para. 0144-0145, wherein the magnetic measurements and corresponding positions are incorporated into a magnetic map which is communicated via the processing structure 22 of system 100. Further see Para. 0087.)
Regarding claim 12,
He discloses:
wherein the device comprises the mapping server.
(See at least Para. 0087.)
Regarding claim 13,
He discloses:
wherein the magnetic map comprises one or more representations of one or more paths traversed by the device.
(See at least Fig. 6, Fig. 12, and Fig. 17.)
Regarding claim 14,
He discloses:
wherein the device further comprises one or more of: a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver; an inertial navigation system (INS); or a communication module.
(See Para. 0083, wherein the system comprises a GNSS receiver, and Para. 0156, wherein the system includes an INS.)
Regarding claim 15,
He discloses:
wherein navigating or localizing comprises re-traversing with the device at least a portion of the path using the magnetic measurements.
(See at least Para. 0125.)
Regarding claims 17-29,
All limitations have been examined with respect to the method in claims 1-15. The apparatus taught/disclosed in claims 17-29 can clearly perform the method of claims 1-15. Therefore claims 17-29 are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 31,
He discloses:
wherein the magnetometer comprises the processor
(See at least Para. 0044, and Para. 0089.)
Regarding claim 32,
He discloses:
wherein the processor is further operable to communicate the magnetic map with the magnetic measurements as incorporated to a mapping server
(See Fig. 17 and Para. 0144-0145, wherein the magnetic measurements and corresponding positions are incorporated into a magnetic map which is communicated via the processing structure 22 of system 100. Further see Para. 0087.)
Regarding claim 33,
He discloses:
further comprising the mapping server. (See at least Para. 0087.)
Regarding claim 34,
He discloses:
wherein the magnetometer comprises the processor.
(See at least Para. 0044, and Para. 0089.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE in view of Wang et al. US20210200226A1 (henceforth Wang)
Regarding claim 16,
He discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. He does not specifically state determining that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside a predetermined range; and communicating a signal indicating that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside the predetermined range to trigger a predetermined action.
However, Wang teaches:
determining that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside a predetermined range; and communicating a signal indicating that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside the predetermined range to trigger a predetermined action.
(See Fig. 8 and Para. 0059-0061, wherein it is determined if the magnetic measurements are outside a predetermined range. If the magnetic measurement (i.e. the amplitude of the detected magnetic field) is not smaller than a predefined threshold (i.e. outside a predetermined range), then the intelligent robot enters fully automatic mowing mode (i.e. a predetermined action is executed).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified HE to incorporate the teachings of Wang to include “determining that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside a predetermined range; and communicating a signal indicating that one or more of the magnetic measurements are outside the predetermined range to trigger a predetermined action” in order to create a more robust self-propelled device by being able to locate the position of the wire break (see Para. 0012, Wang) from the magnetic measurements being outside a range. Furthermore, this would create a more robust automatic lawn mower by allowing the device to take action when an anomaly with the magnetometer sensor takes place. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of He and Wang. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 30,
He and Wang discloses the same limitations as recite in claim 16 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
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 GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669