DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 07/27/2026. has been entered.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 have been amended. Claim(s) 1-20 are pending examination and rejected as detailed below. This action is made non-final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the 103 rejection to independent claims 1 and 12 is improper as the cited prior art does not teach all the limitations of the claims. In particular the prior art does not teach the new limitation reciting “wherein the FMS management module is configured to employ vehicle-to vehicle (V2V) flight path management via employment of cloud-based FMS functions in response to confirming compatibility between databases and software of the aircraft and another vehicle.”
Applicant asserts that the 103 rejection to dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 is improper because the claims rely on allowable subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner finds it moot. Upon further search and consideration the examiner would point towards newly cited art to teach the new limitation. Looking at Li (US PG Pub 2019/0045348) it broadly teaches a vehicle-to-vehicle communication network that allows aircraft to communicate with each other. As Li teaches in [0005] the use of a V2V network for aircraft communications allows the system as a whole to receive updated information from every aircraft. The aircraft can send and forward messages related to their own travel and current flight plans/statuses. This allows for all aircraft in the V2V network to have the most up to date data about the situation around themselves. For a further detailed mapping and explanation please the below, the section titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103.”
Regarding applicant’s argument B, the examiner finds it moot. For the reasons recited above the independent claims 1 and 12 are not allowable. Therefore at least due to their dependence on rejected claims, the dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20 are also rejected. Further detailed rejections can be found below in the section titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant has amended the claim to include the following language, “wherein the FMS management module is configured to employ vehicle-to vehicle (V2V) flight path management via employment of cloud-based FMS functions in response to confirming compatibility between databases and software of the aircraft and another vehicle.” The applicant did not provide a location in the spec that this is from. Upon examination of the language the examiner found this to be from Page 12, lines 15-17, and the limitation is copied as is written in those lines. After further reading the examiner is not convinced that the claim is enabled by this language. The examiner is left with several questions regarding the claim language as written. The questions include, What is the system managing? Is it merely updating a log of flight plans? Is one aircraft managing the other? If so, how does the first aircraft manage the second aircraft? Is the first aircraft sending specific instructions to the second aircraft? Is it sending route plan changes? What level of compatibility is required? The spec does not provide the required information to answer these questions. In light of this claim 1 is not enabled. Claim 12 recites similar language and would be rejected for the same rationale. Claims 2-11 and 13-20 would be rejected due to their dependence on the independent claims.
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) 1, 4, 9-12, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaker (US PG Pub 2016/0328978) in view of Gomes (US PG Pub 2019/0205115) and Li (US PG Pub 2019/0045348).
Regarding claim 1, Ramaker teaches a cloud-based flight management system comprising: a flight management system (FMS) management module ([0016] and [0017] teach a flight management system) disposed on the ground ([0016] teaches the use of a ground station) operably coupled to a wireless communication network including base stations located on the ground (Fig 1; item 32 and [0016] teach a ground-based communication network in communication with both a server and an aircraft); and
a flight management computer (FMC) client disposed at an aircraft ([0011] and Fig. 1 item 22; teach an aircraft-based computer) including radio equipment (Fig. 1 item 24 and [0011] teaches an aircraft radio) configured to communicate via the wireless communication network while the aircraft is in flight, (Fig. 1; and [0011] teach communication of the aircraft with the ground while in flight) the FMC client comprising software, firmware, and an Operating System, ([0011] and [0021] teaches the use of a computer on the aircraft, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand a computer to have a combination of software, firmware, and/or an OS)
wherein the FMS management module is configured to store FMS data ([0017] teaches the server as storing FMS data) including at least navigation database (NDB) information for the aircraft, ([0017] teaches the FMS data may include NDB information)
wherein the software while the aircraft is in flight ([0020] teaches the aircraft computer having an update module, Fig. 2 item 42; [0030]-[0033] teaches wireless updates to the software controlling various aircraft systems while in flight, updates to Nav databases etc. would be understood as software updates) and
wherein at least some of the FMS data is provided from the FMS management module to the FMC client while the aircraft is in flight via the wireless communication network, ([0029]-[0033] teaches the ground server providing various amounts of data from the ground system to the fight computer while the aircraft is in flight)
Ramaker does not explicitly teach updating the firmware, and Operating System and wherein the FMS management module is configured to employ vehicle-to vehicle (V2V) flight path management via employment of cloud-based FMS functions in response to confirming compatibility between databases and software of the aircraft and another vehicle
However, Gomes teaches “firmware, and Operating system are updateable wirelessly” ([0183]-[0185] and [0191] teaches a system in which a remote update may be pushed to a network of moving things. This remote update can include updates to the software, firmware, and operating systems of the moving things. [0026] teaches the network of moving things to include at least aircraft fleets.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Ramaker and Gomes; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the wireless transmission of data between centralized nodes in a vehicle computer system and the distribution of vehicle updates to a plethora of vehicles. As taught in [0191] a stakeholder of a fleet of vehicles can use the system to push forward a variety of software, firmware, OS updates to the vehicle fleet. The vehicle can in turn receive said updates at the time they are sent. This allows the fleet to maintain an optimal update status and defend against hacks, bugs, exploits, etc. of the vehicle systems.
The combination of Ramaker and Gomes does not teach wherein the FMS management module is configured to employ vehicle-to vehicle (V2V) flight path management via employment of cloud-based FMS functions in response to confirming compatibility between databases and software of the aircraft and another vehicle.
However, Li teaches “wherein the FMS management module is configured to employ vehicle-to vehicle (V2V) flight path management via employment of cloud-based FMS functions in response to confirming compatibility between databases and software of the aircraft and another vehicle.” ([0120]-[0127] and [0150]-[0163] teach broadly an aircraft establishing a V2V communication with at least one other aircraft. This can be used to exchange flight data as taught in [0163]. The system communicates device specific information and required check information to ensure that the aircraft devices are compatible, see [0162]. Once the link between aircraft is deemed to work and established the data shared can be used by the aircraft for flight plan controls.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Ramaker and Gomes with Li; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to aircraft systems and systems that allow aircraft to communicate with other wireless devices. As Li teaches in [0005] the use of a V2V network for aircraft communications allows the system as a whole to receive updated information from every aircraft. The aircraft can send and forward messages related to their own travel and current flight plans/statuses. This allows for all aircraft in the V2V network to have the most up to date data about the situation around themselves. This improves the overall safety and functionality of the aircraft in the network.
Regarding claim 4, Ramaker teaches the system of claim 1, wherein, responsive to entry of destination or waypoint information at the FMC client ([0030] teaches the input of a route), NDB information is communicated from the FMS management module to the FMC client. ([0029] teaches the communication of NDB in response to a request from an aircraft)
Regarding claim 9, Ramaker teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the wireless communication network comprises an air-to-ground (ATG) network (Fig. 1 and [0016] teach an ATG network) configured to provide a bidirectional, high bandwidth link ([0015] teaches the use of a variety of high bandwidth, bidirectional networks) between the FMS management module and the FMC client. (Fig. 1 and [0016] teach a connection between the FMS server and the client)
Regarding claim 10, Ramaker teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the ATG network is configured to provide a download speeds to the aircraft of greater than 4 Mbps and an upload speed from the aircraft of greater than 1 Mbps along with latency of less than 100 ms. ([0015] teaches the use of multiple networks configured to provide speedy and reliable communication; the network can be configured to be a 4G LTE network which has download speeds over 4 Mbps, upload speeds of more than 1 Mbps and a latency of less than 100 ms)
Regarding claim 11, Ramaker teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the ATG network communicates FMS data between the FMS management module and the FMC client in real time while the aircraft is in flight. ([0018] teaches the system maintaining the connection during flight in real-time)
Regarding claim 12, Ramaker teaches a method of providing a cloud-based flight management system (FMS) ([0016] and [0017] teach a flight management system), the method comprising: receiving an input to a flight management computer (FMC) client in an airborne aircraft indicative of a need for FMS data; ([0030] teaches the input of a request for an update of flight data)
communicating a request for the FMS data to a FMS management module located on the ground and remotely from the airborne aircraft via a wireless communication network; ([0029] teaches the airborne client requesting an update via a wireless network to a remote server)
receiving a response to the request at the FMC client of the airborne aircraft via the wireless communication network, ([0032] teaches a remote server receiving a request for update of data) the response including an update to the software, ([0020] teaches the aircraft computer having an update module, Fig. 2 item 42; [0030]-[0033] teaches wireless updates to the software controlling various aircraft systems while in flight, updates to Nav databases etc. would be understood as software updates) and
based on the response, generating an output on the airborne aircraft via the FMC client, ([0029]-[0033] teaches the ground server providing various amounts of data from the ground system to the fight computer while the aircraft is in flight)
Ramaker does not explicitly teach updating the firmware, and Operating System and wherein the FMS management module is configured to employ vehicle-to vehicle (V2V) flight path management via employment of cloud-based FMS functions in response to confirming compatibility between databases and software of the aircraft and another vehicle.
However, Gomes teaches “an update to…firmware and operating systems” ([0183]-[0185] and [0191] teaches a system in which a remote update may be pushed to a network of moving things. This remote update can include updates to the software, firmware, and operating systems of the moving things. [0026] teaches the network of moving things to include at least aircraft fleets.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Ramaker and Gomes; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both relate to the wireless transmission of data between centralized nodes in a vehicle computer system and the distribution of vehicle updates to a plethora of vehicles. As taught in [0191] a stakeholder of a fleet of vehicles can use the system to push forward a variety of software, firmware, OS updates to the vehicle fleet. The vehicle can in turn receive said updates at the time they are sent. This allows the fleet to maintain an optimal update status and defend against hacks, bugs, exploits, etc. of the vehicle systems.
The combination of Ramaker and Gomes does not teach wherein the FMS management module is configured to employ vehicle-to vehicle (V2V) flight path management via employment of cloud-based FMS functions in response to confirming compatibility between databases and software of the aircraft and another vehicle.
However, Li teaches “wherein the FMS management module is configured to employ vehicle-to vehicle (V2V) flight path management via employment of cloud-based FMS functions in response to confirming compatibility between databases and software of the aircraft and another vehicle.” ([0120]-[0127] and [0150]-[0163] teach broadly an aircraft establishing a V2V communication with at least one other aircraft. This can be used to exchange flight data as taught in [0163]. The system communicates device specific information and required check information to ensure that the aircraft devices are compatible, see [0162]. Once the link between aircraft is deemed to work and established the data shared can be used by the aircraft for flight plan controls.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Ramaker and Gomes with Li; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to aircraft systems and systems that allow aircraft to communicate with other wireless devices. As Li teaches in [0005] the use of a V2V network for aircraft communications allows the system as a whole to receive updated information from every aircraft. The aircraft can send and forward messages related to their own travel and current flight plans/statuses. This allows for all aircraft in the V2V network to have the most up to date data about the situation around themselves. This improves the overall safety and functionality of the aircraft in the network.
Regarding claim 15, Ramaker teaches the method of claim 12, wherein receiving an input to the FMC client comprises receiving entry of destination or waypoint information at the FMC client ([0030] teaches the input of a route), and wherein the request includes a request for NDB information based on the destination or waypoint information. ([0029] teaches the communication of NDB in response to a request from an aircraft)
Regarding claim 18,Ramaker teaches the method of claim 12, wherein communicating the request and receiving the response each further include requiring authentication of a sender of the request and a sender of the response. ([0022] teaches authentication of the data and requests for the data)
Regarding claim 19, Ramaker teaches the method of claim 18, wherein the request and the response are each encrypted. ([0022] teaches the encryption of data sent by the system)
Regarding claim 20, Ramaker teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the wireless communication network comprises an air-to-ground (ATG) network (Fig. 1 and [0016] teach an ATG network) configured to provide a bidirectional, high bandwidth ([0015] teaches the use of a variety of high bandwidth, bidirectional networks) link between the FMS management module and the FMC client. (Fig. 1 and [0016] teach a connection between the FMS server and the client)
Claim(s) 5-8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaker, Gomes, and Li in view of Thompson (US PG Pub 2017/0187539).
Regarding claim 5, Ramaker teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the NDB information is stored at the FMS management module ([0001] teaches the storage of NDB information in an FMS server) by
The combination of Ramaker, Gomes, and Li does not teach the use of authorized entities.
However, Thompson teaches “an authorized entity” ([0051]-[0052] teach the authorization of users and entities allowed to store or alter aircraft data)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Ramaker, Gomes, and Li with Thompson; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All teach the transfer of aircraft data and teach that security is important to that transfer. Thompson teaches in [0052] that the use of authorized entities ensures data integrity and prevents malicious access of corruption of data.
Regarding claim 6, Ramaker teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the authorized entity further provides
The combination of Ramaker, Gomes, and Li does not teach a list of aircraft identifiers or tail numbers that are authorized recipients of the NDB information.
However, Thompson teaches “a list of aircraft identifiers” ([0030] teaches other metrics to identify an aircraft), “or tail numbers” ([0005] teaches aircraft tail numbers as IDs) “that are authorized recipients of the NDB information.” ([0030] teaches the use of unique identifiers in allowing for data transfer and communication with an aircraft)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Ramaker, Gomes, and Li with Thompson; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All teach the transfer of aircraft data and teach that security is important to that transfer. Thompson teaches in [0052 that the use of authorized entities ensures data integrity and prevents malicious access of corruption of data. Ensuring the correct aircraft is the recipient or sender of data with a unique ID or tail number ensures this process is as safe and controlled as possible.
Regarding claim 7, Ramaker teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the system further comprises a security module disposed on the ground at the FMS management module ([0022] teaches a security module) and configured to require authentication for modifications to the NDB information, and require authentication of requests for the NDB information, and require confirmation of receipt of the NDB information. ([0022] teaches authentication of the data and requests for the data)
Regarding claim 8, Ramaker teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the security module is configured to encrypt communications between the FMS management module and the FMC client. ([0022] teaches the encryption of data sent by the system)
Regarding claim 16, Ramaker teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising an initial operation of receiving the NDB information or an update to the NDB information for storage at the FMS management module ([0001] teaches the storage of NDB information in an FMS server) from
The combination of Ramaker, Gomes, and Li does not teach the use of authorized entities.
However, Thompson teaches “an authorized entity” ([0051]-[0052] teach the authorization of users and entities allowed to store or alter aircraft data)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Ramaker, Gomes, and Li with Thompson; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All teach the transfer of aircraft data and teach that security is important to that transfer. Thompson teaches in [0052] that the use of authorized entities ensures data integrity and prevents malicious access of corruption of data.
Regarding claim 17, Ramaker teaches the method of claim 16, wherein receiving the NDB information or the update to the NDB information further comprises receiving
The combination of Ramaker, Gomes, and Li does not teach a list of aircraft identifiers or tail numbers that are authorized recipients of the NDB information.
However, Thompson teaches “a list of aircraft identifiers” ([0030] teaches other metrics to identify an aircraft), “or tail numbers” ([0005] teaches aircraft tail numbers as IDs) “that are authorized recipients of the NDB information.” ([0030] teaches the use of unique identifiers in allowing for data transfer and communication with an aircraft)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Ramaker, Gomes, and Li with Thompson; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All teach the transfer of aircraft data and teach that security is important to that transfer. Thompson teaches in [0052 that the use of authorized entities ensures data integrity and prevents malicious access of corruption of data. Ensuring the correct aircraft is the recipient or sender of data with a unique ID or tail number ensures this process is as safe and controlled as possible.
Claim(s) 2-3, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaker, Gomes, and Li in view of Westervelt (US PG Pub 2018/0096608).
Regarding claim 2, Ramaker teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the FMC client is an ([0016] teaches the aircraft computer receiving information processed by the ground-based server)
The combination of Ramaker, Gomes, and Li does not teach an airborne thin client.
However, Westervelt teaches “an airborne thin client” ([0022] teaches offloading of computational information to a separate network)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Ramaker, Gomes, and Li with Westervelt; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All arts relate to the split computation of aircraft data with separate servers. As taught in Westervelt in [0022] the offloading of computation to external components allows for improved or enhanced solution determination. The use of a split computer improves airplane weight and allows for more efficient computer use.
Regarding claim 3, Ramaker teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the FMS data includes: time, or total cost application ([0033] teaches updating routes based on flight parameters),
The combination of Ramaker, Gomes, and Li does not teach optimization of fuel burn or cost management.
However, Westervelt teaches “a fuel burn optimization application” ([0019] teaches cost reduction calculations by optimizing fuel use) and “a minimized engine warrantee cost minimization application, and a Cost Index management application.” ([0019] teaches cost management application in a FMS server)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Ramaker, Gomes, and Li with Westervelt; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All arts relate to the split computation of aircraft data with separate servers. Westervelt teaches in [0002] that fuel burn is one of the largest costs in aircraft operation. Cost reduction as taught in [0016] allows for optimized flight routes and reduced times as well as overall reduction in costs for an aircraft.
Regarding claim 13, Ramaker teaches the method of claim 12, wherein receiving the response comprises receiving guidance ([0033] teaches receiving guidance for route control) based ([0033] teaches the aircraft client receiving guidance from the FMS system)
The combination of Ramaker, Gomes, and Li does not teach fuel burn optimization.
However, Westervelt teaches “a fuel burn optimization application” ([0019] teaches cost reduction calculations by optimizing fuel use)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Ramaker, Gomes, and Li with Westervelt; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All arts relate to the split computation of aircraft data with separate servers. Westervelt teaches in [0002] that fuel burn is one of the largest costs in aircraft operation. Cost reduction as taught in [0016] allows for optimized flight routes and reduced times as well as overall reduction in costs for an aircraft.
Regarding claim 14, Ramaker teaches the method of claim 13, wherein generating the output comprises operating control surfaces of the aircraft or suggesting operation of the control surfaces of the aircraft based on the guidance. ([0033] teaches updating the control of an aircraft via an autopilot based on new guidance generated by the FMS system)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bambini (US PG Pub 2017/0180962) teaches systems and methods for collecting aircraft data from aircrafts within proximity of one another while in-flight are provided. In one embodiment, the method can include receiving, by a first aircraft, a first transmission from a second aircraft. The first transmission can include first data associated with the second aircraft. The method can include determining a communication time period based, at least in part, on the first data. The method can include sending, to the second aircraft, a second transmission that can include second data indicative of at least the communication time period. The method can include receiving, from the second aircraft, one or more third transmissions that can include third data indicative of one or more parameters of the second aircraft. A size of the third data can be based, at least in part, on the communication time period.
Kronfeld (US Pat 9,824,593) teaches a distributed system for flight and route management (FARM) of one or more aircraft of the system may include onboard processing devices for combining sensor data local to an aircraft with cloud-based data received through the system from other aircraft or from ground-based processing devices, thereby generating situation models of each aircraft relative to its flight path and in the context of current and predictive conditions (weather, traffic, terrain, threats, etc.). The FARM system may evaluate situation models against prioritized constraint sets of business rules or policies associated with each aircraft's flight plan to determine, crosscheck, and implement possible modifications to the flight plan. Localized aircraft data and flight plan modifications may be propagated through the system via a variety of communications networks to provide synchronized, holistic airspace data portraits to aircraft and ground control alike.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS STRYKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/N.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights