Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2024-11-04)
Rejection types: 102 - Lack of Novelty, 103 - Obviousness, 112 - Written Description/Enablement

CLAIMS:
CLAIMS:

What is claimed is:

1\. A system comprising:at least one microcontroller in communication with at least one engine,
wherein the at least one microcontroller is configured to:
determine an angular position of at least one inboard propeller attached to the at least one engine;
send a signal to halt rotation of the at least one inboard propeller such
that the at least one inboard propeller is held in an attitude that provides for clearance of a propeller blade to the ground upon landing; and
wherein the at least one inboard propeller would strike the ground during rotation of the at least one inboard propeller upon landing.

2\. The system of claim 1, further comprising:an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); and
one or more inner wing panels of the UAV;
wherein the least one inboard propeller is attached to the at least one engine
disposed on the one or more inner wing panels.

3\. The system of claim 2, further comprising:one or more outer wing panels of the UAV, wherein the one or more outer wing panels are disposed on either side of the one or more inner wing
panels, and wherein the one or more outer wing panels are disposed at an upward angle to a plane formed by the one or more inner wing panels.

4\. The system of claim 3, further comprising:at least one tip propeller attached to at least one engine disposed on the one or
more outer wing panels.

5\. The system of claim 4, further comprising:

one or more landing pods of the UAV, wherein the one or more landing pods are attached to the one or more inner wing panels of the UAV to assist in landing of the UAV, wherein a distance from a center of a propeller hub to a tip of the at least one inboard propeller is greater than a height of the one or more landing pods, and wherein the at least one outboard propeller is identical to the at least one inboard propeller, and wherein the at least one outboard propeller can freely rotate when the UAV is on the ground.

6\. The system of claim 2, wherein the UAV is a high altitude long endurance aircraft.

7\. The system of claim 2, further comprising a solar array covering at least a portion of the one or more inner wing panels.

8\. The system of claim 1, further comprising:a position sensor in communication with the microcontroller, wherein the position sensor detects a position of the at least one inboard propeller, and
wherein the position sensor is a Hall-Effect rotary position sensor.

9\. The system of claim 2, wherein the at least one microcontroller is further configured to:determine an altitude of the UAV;
send the signal to halt rotation of the at least one inboard propeller if the determined altitude is below a threshold altitude; and send a signal to adjust rotation of the at least one outboard propeller while the at least one inboard propeller is held in the attitude that provides for clearance of the propeller blade to the ground.

10\. The system of claim 2, wherein the at least one microcontroller is further configured to:determine an altitude of the UAV; and

send a signal to start rotation of the at least one inboard propeller if the determined altitude is above a threshold altitude.

11\. A method comprising:determining, by at least one microcontroller in communication with at least one engine, an angular position of at least one inboard propeller connected to the at least one engine;
sending, by the at least one microcontroller, a signal to halt rotation of the at least one inboard propeller such that the at least one inboard propeller is
held in an attitude that provides for clearance of a propeller blade to a ground upon landing; and
wherein the at least one inboard propeller would strike the ground during rotation of the at least one inboard propeller upon landing.

12\. The method of claim 11, wherein the at least one engine is on an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), and wherein the at least one inboard propeller is disposed on one or more inner wing panels of the UAV.

13\. The method of claim 12, further comprising:determining, by the at least one microcontroller, an altitude of the UAV.

14\. The method of claim 13, wherein the signal to halt rotation of the at least one inboard propeller is sent if the determined altitude is below a threshold altitude.

15\. The method of claim 13, further comprising:sending, by the at least one microcontroller, a signal to adjust rotation of at least one outboard propeller connected to at least one engine while the at least one inboard propeller is held in the attitude that provides for
clearance of the propeller blade to the ground upon landing wherein the at least one outboard propeller is disposed on one or more outer wing panels,
wherein the at least one outboard propeller is identical to the at least one

inboard propeller, and wherein the at least one outboard propeller can freely rotate when the UAV is on the ground.

16\. A system comprising:at least one microcontroller in communication with at least one engine,
wherein at least one inboard propeller is attached to the at least one engine,
and wherein the at least one microcontroller is configured to:
determine an angular position of the at least one inboard propeller; and send a signal to the at least one inboard propeller such that the at least
one inboard propeller is held in an attitude that provides for clearance of a propeller blade to a surface, wherein at least a portion of the at least one inboard propeller would contact the surface during rotation of the at least one inboard propeller.

17\. The system of claim 16, further comprising: an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), wherein the UAV further comprises at least one tip propeller attached to the at least one engine of the UAV, wherein the at least one tip propeller can rotate freely without contacting the surface during rotation of the at least one tip propeller when the UAV is located on the surface.

18\. The system of claim 17, wherein the at least one microcontroller is further configured to:send a signal to the at least one tip propeller to adjust a thrust to guide the UAV in for landing while the at least one inboard propeller is
held in the attitude that provides for clearance of the propeller blade to the surface, wherein the at least one tip propeller retains lateral control of the UAV during landing.

19\. The system of claim 18, wherein the at least one microcontroller is further configured to:send a signal to the at least one tip propeller to adjust a thrust to guide the UAV for take-off while the at least one inboard propeller is in

the attitude that provides for clearance of the propeller blade to the surface, wherein the at least one tip propeller retains lateral control of the UAV during take-off; and
send a signal to the at least one inboard propeller after take-off such that the at least one inboard propeller starts rotation.

20\. The system of claim 18, further comprising:one or more landing pods to assist in the safe landing of the UAV at the surface, wherein a distance from a center of a propeller hub to a tip of the
at least one inboard propeller is greater than a height of the one or more landing pods, and wherein the distance from the center of the propeller hub to the tip of the at least one tip propeller is greater than or equal to a height from the center of the propeller hub of the at least one tip propeller to a bottom of the one or more landing pods;
one or more inner wing panels of the UAV, wherein the at least one inboard propeller is attached to the one or more inner wing panels;
one or more outer wing panels of the UAV, wherein the at least one tip propeller is attached to the one or more outer wing panels, wherein the one or more outer wing panels are disposed on either side of the one or more inner wing panels, and wherein the one or more outer wing panels are disposed at an upward angle to a plane formed by the one or more inner wing panels; and
a position sensor in communication with the microcontroller, wherein the position sensor detects a position of the at least one inboard propeller.
5 10 15 20 25 30

OFFICE ACTION:
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b)  CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation the at least one outboard propeller in line 6.  There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Firanski (US PgPub #2015/0008857).
For Claim 1, the figures of Firanski ‘857 disclose a system comprising: at least one microcontroller (804) in communication with at least one engine (800), wherein the at least one microcontroller is configured to: determine an angular position (706) of at least one inboard propeller attached to the at least one engine; send a signal (712) to halt rotation of the at least one inboard propeller such that the at least one inboard propeller is held in an attitude that provides for clearance of a propeller blade to the ground upon landing; and wherein the at least one inboard propeller would strike the ground during rotation of the at least one inboard propeller upon landing.
For Claim 8, the figures and paragraph [0030] of Firanski ‘857 disclose a position sensor (110 and 802) in communication with the microcontroller, wherein the position sensor detects a position of the at least one inboard propeller, and wherein the position is a Hall effect rotary position sensor.
For Claim 11, the figures of Firanski ‘857 disclose a method comprising: determining, by at least one microcontroller (804) in communication with at least one engine, an angular position (706) of at least one inboard propeller connected to the at least one engine; sending, by the at least one microcontroller, a signal to halt rotation of the at least one inboard propeller such that the at least one inboard propeller is held in an attitude that provides for clearance of a propeller blade to a ground upon landing; and wherein the at least one inboard propeller would strike the ground during rotation of the at least one inboard propeller upon landing.
For Claim 16, the figures of Firanski ‘857 disclose at least one microcontroller (804) in communication with at least one engine (800), wherein at least one inboard propeller is attached to the at least one engine, and wherein the at least one microcontroller is configured to determine an angular position of the at least one inboard propeller; and send a signal to the at least one inboard propeller such that they at least one inboard propeller is held in an attitude that provides for clearance of a propeller blade to a surface, wherein at least a portion of the at least one inboard propeller would contact the surface during rotation of the at least one inboard propeller.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-7, 10, 12-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firanski (US PgPub #2015/0008857) as applied to claims 1, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Rawdon (US PgPub #2016/0144969).
For Claims 2-4 and 17, while Firanski ‘857 discloses a fuselage mounted propeller on the UAV and that the propeller system can be used on other flying aircrafts, it is silent about the UAV having inboard and outboard wing panels with propellers and engines attached to the panels.  However, figures 1A-1B of Rawdon ‘969 teach a UAV having an inner wing panel (12) having inboard propellers with engines (18) and outer wing panels (14 and 16) that disposed at an upward angle to a plane formed by the inner wing panel and having a tip propeller with engine disposed one the outer wing panel that are free to rotate without hitting the ground surface.  Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the known propeller and engine system of Firanski ‘857 on a larger UAV as taught by Rawdon ‘969.  The motivation to do so would be to provide greater thrust with larger propeller blade diameters which allowing for the propellers to be controlled to eliminate ground contract and damage to the aircraft.
For Claim 5, while Firanski ‘857 teaches a propeller that would hit the ground and paragraph [0003] discloses that it is known to not have landing gear or having landing gear that is not sufficient to clear the propeller during landing, it is silent about having landing pods.  However, the figures of Rawdon ‘969 teach having landing pods (20).  Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Firanksi ‘857 with the landing pods of Rawdon ‘969.  The motivation to do so would be to use larger landing pods for greater stability.
For Claims 6-7, while Firanski ‘857 is silent about the UAV being a high altitude long endurance aircraft having solar arrays covering the wings, figures 1A-1B and the abstract of Rawdon ‘969 teaches a high endurance UAV that has solar panels covering the wings of the UAV so as to provide power to the UAV.  Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Firanski ‘857 with the long endurance solar powered UAV of Rawdon ‘969.  The motivation to do so would be to use clean energy for a more efficient aircraft.
For Claim 10, Firanski ‘857 discloses that the microcontroller sends a signal to start rotation of the propeller when the UAV is above the ground.
For Claims 12-15, while Firanski ‘857 discloses a fuselage mounted propeller on a UAV that is controlled by a microcontroller to halt rotation of the propeller or rotate the propeller based on the height or location of the UAV, the propeller system can be used on other flying aircrafts, it is silent about the UAV having inboard and outboard wing panels with propellers and engines attached to the panels.  However, figures 1A-1B of Rawdon ‘969 teach a UAV having an inner wing panel (12) having inboard propellers with engines (18) and outer wing panels (14 and 16)  that disposed at an upward angle to a plane formed by the inner wing panel and having an outboard propeller with engine disposed one the outer wing panel, the inboard and outboard propellers being identical.  Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the known propeller and engine system of Firanski ‘857 on a larger UAV as taught by Rawdon ‘969.  The motivation to do so would be to provide greater thrust with larger propeller blade diameters which allowing for the propellers to be controlled to eliminate ground contract and damage to the aircraft.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Firanski (US PgPub #2015/0008857) in view of Rawdon (US PgPub #2016/0144969) as applied to claims 2 and 17 above, and further in view of Rahrig (US Patent #10526069).
For Claims 9, 18, and 19, while the combination of Firanski ‘857 and Rawdon ‘969 teach controlling an inner propeller to halt to avoid contact of the ground, it is silent about adjusting other propellers when the inner propeller is halted.  However, figure 12 of Rahrig ‘069 teaches that it is known to halt rotation of the larger blade (200) that would hit the ground and to send a signal to rotate the smaller propeller (202) to provide thrust for takeoff and landing.  Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Firanski ‘857 and Rawdon ‘969 with the propeller control of Rahrig ‘069.  The motivation to do so would be to provide thrust for the aircraft during take off and landing while protecting the larger propeller that can be used once there is clearance to provide more efficient thrust.
For Claim 20, while Firanski ‘857 discloses a fuselage mounted propeller on the UAV and that the propeller system can be used on other flying aircrafts and teaches a propeller that would hit the ground and paragraph [0003] discloses that it is known to not have landing gear or having landing gear that is not sufficient to clear the propeller during landing, it is silent about the UAV having inboard and outboard wing panels with propellers and engines attached to the panels and having landing pods.  However, figures 1A-1B of Rawdon ‘969 teach a UAV having an inner wing panel (12) having inboard propellers with engines (18) and outer wing panels (14 and 16) that disposed at an upward angle to a plane formed by the inner wing panel and having a tip propeller with engine disposed one the outer wing panel that are free to rotate without hitting the ground surface and having landing pods (20).  Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the known propeller and engine system and landing pods of Firanski ‘857 on a larger UAV as taught by Rawdon ‘969.  The motivation to do so would be to provide greater thrust with larger propeller blade diameters which allowing for the propellers to be controlled to eliminate ground contract and damage to the aircraft and to use larger landing pods for greater stability.
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS/ARGUMENTS
Claims 1-20 were pending. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 11-12, and 15-17 are amended. No new matter has been added. Claims 1, 11, and 16 are independent. Claims 1-20 are pending.
In the Non-Final Office action mailed November 4, 2024 (hereinafter "Office action"), the Examiner:
1. Rejected Claim 9 under 35 USC 112(b);
2. Rejected Claims 1, 8, 11, and 16 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US
Publication No. 2015/0008857 to Firanski (hereinafter "Firanski");
3. Rejected Claims 2-7, 10, 12-15, and 17 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over
Firanski in view of US Publication No. 2016/0144969 to Rawdon (hereinafter
"Rawdon"); and
4. Rejected Claim 9 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Firanski in view of
Rawdon and further in view of US Patent No. 10,526,069 to Rahrig (hereinafter
"Rahrig").
The Applicant thanks the Examiner for the present Office action and respectfully responds as follows:
Applicant respectfully traverses all of the rejections because the cited references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest all of the claimed limitations.
Rejection of Claim 9 under 35 USC 112(b)
The Applicant has responsively amended Claim 9 to correct a typographical error and to correct antecedent basis. No new matter has been added. By these amendments, the Applicant respectfully asserts that the rejection of Claim 9 under 35 USC 112(b) has been obviated.
Rejection of Claims 1, 8, 11, and 16 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) - Firanski
1. Independent Claims 1, 11, and 16
Independent Claim 1, as currently amended, reads as follows (with emphasis added):
A system comprising:
at least one microcontroller in communication with at least one first engine and at least
one second engine, wherein the at least one microcontroller is configured to:
determine an angular position of at least one inboard propeller attached to the at
least one first engine;
send a first signal to the at least one first engine to halt rotation of the at least one
inboard propeller such that the at least one inboard propeller is held in an
attitude that provides for clearance of a propeller blade to the ground upon
landing; and
send a second signal to the at least one second engine to adjust rotation of at
least one tip propeller attached to the at least one second engine while the
at least one inboard propeller is held in the attitude that provides for
clearance of the propeller blade to the ground;
wherein the at least one inboard propeller would strike the ground during rotation
of the at least one inboard propeller upon landing; and
wherein the at least one second engine is configured to operate independently
from the at least one first engine according to the second signal.
Independent Claim 11, as currently amended, reads as follows (with emphasis added):
A method comprising:
determining, by at least one microcontroller in communication with at least one first
engine and at least one second engine, an angular position of at least one inboard
propeller connected to the at least one engine;
sending, by the at least one microcontroller, a first signal to the at least one first engine to
halt rotation of the at least one inboard propeller such that the at least one inboard propeller is held in an attitude that provides for clearance of a propeller blade to a
ground upon landing; and
sending, by the at least one microcontroller, a second signal to the at least one
second engine to adjust rotation of at least one tip propeller attached to the at
least one second engine while the at least one inboard propeller is held in the
attitude that provides for clearance of the propeller blade to the ground;
wherein the at least one inboard propeller would strike the ground during rotation of the
at least one inboard propeller upon landing; and
wherein the at least one second engine is configured to operate independently from
the at least one first engine according to the second signal.
Independent Claim 16, as currently amended, reads as follows (with emphasis added):
A system comprising:
at least one microcontroller in communication with at least one first engine and at least
one second engine, wherein at least one inboard propeller is attached to the at least one first engine, wherein at least one tip propeller is attached to the at least one
second engine, and wherein the at least one microcontroller is configured to:
determine an angular position of the at least one inboard propeller;
and
send a first signal to the at least one inboard propeller such that the at least one
inboard propeller is held in an attitude that provides for clearance of a
propeller blade to a surface;
send a second signal to the at least one tip propeller to adjust rotation of at
least one tip propeller while the at least one inboard propeller is held in
the attitude that provides for clearance of the propeller blade to the
ground;
wherein at least a portion of the at least one inboard propeller would contact the
surface during rotation of the at least one inboard propeller; and
wherein the at least one second engine is configured to operate independently
from the at least one first engine according to the second signal.
Support for amendments to independent Claims 1, 11, and 16 may be found in the as- filed application at, for example, paragraphs 0024, 0038, and 0039. No new matter has been added.
The Applicant has responsively amended independent Claims 1, 11, and 16 to distinguish from the cited prior art.
The Applicant respectfully asserts that it is not obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify Firanski and Rawdon with the propeller control of Rahrig to provide thrust for the aircraft during take off and landing while protecting the larger propeller.
According to the description on Claims 1, 4, and 9 and paragraphs [0024], [0038], and [0039] of present disclosure, "the microcontroller" is configured to send a signal to an engine attached to "the inboard propeller" and another signal to an engine attached to "the tip propeller," respectively, and each engine is configured to operate "the inboard propeller" and "the tip propeller" independently according to the respective signal sent to each engine. Specifically, "the UAV 101 further includes at least one motor 110 coupled to the UAV 101 for the propulsion of the UAV 101." (paragraph [0024]). "The microcontroller is configured to ...send a signal to halt rotation of the at least one inboard propeller ..." (claim 9), and
"a flight control computer (FCC) may send a command signal to each motor 110 associated with an inner win
g
panel 107 to level, hold, and lock the blades 144 of the associated one or more inboard
prop
ellers 140.
The microcontroller 420 in turn will control the motor 110 speed, thereby levelin
g
, holding, and lockin
g
the blades 144" (paragraph
[0038]). "The microcontroller is configured to ...send a signal to halt rotation of the at least one outboard
tip
propeller ..." (claim 9), "...
microcontrollers 420 associated with the ti
p prop
ellers 141 may control the motor 110 speed for landing and take-off, while the blades 144 associated with the inboard propellers 140 are leveled and locked. When
the rotation of the inboard propellers 140 is halted, such as when the UAV 101 descends to the landing site 102,
the ti
p prop
ellers 141 may continue to rotate
and
t
he
thrust from the motors 110 to the tip propellers 141 may allow the tip propellers 141 to
g
uide the UAV 101 in for a landing."
(paragraphs [0038] and [0039]).
However, the Applicant notes that neither Firanski, Rawdon, nor Rahrig discloses, teaches, or suggests a system where a controller is configured to send a signal to an engine attached to "the folding propeller" and another signal to an engine attached to "the non-folding or smaller propeller," and each engine is configured to operate "the inboard propeller" and "the tip propeller" independently according to the respective signal.
Specifically, according to FIG. 12 and Col 5, line 48-Col 6, line 17 of Rahrig,
"foldin
g
propeller 200 and non-folding or smaller propeller 202" are "mounted to a common rotating shaft 204."
Thus, although "Drives 222 and 226 may be used at different times," "drive 222 may be used to rotate shaft 204 at a high rate of rotation during aircraft take off, climbs and landings," and "During loitering flight, ...drive 226 may be used to rotate shaft 204 at a lower rate of revolution than the rotation rate provided by drive 222,"
"folding propeller 200" and "non- foldin
g
or smaller propeller 202" always operate to
g
ether accordin
g
to the rotation of "common rotatin
g
shaft 204" re
g
ardless of which drive 222 or 226 is used.
There are no separate signals from a controller to rotate each of "folding propeller 200" and "non-folding or smaller propeller 202" independently. Any one of Firanski or Rawdon does not cure this deficiency.
Anticipating the invention requires the prior art teaching all the claim elements and the claimed arrangement. MPEP §2131 (citing
In re Bond,
910 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The Applicant respectfully notes that all claim limitations must be considered when
determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.
In re Gulack,
703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
For at least the above reasons, the Applicant respectfully asserts that currently amended independent Claims 1, 11, and 16 are patentable over the cited prior art and that currently amended independent Claims 1, 11, and 16 are in condition for allowance.
2. Dependent Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from currently amended independent Claim 1, which the Applicant
asserts is in condition for allowance. Dependent claims are allowable if the independent claims from which they depend are patentable.
In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
For at least the above reasons, the Applicant respectfully asserts that Claim 8 is
patentable over the prior art, as cited by the Examiner, and that Claim 8 is in condition for allowance.
Rejection of Claims 2-7, 10, 12-15, and 17 under 35 USC 103 - Firanski in view of Rawdon
Claims 2-7, 10, 12-15, and 17 depend from currently amended independent Claims 1, 11, and 16, respectively, which the Applicant asserts is in condition for allowance. Dependent claims are allowable if the independent claims from which they depend are patentable.
In re Fine,
837 F.2d at 1071.
For at least the above reasons, the Applicant respectfully asserts that Claims 2-7, 10, 12- 15, and 17 are patentable over the prior art, as cited by the Examiner, and that Claims 2-7, 10, 12-15, and 17 are in condition for allowance.
Rejection of Claim 9 under 35 USC 103 - Firanski in view of Rawdon and further in view of Rahrig
Claim 9 depends from currently amended independent Claim 1, which the Applicant
asserts is in condition for allowance. Dependent claims are allowable if the independent claims from which they depend are patentable.
In re Fine,
837 F.2d at 1071.
For at least the above reasons, the Applicant respectfully asserts that Claim 9 is
patentable over the prior art, as cited by the Examiner, and that Claim 9 is in condition for allowance.
CONCLUSION

NEXT OFFICE 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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 2/20/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent #11724793 has been reviewed and is accepted.  The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: See Applicant’s arguments filed 2/4/2025.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion