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 .
Claim Status
Claim 20 has been added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06 Jan. 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Number 18/985,783 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 06 Jan. 2026, with respect to claims 1-19 double patenting rejection has been fully considered and is persuasive. The double patenting rejection of claims 1-19 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 1, 4-14, 18, and 19 rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and claims 2-3 and 15-17 rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Surace (20160196754) fails to disclose a distance being less or equal to a predetermined value. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Surace in the prior Office Action of record recites:
“Collision avoidance logic processor 104 may also continue to monitor the two transient surface objects to ensure that the predicted turn or other new motion proceeds as predicted and that the initially projected alert envelope intersection is indeed invalidated by the subsequent movements of the transient surface objects” ¶ 34,
“after the deconflicting process by collision avoidance logic processor 104, collision avoidance logic processor 104 may confirm an initial potential collision hazard candidate. In some examples, collision avoidance logic processor 104 may initially determine that the initial potential collision hazard candidate qualifies for an alert” ¶ 35.
In light of the claimed limitation’s broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) it can be seen that Surace discloses of distances between selected mobile objects (alert envelope) is less than or equal to a predetermined reference value (intersection of alert envelopes). The alert envelopes are additionally described in previously recited Surace paragraphs 29 and 32.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments pertaining to claim 2 that Surace in view of Huthoefer et al. (20090201190; hereinafter Huthoefer) fails to disclose of changing a threshold distance based on visibility. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Huthoefer discloses:
“rules for conflict alert can be modified to adapt to operational needs) ... The second level represents the operational environment used during low-visibility conditions. Under level 2, all equipped zones become active” ¶ 53, see also ¶ 114, ¶ 115.
Wherein Surace, as shown above, defines the system in which an estimated distance is less than or equal to a reference value, then Huthoefer modifies the system of Surace to increase the reference value with a decrease in visibility range (activating all surrounding detection / potential blind spot zones) to improve safety in low-visibility conditions. Therefore, Surace in view of Huthoefer does disclose of the claimed limitation.
Similarly with claim 2, Applicant arguments pertaining to claim 3 that Surace in view of Sweet (20180130360) fails to disclose of changing a threshold distance based on wind direction and speed. Sweet discloses:
“no need to let weather structure 298 affect the flight management mode assignments because it does not meet threshold criteria for hazardous or unfavorable weather (e.g., wind speed remains below a nominal threshold” ¶ 45,
“such as due to wind or turbulence. IMMA system 100 may determine that having all aircraft in the airspace operate in Speed and Path mode would provide the least risk of error based on the current state of the hazardous weather conditions, and/or based on detected non-conformance of one or more of the aircraft with their originally assigned flight modes and mode instructions” ¶ 46
Surace, as shown above, defines the system in which an estimated distance is less than or equal to a reference value, then Sweet modifies the system of Surace to increase the reference value with an increase in wind speed. This is further described in Sweet paragraph 31. Therefore, Surace in view of Sweet does disclose of the claimed limitation.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-14, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Surace (20160196754; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Surace teaches a display control device in a control system for transmitting commands to a plurality of mobile objects traveling on a plurality of tracks, the display control device comprising processing circuitry:
to acquire track structure data indicating structure of the plurality of tracks (Surace: “SMR transceiver 120 and SMR antenna 126 may thus be configured to detect, monitor and gather data from these various airport ground surfaces” ¶ 19, “The ground surface can be, for example, a taxiway, runway, gate area, apron, or other trafficway or ground surface of an airport. For purposes of this disclosure, description of an “airport” may apply equivalently to an airbase, an airfield, or any other type of permanent or temporary aerodrome” ¶ 15);
to acquire control information from a management device that manages the control information including positions and operation schedules of the plurality of mobile objects (Surace: “gathering data on the movement of surface vehicles and transmitting the surface vehicle movement data” ¶ 15, “detect transient surface objects on the airport ground surfaces, including aircraft, ground vehicles, and any other moving or impermanent objects on the ground surfaces (or “transient surface objects”)” ¶ 19, see also ¶ 50);
to estimate predicted trajectories indicating travel routes of the plurality of mobile objects based on the track structure data and the control information (Surace: “motion prediction logic together with the existing readings of the positions and velocities of the transient surface objects to project the future positions and/or motions of the transient surface objects” ¶ 30);
to acquire a first predicted trajectory indicating a travel route of a mobile object selected as a monitoring target among the plurality of mobile objects and a plurality of second predicted trajectories indicating travel routes of a plurality of relevant mobile objects being mobile objects other than the selected mobile object from the predicted trajectories (Surace: “collision avoidance logic processor 104 may distinguish what type of object each transient surface object is, and apply customized future motion prediction logic based on the type of object” ¶ 30, “collision avoidance logic processor 104 is configured to determine an initial potential collision hazard candidate between two or more transient surface objects on the airport ground surfaces, and then deconflict the initial potential collision hazard candidate” ¶ 32);
to estimate an abnormal approach mobile object as a mobile object having a period in which a distance from the selected mobile object is less than or equal to a predetermined reference value out of the plurality of relevant mobile objects and to estimate the position of the abnormal approach mobile object in the abnormal approach period based on the track structure data, the first predicted trajectory, and the plurality of second predicted trajectories (Surace: “Collision avoidance logic processor 104 may also continue to monitor the two transient surface objects to ensure that the predicted turn or other new motion proceeds as predicted and that the initially projected alert envelope intersection is indeed invalidated by the subsequent movements of the transient surface objects” ¶ 34, “after the deconflicting process by collision avoidance logic processor 104, collision avoidance logic processor 104 may confirm an initial potential collision hazard candidate. In some examples, collision avoidance logic processor 104 may initially determine that the initial potential collision hazard candidate qualifies for an alert” ¶ 35); and
to make a display device display a two-dimensional coordinate system formed by a first coordinate axis representing positions from a start point to an end point of the first predicted trajectory by distances from the start point and a second coordinate axis representing a time and a line indicating the first predicted trajectory in the two-dimensional coordinate system and to make the display device display an enhanced display component that indicates the position of the abnormal approach mobile object in the abnormal approach period in the two-dimensional coordinate system (Surace: “determining that two or more of the transient surface objects pose a potential collision hazard (and potentially after deconflicting the potential collision hazard), output an indication of the potential collision hazard to WNIC 108 ... the outputs generated by target processor 102 may include graphical outputs, and the indication of the potential collision hazard generated by collision avoidance logic processor 104 may include a graphical depiction or other graphical indication of the potential collision hazard” ¶ 35, “display by the transient surface object overlay module implemented in rendering AMMD 310, to incorporate velocity vector information or direction of motion information in the icons themselves, by having the icons pointing in the direction of motion (recent and/or projected) of the various aircraft and ground vehicles (and/or other transient surface objects)” ¶ 43, see also ¶ 37).
Regarding claim 4, Surace teaches the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry acquires size of the selected mobile object from the management device and increases the reference value with an increase in the size of the selected mobile object (Surace: “The EFB application may also apply still other icons to represent other transient moving objects besides aircraft and ground vehicles. In this way, the graphical characteristics of a displayed icon may indicate aspects of a threat level of the obstacle represented by the icon (e.g., the size of the transient moving object)” ¶ 47, “collision avoidance logic processor 104 may distinguish what type of object each transient surface object is, and apply customized future motion prediction logic based on the type of object” ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 5, Surace teaches the display control device according to claim 1, further comprising a storage device to store the track structure data (Surace: Fig. 4 Elements 402, 422, 424, “Computing device 400 includes one or more data storage and/or memory devices 402” ¶ 53).
Regarding claim 6, Surace teaches the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the abnormal approach includes approach between the selected mobile object traveling on a first track and the relevant mobile object traveling on a second track at a distance within the reference value at an intersection of the first track and the second track intersecting with each other among the plurality of tracks (Surace: Fig. 3 Elements 334, 342, 354, “Collision avoidance logic processor 104 may project the alert envelopes around the transient surface objects forward in time from existing readings of the positions and velocities of the transient surface objects, and determine whether the alert envelopes around the two transient surface objects are projected to intersect, which may indicate a potential collision hazard” ¶ 29, see also ¶ 44).
Regarding claim 7, Surace teaches the display control device according to claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry has the enhanced display component displayed at coordinates determined by a position of occurrence of the abnormal approach and a time of the occurrence of the abnormal approach (Surace: Fig. 3 Elements 370, 372, “include indications of potential collision hazards provided by airport surface vehicle tracking system 100, such as warning graphic 370 and textual warning notice 372 between ownship icon 312 and aircraft icon 314” ¶ 44, “collision avoidance logic processor 104 may initially project from existing position and velocity data that two transient surface objects are heading toward each other and that the alert envelopes around the two objects are due to intersect within a determined period of time” ¶ 33).
Regarding claim 8, Surace teaches the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the abnormal approach includes approach between the selected mobile object and the abnormal approach mobile object traveling in a same direction on one track among the plurality of tracks at a distance within the reference value (Surace: “compare the position and velocity information for the transient surface objects, and may compare the alert envelopes around each of the transient surface objects. Collision avoidance logic processor 104 may project the alert envelopes around the transient surface objects forward in time from existing readings of the positions and velocities of the transient surface objects, and determine whether the alert envelopes around the two transient surface objects are projected to intersect” ¶ 29, “potential collision hazard candidate, collision avoidance logic processor 104 may determine that one or both of the aircraft are predicted to imminently make a turn, or accelerate or decelerate, based on its normal projected taxiing along the taxiways or other trafficways of the airport” ¶ 34).
Regarding claim 9, Surace teaches the display control device according to claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry has the enhanced display component displayed at coordinates or in a region determined by a position of occurrence of the abnormal approach and a time of the occurrence of the abnormal approach (Surace: Fig. 3 Elements 370, 372, “include indications of potential collision hazards provided by airport surface vehicle tracking system 100, such as warning graphic 370 and textual warning notice 372 between ownship icon 312 and aircraft icon 314” ¶ 44, “collision avoidance logic processor 104 may initially project from existing position and velocity data that two transient surface objects are heading toward each other and that the alert envelopes around the two objects are due to intersect within a determined period of time” ¶ 33).
Regarding claim 10, Surace teaches the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the abnormal approach includes approach between the selected mobile object and the abnormal approach mobile object at a distance within the reference value upon occurrence of head-on approach in which the two mobile objects travel in directions of approaching each other on one track among the plurality of tracks (Surace: “compare the position and velocity information for the transient surface objects, and may compare the alert envelopes around each of the transient surface objects. Collision avoidance logic processor 104 may project the alert envelopes around the transient surface objects forward in time from existing readings of the positions and velocities of the transient surface objects, and determine whether the alert envelopes around the two transient surface objects are projected to intersect” ¶ 29, “initially project from existing position and velocity data that two transient surface objects are heading toward each other and that the alert envelopes around the two objects are due to intersect within a determined period of time” ¶ 33, “potential collision hazard candidate, collision avoidance logic processor 104 may determine that one or both of the aircraft are predicted to imminently make a turn, or accelerate or decelerate, based on its normal projected taxiing along the taxiways or other trafficways of the airport” ¶ 34).
Regarding claim 11, Surace teaches the display control device according to claim 10, wherein the processing circuitry
has the enhanced display component displayed at coordinates or in a region determined by a position of occurrence of the abnormal approach and a time of the occurrence of the abnormal approach (Surace: “include indications of potential collision hazards provided by airport surface vehicle tracking system 100, such as warning graphic 370 and textual warning notice 372 between ownship icon 312 and aircraft icon 314” ¶ 44), and
displays the one track on which the two mobile objects travel in directions of approaching each other in enhanced display as a head-on region (Surace: Fig. 3 Elements 370, 372, “collision avoidance logic processor 104 may initially project from existing position and velocity data that two transient surface objects are heading toward each other and that the alert envelopes around the two objects are due to intersect within a determined period of time” ¶ 33, see also ¶ 54).
Regarding claim 12, Surace teaches the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry evaluates a priority level of the abnormal approach based on the control information, and increases a level of enhancement of the enhanced display component regarding an abnormal approach at a high priority level in a display mode (Surace: “the graphical characteristics of a displayed icon may indicate aspects of a threat level of the obstacle represented by the icon (e.g., the size of the transient moving object)” ¶ 47).
Regarding claim 13, Surace teaches the display control device according to claim 12, wherein the processing circuitry assigns a higher priority level as the priority level with an increase in size of the abnormal approach mobile object (Surace: “the FEB application may incorporate additional information in the icons, such as different sizes or different shapes of icons to represent different class sizes of aircraft, such as one icon for mid-sized airliners, a second icon for small airplanes, a third icon for very large aircraft, and a fourth icon for rotary wing aircraft ... the graphical characteristics of a displayed icon may indicate aspects of a threat level of the obstacle represented by the icon (e.g., the size of the transient moving object)” ¶ 47).
Regarding claim 14, Surace teaches the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of mobile objects include an aircraft, a vehicle, or both of an aircraft and a vehicle (Surace: “EFB application may apply any of a variety of other types of icons to represent aircraft and ground vehicles, and may apply a distinctive color for the icons to help better visually distinguish between the vehicles or types of vehicles (e.g., to distinguish between aircraft and ground vehicles) and/or buildings or other fixed ground structures or other objects or surfaces” ¶ 47), and the plurality of tracks include a taxiway and a runway in an airport (Surace: “AMMD 310 also includes representations of runways 342 and 344, taxiways 334, 336, and 338, and gate areas 352, 354, and 356 near airport terminal building portions 362, 364, and 366” ¶ 44, see also ¶ 19, 39).
In regards to claim(s) 18, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, Surace teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a display control program that causes a display control device in a control system for transmitting commands to a plurality of mobile objects traveling on a plurality of tracks to execute processes of (Surace: “The instructions may be executed to support one or more aspects of the functionality described in this disclosure. The computer-readable medium may be non-transitory” ¶ 63):
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 19, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surace in view of Huthoefer et al. (20090201190; hereinafter Huthoefer; already of record)
Regarding claim 2, Surace teaches the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry acquires information regarding a visibility range in atmospheric air at the plurality of tracks from the management device (Surace: “a machine learning system or pattern recognition system may also incorporate statistical training of observed motions of aircraft, ground vehicles, and other transient object on airport ground surfaces as correlated with a variety of conditions such as traffic levels, weather and visibility conditions” ¶ 31) and increases the reference value with a decrease in the visibility range (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Huthoefer).
While Surace remains silent regarding increases the reference value with a decrease in the visibility range, in a similar field of endeavor, Huthoefer teaches the claim limitation of increasing the reference value with a decrease in the visibility range (Huthoefer: “rules for conflict alert can be modified to adapt to operational needs) ... The second level represents the operational environment used during low-visibility conditions. Under level 2, all equipped zones become active” ¶ 53, see also ¶ 114, 115). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the management system of Surace so that it also includes the element of increasing the reference value with a decrease in visibility range, as taught by Huthoefer, in order to improve safety in low-visibility situations (Huthoefer: ¶ 55, 56, 96).
Regarding claim 15, Surace teaches the display control device according to claim 1, wherein
when the abnormal approach mobile object is an aircraft traveling on a runway as the track and the selected mobile object travels on a taxiway intersecting with the runway, the processing circuitry estimates the first predicted trajectory regarding the selected mobile object (Surace: “determine an alert envelope around each of one or more of the transient surface objects based at least in part on the position and velocity information for the one or more transient surface objects on the airport ground surface ... project the alert envelopes around the transient surface objects forward in time from existing readings of the positions and velocities of the transient surface objects, and determine whether the alert envelopes around the two transient surface objects are projected to intersect” ¶ 29 “incorporate velocity vector information or direction of motion information in the icons themselves, by having the icons pointing in the direction of motion (recent and/or projected) of the various aircraft and ground vehicles” ¶ 43, “AMMD 310 may include indications of potential collision hazards provided by airport surface vehicle tracking system 100, such as warning graphic 370 and textual warning notice 372 between ownship icon 312 and aircraft icon 314, based on a potential collision hazard generated and transmitted by airport surface vehicle tracking system 100” ¶ 44) and a no-entry region (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Huthoefer) indicating a time when the aircraft as the abnormal approach mobile object passes through an intersection region (Surace: “project from existing position and velocity data that two transient surface objects are heading toward each other and that the alert envelopes around the two objects are due to intersect within a determined period of time” ¶ 33) of the runway and the taxiway and a crossing distance of the runway (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Huthoefer), and
the processing circuitry has a line indicating the first predicted trajectory regarding the selected mobile object (Surace: “red vectors projecting from the ownship and the potential collision hazard object along the predicted paths of both vehicles, or red alert envelope outlines around both the ownship and the potential collision hazard object” ¶ 48) and a figure representing the no-entry region displayed on the two-dimensional coordinate system (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Huthoefer).
While Surace remains silent regarding a no-entry region ... of the runway and the taxiway and a crossing distance of the runway ... a figure representing the no-entry region displayed on the two-dimensional coordinate system, in a similar field of endeavor, Huthoefer teaches the claim limitation of a no-entry region and a figure representing the no-entry region (Huthoefer: “GAROS signals address enhanced surveillance needs for ground traffic preparing to enter a runway by providing a visual airfield signal to targets holding short or preparing to takeoff that the runway is occupied and not safe to enter” ¶ 104, “provide a visual reminder on the GUI that a runway is being occupied for an extended period” ¶ 112). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the display system of Surace so that it also includes the element of a no-entry region and displaying the no-entry reason, as taught by Huthoefer, in order to improve vehicle safety (Huthoefer: ¶ 103, 104).
Regarding claim 16, Surace in view of Huthoefer teaches the display control device according to claim 15, wherein the abnormal approach mobile object is the aircraft landing and traveling on the runway or the aircraft traveling on the runway and taking off (Surace: “other transient or moving objects on an airport ground surface (collectively, “transient surface objects”) while aircraft 112 is taxiing, taking off, landing, or stationary, on the airport ground surface” ¶ 16, see also ¶ 23).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surace in view of Huthoefer, as applied to claims 2 and 15-16 above, in further view of Knoll (20020010530).
Regarding claim 20, Surace in view of Huthoefer teaches the display control device according to claim 2 (Surace: a machine learning system or pattern recognition system may also incorporate statistical training of observed motions of aircraft, ground vehicles, and other transient object on airport ground surfaces as correlated with a variety of conditions such as traffic levels, weather and visibility conditions” ¶ 31), ...
However, Surace in view of Huthoefer fails to teach wherein the visibility range indicates a maximum distance at which a shape of a target can be recognized with a naked eye.
In the similar field of endeavor, Knoll teaches of wherein the visibility range indicates a maximum distance at which a shape of a target can be recognized with a naked eye (Knoll: “where the runway or the destination is not visible with the mere eye because the relative position of the aircraft is not favorable, because the weather does not permit visibility or the runway and/or because the destination is hidden for topographic reasons. With low visibility (e.g., when a side view onto the runway cannot be observed), the flight control display according to the invention offers a projection of the relative position of the aircraft and the aircraft's direction in relation to the destination” ¶ 10, Note: Wherein Surace in view of Huthoefer disclose the system as described in claim 2, and Knoll further modifies the system by incorporating the element of visibility range based on the naked eye.)
Therefore, it would have been obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the management system of Surace to incorporate the elements of a maximum distance a target can be recognized by a naked eye, to improve safety based on current conditions (Knoll: ¶ 11)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surace in view of Huthoefer as applied to claims 2 and 15-16 above, and further in view of Vana (20210362878; already of record).
Regarding claim 17, Surace in view of Huthoefer fails to teach the display control device according to claim 15, wherein the processing circuitry changes a travel schedule of the selected mobile object so that the first predicted trajectory does not overlap with the no-entry region when the first predicted trajectory includes a part overlapping with the no-entry region (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Vana).
While Surace discloses alerting when predicted trajectories overlap, Surace remains silent regarding circuitry changes a travel schedule of the selected mobile object so that the first predicted trajectory does not overlap with the no-entry region when the first predicted trajectory includes a part overlapping with the no-entry region, in a similar field of endeavor, Vana teaches the claim limitation of changing a travel schedule of the selected mobile object so that the predicted trajectory does not overlap with the no-entry region (Vana: “Objects, such as other aircraft, ground service vehicles and equipment, and ramp personnel, approaching or entering an aircraft's safety zone are the main reasons the visual signals may indicate stopping or altering pushback. The system may be adapted to allow input of other information, for example from air traffic control, that may require adjustment of, or even stopping, pushback travel” ¶ 44, see also ¶ 35). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the outputting system of so that it also includes the element of changing a travel schedule of the selected mobile object so that the predicted trajectory does not overlap with the no-entry region, as taught by Vana, in order to improve vehicle safety and prevent collisions (Vana: ¶ 35, 40, 41).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surace in view of Sweet (20180130360; already of record)
Regarding claim 3, Surace teaches the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry acquires information regarding a wind direction and a wind speed at the plurality of tracks from the management device (Surace: “a machine learning system or pattern recognition system may also incorporate statistical training of observed motions of aircraft, ground vehicles, and other transient object on airport ground surfaces as correlated with a variety of conditions such as traffic levels, weather and visibility conditions” ¶ 31) and increases the reference value when the wind direction is a following wind direction with an increase in the wind speed (see obviousness discussion below pertaining to Sweet).
While Surace remains silent regarding increases the reference value when the wind direction is a following wind direction with an increase in the wind speed, in a similar field of endeavor, Sweet teaches the claim limitation increasing a reference value with wind direction and wind speed (Sweet: “no need to let weather structure 298 affect the flight management mode assignments because it does not meet threshold criteria for hazardous or unfavorable weather (e.g., wind speed remains below a nominal threshold” ¶ 45, “such as due to wind or turbulence. IMMA system 100 may determine that having all aircraft in the airspace operate in Speed and Path mode would provide the least risk of error based on the current state of the hazardous weather conditions, and/or based on detected non-conformance of one or more of the aircraft with their originally assigned flight modes and mode instructions” ¶ 46). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the management system of Surace so that it also includes the element of windspeed, as taught by Sweet, in order to improve vehicle safety during inclement weather (Sweet: ¶ 46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Steder et al. (20210063201) is in the similar field of endeavor
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 CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights