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 .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/318,908 filed on 05/17/2023.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response to the “Remarks and Amendment” filed on 12/04/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1) and Pelton (US20090048689A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 10 and 20:
Wilkins teaches:
A method comprising: obtaining, at one or more processors, trajectory data associated with an aircraft operating in a manual flight mode; (Wilkins, Col.3, lines 51-52, “generate a flight path”, Col.16, line 35, “representation of the current flight path” and Col.2, line 11, “a pilot to make flight adjustments”, Col.9, lines 53-54 ,” a computer or other suitable processor”)
obtaining, at the one or more processors, trajectory guidance data from a flight director system of the aircraft, wherein the flight director system generates the trajectory guidance data based on one or more trajectory setpoints;( Wilkins, claim 21, “generate … desired flight path”, Col.16, lines 66-67, “A flight plan is a sequenced collection of waypoints”)
determining, at the one or more processors, an error value indicating deviation between the trajectory data and the trajectory guidance data; (Wilkins, Col.16, lines 6-11, “The Flight Plan Manager component 300 also provides for calculating tunnel relative ownship state information for airframe consumption. This information includes, but is not limited to, shortest horizontal distance from the tunnel to the ownship (i.e., Horizontal Error), the vertical distance from the tunnel to the ownship (i.e., Altitude Error)”)
Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Irwin teaches:
determining, at the one or more processors, a gain value to be applied to the error value based on a gain schedule, wherein the gain schedule specifies gain values based on the error value; ( Irwin, para[15],” a variable gain applied to a rate error”, and para[32], “the variable gain 88 is determined based on a variable gain schedule”, para [33], “The variable gain 88 is determined based on … a rate error rerr of the machine 10”)
generating, at the one or more processors based on applying the gain value to the error value, a control signal for one or more control surfaces of the aircraft; ( Irwin, para[04],” The control system further is caused to determines an actuation command based on the variable gain”, para [33], “The variable gain 88 is determined based on … a rate error rerr of the machine 10”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Irwin in order to include determining, based on a gain schedule, a gain to be applied to the error metric to generate a flight director assist output signal and generating, at the one or more processors based on applying the gain value to the error value, a control signal for one or more control surfaces of the aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Irwin’s control system as “improve the controllability and/or stability” (Irwin, Description).
Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Pelton teaches:
determining, at the one or more processors, that the error value is greater than an upper bound threshold associated with a flight director assist system; ( Pelton, para[121],” A determination is made as to whether the error signal is greater than an upper threshold”, claim 1, “A method for monitoring an actuator for a control surface on an aircraft”, and para [54], “Processor unit ”)
and disabling, at the one or more processors, the flight director assist system based on determining that the error value is greater than the upper bound threshold.( Pelton, para[121],” A determination is made as to whether the error signal is greater than an upper threshold”, para [70], “ control actuator 618 may be disabled along with the use of the associated control surface”, and para [54], “Processor unit ”)
wherein disabling the flight director assist system initiates generation of a second control signal for the one or more control surfaces of the aircraft independent of the error value. ( Pelton, para[38],” A fault is set if any exceedance count... is greater than a threshold… This fault may be used to disable the failed control system”, and para [70], “a failed state in control actuator 604 may be used to initiate control of the control surface with a backup control actuator”) Examiner note: Pelton teaches a fault indication is used to disable the flight control assistant system and the faut indication is independent of the error signal. Pelton also teaches a failed state in control actuator may be used to initiate control of the control surface with a backup control actuator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Pelton in order to include determining, at the one or more processors, that the error value is greater than an upper bound threshold associated with a flight director assist system, and disabling, at the one or more processors, the flight director assist system based on determining that the error value is greater than the upper bound threshold, wherein disabling the flight director assist system initiates generation of a second control signal for the one or more control surfaces of the aircraft independent of the error value. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Pelton’s aircraft control system as “prevent damage and/or failure of control surface ” (Pelton, Description).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11:
Wilkins in view of Irwin, Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Wilkins teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising sending the control signal to one or more actuators to cause movement of the one or more control surfaces.( Wilkins, Col.9, lines 33-40, “ The aircraft/flight control system 256 translates cockpit flight control position commands (e.g., longitudinal/lateral stick, pedals, thrust control lever (TCL), and nacelle thumbwheel commands or actions) into nacelle, rotor control (e.g., longitudinal/lateral cyclic and symmetric/differential collective pitch) and control surface (e.g., elevator, flaperon, and rudder) position commands necessary to maneuver the aircraft 156.”)
Claim(s) 3, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1) and Toyoshi (US 20200250854 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13-14:
Wilkins in view of Irwin, Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Wilkins teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a flight director assist output signal, ( Wilkins, Col.11, lines 61-67, “the values of tunnel output signals at some specified time ahead of the current aircraft position. The particular signals may include tunnel desired altitude and desired vertical velocity”)
and wherein the control signal is based, at least in part, on the flight director assist output signal. ( Wilkins, Col.11, lines 61-67, “the values of tunnel output signals at some specified time ahead of the current aircraft position. The particular signals may include tunnel desired altitude and desired vertical velocity. These signals feed into the error signal computations 222 that are used to drive the pitch and power cues represented as the pitch trim cue 26 and power command cue 30”)
Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Toyoshi teaches:
wherein the gain schedule specifies gain values that increase as an absolute value of the error value decreases, (Toyoshi, para[185], “gain G1 is increased as the variance σ1.sup.2 of the error of the estimated position Po1 is decreased”) Examiner note: Toyoshi teaches the gain values that increase as a value of the error metric decreases. And it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to absolute the error metric value to remove the negative sign of error metric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Toyoshi in order to include wherein the gain schedule specifies gain values that increase as an absolute value of the error metric decreases. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Toyoshi’s method of setting up the gain regarding to the change of error in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition.
Claim(s) 4, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1) and Byzery (US20170001713A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15:
Wilkins in view of Irwin, Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Byzery teaches:
The method of claim 1, re-enabling the flight director assist system after a delay period has elapsed following the disabling. (Byzery, claim 10, “wherein one of the pilots of the aircraft may select to prohibit reactivation of a newly deactivated but initially activated member, at least for a predetermined duration, by means of a first selector element that is operable solely by the pilot”, and para [05], “control device suitable for being moved by a pilot or automatically ”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Byzery in order to include re-enabling the flight director assist system after a delay period has elapsed following the disabling. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Byzery’s aircraft control system as “preventing the pilot from actuating the deactivated member 33 manually ” (Byzery, Description).
Claim(s) 5, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1) and Barron (US3701889A).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16:
Wilkins in view of Irwin, Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Wilkins teaches:
…for a threshold period of time ( Wilkins, Col.6, lines 1-2, “for a predetermined period of time (e.g., 60 seconds)”)
Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Pelton teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising disabling the flight director assist system ( Pelton, para [70], “ control actuator 618 may be disabled along with the use of the associated control surface”, and para [54], “Processor unit ”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Pelton in order to include disabling the flight director assist system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Pelton’s aircraft control system as “prevent damage and/or failure of control surface ” (Pelton, Description).
Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Barron teaches:
when the error value remains at a non-zero value… (Barron, Col.4, lines 29-30, “value of error would be necessary to maintain a non-zero”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Tsang in order to include when the error value does not tend toward zero. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Barron’s flight control system as improving safe operation of aircraft.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1) and Bustos (US11885633B1).
Regarding Claim 6:
Wilkins in view of Irwin, Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Pelton teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising disabling the flight director assist system ( Pelton, para [70], “ control actuator 618 may be disabled along with the use of the associated control surface”, and para [54], “Processor unit ”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Pelton in order to include disabling the flight director assist system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Pelton’s aircraft control system as “prevent damage and/or failure of control surface ” (Pelton, Description).
Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Bustos teaches:
…when a change to the one or more trajectory setpoints is detected.(Bustos,Col.11, lines 24-25 , “identify a change in destination, route, or waypoint;”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Bustos in order to include when a change to one or more trajectory setpoints is detected. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Bustos’ methods for intelligently restricting transportation changes based on signals in a dynamic transportation matching system in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition.
Claim(s) 7, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1), further in view of Barron (US3701889A) and Jalalirad (US 20240295661 A1).
Regarding Claims 7 and 18:
Wilkins in view of Irwin, Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Wilkins teaches:
…based on a period of time … ( Wilkins, Col.6, lines 1-2, “for a predetermined period of time (e.g., 60 seconds)”)
…satisfying a time length threshold( Wilkins, Col.6, lines 1-2, “for a predetermined period of time (e.g., 60 seconds)”)
Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Pelton teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising disabling the flight director assist system ( Pelton, para [70], “ control actuator 618 may be disabled along with the use of the associated control surface”, and para [54], “Processor unit ”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Pelton in order to include disabling the flight director assist system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins’ aircraft pilot assistance systems with Pelton’s aircraft control system as “prevent damage and/or failure of control surface ” (Pelton, Description).
Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Barron teaches:
…which the error value has a non-zero value that does not decrease (Barron, Col.4, lines 29-30, “value of error would be necessary to maintain a non-zero”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Barron in order to include which the error value has a non-zero value that does not decrease. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Barron’s flight control system as improving safe operation of aircraft.
Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Jalalirad teaches:
and that is greater than a lower bound threshold associated with the flight director assist system and is less than the upper bound threshold...(Jalalirad, para[75], “the errors fall between a lower bound (LB) of error values and an upper bound (UB) of error values”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Jalalirad in order to include and that is greater than a lower bound threshold associated with the flight director assist system and is less than the upper bound threshold. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Jalalirad’s method of determining a position of a device in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1), further in view of Mahajan (US 20220009494 A1).
Regarding Claim 8:
Wilkins in view of Irwin, Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 10. Wilkins teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the control signal is generated based on the error value… ((Wilkins, Col.2, lines 1-2,” The errors are sent to flight director controls, which generate steering commands.”)
Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Mahajan teaches:
…responsive to detection of a condition that satisfies a flight director assist enable criterion. (Mahajan, para[003], “determining whether the following vehicle speed is equal to or greater than a larger threshold as a determination to cancel a lane change of a driving assistance device.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Mahajan in order to include wherein the control signal is generated based on the error metric responsive to detection of a condition that satisfies a flight director assist enable criterion. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Mahajan’s control device in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1), further in view of Mahajan (US 20220009494 A1) , Jalalirad (US 20240295661 A1) and Hamersveld (US 20180184381 A1).
Regarding Claim 9:
Wilkins in view of Irwin, Pelton and Mahajan as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 8. Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Mahajan teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein the flight director assist enable criterion is satisfied…(Mahajan, para[003], “determining whether the following vehicle speed is equal to or greater than a larger threshold as a determination to cancel a lane change of a driving assistance device.”)
…disabling of the flight director assist system. (Mahajan, para[003], “cancel a lane change of a driving assistance device.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Mahajan in order to include wherein the flight director assist enable criterion is satisfied. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Mahajan’s control device in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition.
Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Jalalirad teaches:
…based on the error value being greater than a lower bound threshold associated with the flight director assist system and is less than the upper bound threshold, (Jalalirad, para[75], “the errors fall between a lower bound (LB) of error values and an upper bound (UB) of error values”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Jalalirad in order to include wherein the flight director assist enable criterion is satisfied based on the error metric having a value that is greater than a lower bound threshold associated with a flight director assist system and is less than an upper bound threshold associated with the flight director assist system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Jalalirad’s method of determining a position of a device in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition.
Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Hamersveld teaches:
and based on elapse of a delay period following… (Hamersveld, para[100], “A delay time period that must elapse, following”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Hamersveld in order to include based on elapse of a delay period following disabling of the flight director assist system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Hamersveld’s method of a mobile device in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1), further in view of Lebegue (US20200312167A1).
Regarding Claim 12:
Wilkins in view of Irwin, Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Lebegue teaches:
The aircraft of claim 10, further comprising a display, wherein the one or more processors are configured to provide, to the display, a graphical representation of boundaries of a flight director assist region associated with enabling a flight director assist function.( Lebegue, para[0012], “generate an output configured to cause the dis play device to display , relative to the current location of the aircraft , a surface graphically representing the flight boundary”, and para[77], “systems and methods for assisting a pilot during flight of an aircraft”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Lebegue in order to include a display, wherein the one or more processors are configured to provide, to the display, a graphical representation of boundaries of a flight director assist region associated with enabling a flight director assist function. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Lebegue’s aircraft system and method for assisting a pilot during flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1), further in view of Colich (US 7389163 B1).
Regarding Claim 17:
Wilkins in view of Irwin, Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Pelton teaches:
The aircraft of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to disable the flight director assist system ( Pelton, para [70], “ control actuator 618 may be disabled along with the use of the associated control surface”, and para [54], “Processor unit ”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Pelton in order to include disabling the flight director assist system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Pelton’s aircraft control system as “prevent damage and/or failure of control surface ” (Pelton, Description).
Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Colich teaches:
… when a pilot inputs a new heading.( Colich, Col.9, lines 35-36 , “pilot input, which includes specifying a new heading”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Bustos in order to include when a pilot inputs a new heading. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Colich’s flight control method in order to minimizing the risk of mid-air collisions between aircrafts.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkins (US7010398B2) in view of Irwin (US 20200293004 A1), Pelton (US20090048689A1), further in view of Jalalirad (US 20240295661 A1).
Regarding Claim 19:
Wilkins in view of Irwin, Pelton as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 10. Wilkins teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein the control signal is generated based on the error value… ((Wilkins, Col.2, lines 1-2,” The errors are sent to flight director controls, which generate steering commands.”)
Wilkins does not explicitly teach, but Jalalirad teaches:
responsive to a determination that the error value is greater than a lower bound threshold associated with the flight director assist system and is less than the upper bound threshold. (Jalalirad, para[75], “the errors fall between a lower bound (LB) of error values and an upper bound (UB) of error values”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wilkins with these above teachings from Jalalirad in order to include wherein the control signal is generated based on the error metric responsive to a determination that the error metric has a value that is greater than a lower bound threshold associated with a flight director assist system and is less than an upper bound threshold associated with the flight director assist system. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Wilkins aircraft pilot assistance systems with Jalalirad’s method of determining a position of a device in order to smooth the transition between assisted flight and fully manual flight to reduce or prevent transient flight disturbances during the transition.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/04/2025 with respect to claims 1-20 (See applicant’s response, page 7, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Kai Wang whose telephone number is (571) 270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30 Eastern.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664