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, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 12 have been amended. Claim(s) 9 and 10 have been cancelled. Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-12 are pending examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following argument(s) regarding the previous office action:
Applicant asserts that the cited prior art fails to teach all claim limitations of independent claims 1 and 12. Applicant relies on the newly added subject matter in this assertion. Accordingly claims 1 and 12 are allowable over the prior art, while claims 2-8 and 11 are allowable based on their reliance on allowed subject matter.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument A, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments, regarding Lim, see pages 11-15 of applicant’s remarks, appear to be asserting that Lim fails to teach the claimed subject matter. Applicant’s arguments are pointed towards two elements. Firstly that Lim fails to teach the claimed, “emergency mode.” Regarding this the examiner does not disagree. However this element appears to be rolled up from the now canceled claim 10. Regarding claim 10, the examiner did not rely on Lim to teach this rather the examiner relied on Addonisio, and would still rely on Addonisio to teach this. The examiner cited Fig. 3, items S2 and S3; as well as [0035] and [0050] to teach this. Looking at [0035] of Addonisio it recites, “the UAV 100 may ascend or otherwise temporarily abort the landing process.” This abortion of the landing procedure and related ascent teach the applicant’s claimed, “emergency mode.” Addonisio teaches that the UAV can perform this emergency maneuver for any variety of reasons including, “the docking station 106 is outside an appropriate threshold field of view or distance from the UAV 100. For instance, if wind speeds increase, the UAV 100 may choose to either stop descending to save resources to combat the wind, or to alternatively ascend and restart the process altogether. Other environmental reasons may cause the UAV 100 to pause its descent, ascend, or abort altogether, such as rainfall, snow, hail, tornado, etc. Furthermore, if the docking station 106 is in a condition where the UAV 100 cannot land, the UAV 100 may need to ascend or abort the landing as well, such as a branch falls on the docking station 106, leaves cover the connecting ports thereon, or if the docking station 106 is tilted or off-balance, such as due to heavy winds or other type of intervention. As another example, if the UAV 100 loses connection with the docking station 106, such as the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi signal drops below a predetermined threshold, then the UAV 100 may decide to pause the descent, or ascend.” It is implied that the UAV is unable to determine the safe landing zone and after a time period will perform the emergency ascent. For this reasoning the examiner finds that the claimed “emergency mode,” would be obvious in view of Addonisio.
The second failure of Lim is allegedly pointed towards the lack of a “first descent rate,” and “a second descent rate.” The applicant claims them to be different and that one is larger than the other, but this appears to be a design choice as applicant has not pointed towards any kind of unintended solution due to differing speeds. Looking at Lim, claim 24 states, “descending the aircraft from the first altitude to a second altitude at a first descent speed; hovering the aircraft above the landing area at the second altitude; descending the aircraft from the second altitude to the landing area at a second descent speed; and landing the aircraft on the vessel at the landing area.” (Emphasis added). Lim furthers this in [0058] teaching that there is an “intermediate descent” and “final descent;” which can have different but constant speeds. The teachings of Lim would render the claim as obvious in light of the newly cited portions.
For these reasons the examiner finds the applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and the 35 USC 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 12 will remain. Additionally, at least due to their dependence on rejected claims, dependent claims 2-8 and 11 will remain rejected. See the section below titled, “Claim Rejections – 35 USC 103,” for a more detailed mapping and explanation.
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) 1-7 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addonisio (US PG Pub 2019/0227573) in view of Lim (US PG Pub 2017/0001732).
Regarding claim 1, Addonisio teaches an automatic landing system for a vertical take-off and landing aircraft (VTOL), the automatic landing system comprising: a processor; ([0008] and [0018] teach a processor in use by a VTOL automatic landing system)
an imaging device configured to be mounted on the VTOL aircraft; and (Fig. 1 items 100 and 105; and [0018] teach a UAV configured for vertical take-off and landing, with an optical device designed to capture images of an area)
a data transmission device configured to exchange data between the VTOL aircraft and a facility provided with a target landing point, (Fig. 1 items 108, 109, and 116; and [0019]-[0021] teach the transmission of data between devices) wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire position coordinates of the VTOL aircraft; ([0019] teaches the UAV having a GPS receiver and other possible location devices to determine the coordinates of the UAV) and
calculate a first relative position between the position of the VTOL aircraft that has been acquired by the processor and a position of the target landing point based on the position coordinates of the VTOL aircraft that have been acquired by the processor and position coordinates of the facility that have been acquired by the data transmission device, ([0019] teaches the UAV determining its location by using a GPS and a relative position based on a transmission from the landing area)
perform image processing on an image of a marker ([0054] teaches the processing of an image by an optical system) provided on the target landing point, captured by the imaging device, ([0023] teaches a target device for the UAV to look at) and acquire a second relative position between the VTOL aircraft and the target landing point; ([0027] teaches the UAV finding its position relative to the target for landing)
acquire a relative altitude between the VTOL aircraft and the target landing point; ([0027] teaches the UAV finding its position relative to the target for landing; [0039], [0041], and [0045] further the teachings of the UAV having a relative altitude determination) and
control the VTOL aircraft in control modes such that the second relative position becomes zero, (Fig. 3 and [0045]-[0050] teach a control of the UAV in a plurality of modes, these modes work to achieve the goal of landing the UAV on the target landing site, thereby reducing the second relative position to zero)
wherein: the control modes include (Fig. 3 and [0045] teach a UAV arriving at an area and looking for a target to land at, i.e. hovering, the figure also teaches the UAV landing at the target, i.e. landing. Both hovering and landing would be expected of a UAV/VTOL system) and an emergency mode; (Fig. 3, items S2 and S3; as well as [0035] and [0050] teach the UAV having an abort mode during which the system determines to abort the landing and ascend before trying again) and
wherein the hovering mode is executed within a first threshold value at which the second relative position is within a range of the target landing point, the relative altitude is lowered to a predetermined relative altitude in the hovering mode with a first descent rate, (Fig. 2 and [0041] teach a series of zones in which the UAV can hover, this action is based on the UAV’s relative distance and altitude compared to the target. [0053] teaches that the system can have various rates of descent with sometimes picking a more rapid descent based on fulfilling certain conditions) and when a predetermined condition including a condition that the second relative position is within a predetermined threshold value that is less than the first threshold value is satisfied, the control mode is shifted from the hovering mode to the landing mode; (Fig. 3 item S6/S7 and [0048] teach a series of zones in which the UAV can hover, when low enough the UAV will land on the platform)
when a time period for which the marker cannot be captured by the imaging device continues longer than or equal to a predetermined time period during execution of the hovering mode, the processor is configured to shift the control mode to an emergency mode in which an altitude of the VTOL aircraft is raised to a predetermined altitude. (Fig. 3, items S2 and S3; and [0035] and [0050] teach a way for the UAV to ascend automatically if it is unable to determine the target is within the landing zone after a period of time. The UAV can abort the landing if it is unable to accurately determine the landing zone as safe this includes raising the altitude in the event that the landing zone is obscured by debris and the UAV cannot find a timely way to land.)
in the landing mode, (Fig. 2 and [0041] teach the UAV system working in a series of steps to lower the UAV to land by decreasing the altitude in a series of unique steps, known as zones. Each zone being a different altitude) and further lowered to land the VTOL aircraft on the target landing point. (Fig. 3 item S7 and [0048] teach the UAV attempting to land, which is implicitly understood by one or ordinary skill in the art to mean lowering the relative altitude value to zero)
Addonisio does not teach an approach mode, in the approach mode, the processor is further configured to: cause the imaging device to photograph the marker provided on the target landing point while causing the VTOL aircraft to fly toward the target landing point so that the first relative position calculated by the processor is within a predetermined range; acquire the first relative position by performing the image processing on the image of the marker which has been photographed; determine whether the first relative position is within the predetermined range and second relative position which has been acquired is within the first threshold value; and shift the control mode to the hovering mode if the first relative position is within the predetermined range and the second relative position which has been acquired is determined to be within the first threshold value; and the relative altitude is lowered at a second descent rate that is constant and larger than the first descent rate.
However, Lim teaches “an approach mode,” (Fig. 1 and [0057], [0070]-[0071] teaches the system having an approach phase as it closes in on the target; the approach phase has multiple segments including an approach mode 120 and traverse mode 122, the combination of which the examiner would find analogous to the approach mode of the current claim) and “in the approach mode, the processor is further configured to: cause the imaging device to photograph the marker provided on the target landing point while causing the VTOL aircraft to fly toward the target landing point so that the first relative position calculated by the processor is within a predetermined range;” ([0070]-[0074] teaches the VTOL using a “flash LiDAR” to capture images of the landing marker as the aircraft moves towards the ultimate landing point. It begins to use the “Flash LiDAR” when it reaches a predetermined relative position, perch phase 124. The “Flash LiDAR” could be substituted with a traditional “visible light camera” as taught in [0049], and the system would achieve the same result. Going forward the examiner will describe only the system as it relates to the “Flash LiDAR” for simplicity. Also, Lim teaches [0073], “ Based on propagated accelerometer information, an aircraft 116 may be guided to advance at a 10 ft/s closing rate along the estimated vessel velocity vector.” Further this approach is done move the aircraft along the traverse between relative points and ensure that the aircraft is within a specified distance to begin the landing sequence, [0059]-[0060]. Taken together the examiner finds that Lim causes the aircraft to move towards the landing point to ensure that the aircraft is within a range to proceed with the landing operation. [0069] also teaches that the aircraft may transition modes based on being within a predetermined distance or a specific relative location.) “acquire the first relative position by performing the image processing on the image of the marker which has been photographed;” ([0072] and [0074] teach the system as able to use various forms of image processing to determine the landing target and the distance between the aircraft and the landing marker) “determine whether the first relative position is within the predetermined range and second relative position which has been acquired is within the first threshold value;” ([0073] teaches using a sensor to determine the relative location of the VTOL to be within a distance to the touchdown point; [0076] teaches the use of the relative location to determine the distance to the landing point, this is based on fused image and navigation data) and “shift the control mode to the hovering mode if the first relative position is within the predetermined range and the second relative position which has been acquired is determined to be within the first threshold value.” (TABLE E; Fig. 1 item 106; and [0070] teach the aircraft shifting from a traverse mode to a “high hover mode” at a high hover point located above the touchdown point. Also [0076] teaches that the approach phase of the operation uses a horizontal guidance algorithm that uses a Kalman filter to combine the relative location based on detected deck markings and relative horizontal velocity information. This would be analogous to the first and second relative locations being used to switch modes, as the first location is based on imaging and the second is based on sensor data of an aircraft location. As Lim teaches combining the image data and sensor data approximating aircraft location this would be the same. And as taught in [0058] while the decision to switch to hover is based on an estimated time it is also based on a determination that the aircraft has arrived at a “high hover point 106.” This point is part of the aircraft algorithm that requires a switch to hover mode, if the aircraft is not at this point it will not switch. Therefore the examiner finds it analogous to the limitation of switching if the first and second relative locations are within their respective ranges. As Lim requires the fused data to show that the aircraft has arrived at the switch point before waiting an arbitrary amount of time.) and “the relative altitude is lowered at a second descent rate that is constant and larger than the first descent rate.” (Claim 24 and [0058] teach the VTOL having multiple rates of descent based on the location of the aircraft relative to the landing point. The rates are different and constant throughout the process. The fact that the aircraft may descend slower first then faster or vice-versa would be a matter of design choice and the applicant has not shown that this would yield any unintended or non-obvious results)
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 Addonisio and Lim; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts teach systems related to the landing and control of VTOL aircraft during their descent and subsequent landing on a target. The incorporation of an approach mode allows for the UAV to get closer to the target landing point and continue to track it as it comes in. As taught in [0057]-[0058] of Lim the approach mode allows for the aircraft to have certain parameters to follow as it nears the target such as a closing speed and angle of approach. This helps operators and those on the ground be clear of the target and/or ensure the target is prepped for the coming landing.
Claim 12 is substantially similar in scope and would be rejected for the same rationale as recited above.
Regarding claim 2, Addonisio teaches the automatic landing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: further comprising:
control the VTOL aircraft in at least two of the control modes such that the relative velocity is within a predetermined velocity. (Fig. 3 and [0045]-[0050] teach a control of the UAV in a plurality of modes, to keep the UAV within a threshold)
Addonisio does not teach acquire a relative velocity between VTOL aircraft and the target landing point.
However, Lim teaches “acquire a relative velocity between VTOL aircraft and the target landing point.” ([0052] teaches the use of a radar system to obtain a relative velocity between a VTOL aircraft and a landing spot)
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 Addonisio and Lim; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts teach systems related to the landing and control of VTOL aircraft during their descent and subsequent landing on a target. Addonisio falls short of teaching the acquisition of relative velocity because it teaches using a stagnant landing pad, therefore the relative velocity would always be whatever the velocity of the UAV is. Lim teaches the use of a moving landing pad; this would introduce problems as there is the velocity of the VTOL aircraft and the landing pad. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Lim teaches the use of a doppler radar system in [0052] that can be used to map the velocity of the landing platform and then be used to determine the VTOL’s relative velocity as the system comes in for approach.
Regarding claim 3, Addonisio teaches the automatic landing system according to claim 1, wherein in the landing mode, when the relative altitude is less than or equal to a predetermined value, the VTOL aircraft is caused to descend without changing an attitude angle of the VTOL aircraft. ([0041] teaches the UAV entering into landing zones 3 and 4 and attempting to land straight down, without any form of later movement, this would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean landing straight down without trying to move or roll out of the landing attempt)
Regarding claim 4, Addonisio teaches the automatic landing system according to claim 1, wherein: the hovering mode includes a high altitude hovering mode and a low altitude hovering mode; (Fig. 2 and [0041] teach multiple hovering zones for the UAV)
in the high altitude hovering mode, the relative altitude is maintained at a second relative altitude that is higher than the predetermined relative altitude, (Fig. 2, Zone 1 and [0041] teach a highest altitude hovering mode where the UAV is free to move laterally but at a set altitude) and when a first condition including a condition that the first relative position is within a second threshold value is satisfied, the control mode is shifted to the low altitude hovering mode, ([0041] teaches when the UAV is within a predefined distance from the target it is able to shift down into Zone 2) and
in the low altitude hovering mode, the relative altitude is lowered to the predetermined relative altitude, (Fig. 2, Zone 2 and [0041] teach a highest altitude hovering mode where the UAV is free to move laterally but at a set altitude) and when a second condition as the predetermined condition including the condition that the second relative position is within the predetermined threshold value is satisfied, the control mode is shifted to the landing mode. ([0041] teaches when in Zone 2 the UAV is free to move until it is within a set distance from the landing target and when the distance is close enough it can shift to Zone 3 which is a landing imminent zone)
Regarding claim 5, Addonisio teaches the automatic landing system according to claim 4.
Addonisio does not teach wherein the first condition and the second condition include a condition that a mode transition is instructed by an operator.
However, Lim teaches “wherein the first condition and the second condition include a condition that a mode transition is instructed by an operator.” ([0069] teaches the VTOL aircraft of Lim receiving a “command to land” which is a signal from an operator to land the aircraft and switch from a hovering mode to a landing mode)
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 Addonisio and Lim; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts teach systems related to the landing and control of VTOL aircraft during their descent and subsequent landing on a target. As Lim teaches in [0047] this is a common command for VTOL aircraft wishing to land on a moving target. It allows for the target and the aircraft to be in sync with each other and prevents early landing attempts which the moving target may not be ready for. The incorporation of this action into Addonisio allows for the system to be more robust and ensure that the UAV is not attempting to land prior to the target being ready.
Regarding claim 6, Addonisio teaches the automatic landing according to claim 4, wherein the first condition includes another condition that an attitude rate of the VTOL aircraft ([0041] teaches the UAV entering into landing zones 3 and 4 and attempting to land straight down, without any form of later movement, this would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean landing straight down without trying to move or roll out of the landing attempt) and (Fig. 3 and [0045]-[0050] teach a control of the UAV in a plurality of modes, to keep the UAV within a threshold)
Addonisio does not teach the use of a relative velocity.
However, Lim teaches “a relative velocity” ([0052] teaches the use of a radar system to obtain a relative velocity between a VTOL aircraft and a landing spot)
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 Addonisio and Lim; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts teach systems related to the landing and control of VTOL aircraft during their descent and subsequent landing on a target. Addonisio falls short of teaching the acquisition of relative velocity because it teaches using a stagnant landing pad, therefore the relative velocity would always be whatever the velocity of the UAV is. Lim teaches the use of a moving landing pad; this would introduce problems as there is the velocity of the VTOL aircraft and the landing pad. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Lim teaches the use of a doppler radar system in [0052] that can be used to map the velocity of the landing platform and then be used to determine the VTOL’s relative velocity as the system comes in for approach.
Regarding claim 7, Addonisio teaches the automatic landing system according to claim 4, wherein the second condition includes another condition that an attitude angle of the VTOL aircraft, ([0041] teaches the UAV entering into landing zones 3 and 4 and attempting to land straight down, without any form of later movement, this would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean landing straight down without trying to move or roll out of the landing attempt) an attitude rate of the VTOL aircraft, ([0041] teaches the UAV entering into landing zones 3 and 4 and attempting to land straight down, without any form of later movement, this would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to mean landing straight down without trying to move or roll out of the landing attempt) ([0045] teaches the use of a relative altitude for landing determination) are within corresponding second determination threshold values. (Fig. 3 and [0045]-[0050] teach a control of the UAV in a plurality of modes, to keep the UAV within a threshold)
Addonisio does not teach a relative velocity between the VTOL aircraft and the target landing point, an angle in a horizontal direction of the target landing point.
However, Lim teaches “a relative velocity between the VTOL aircraft and the target landing point,” ([0052] teaches the use of a radar system to obtain a relative velocity between a VTOL aircraft and a landing spot) and “an angle in a horizontal direction of the target landing point” ([0053] teaches the use of an artificial horizon which measures the angle of the aircraft in the horizontal relative to the target landing point)
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 Addonisio and Lim; and have a reasonable expectation of success. Both arts teach systems related to the landing and control of VTOL aircraft during their descent and subsequent landing on a target. Addonisio falls short of teaching the acquisition of relative velocity because it teaches using a stagnant landing pad, therefore the relative velocity would always be whatever the velocity of the UAV is. Lim teaches the use of a moving landing pad; this would introduce problems as there is the velocity of the VTOL aircraft and the landing pad. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Lim teaches the use of a doppler radar system in [0052] that can be used to map the velocity of the landing platform and then be used to determine the VTOL’s relative velocity as the system comes in for approach. The use of the artificial horizon allows for the system to ensure it is coming in at the same angle relative to the motion of the target. As waves move the target back and forth the roll/pitch of the vessel can make for a challenging landing. Using a measurement of such an angle helps ensure smooth landing of the VTOL aircraft.
Regarding claim 11, Addonisio teaches a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft comprising: a flight body; (Fig. 1 item 100; and [0018] teach a flight body for a VTOL aircraft) and
the automatic landing system according to claim 1. (Fig. 1 item 100; and [0018] teach a UAV comprising a VTOL aircraft that has the auto landing system installed)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Addonisio and Lim in view of Ohtomo (US PG Pub 2012/0277934).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Addonisio and Lim teaches the automatic landing system according to claim 4.
The combination of Addonisio and Lim does not teach wherein the marker has a variable marker shape; and the first condition and the second condition include another condition that the variable marker shape indicates a mode transition.
However, Ohtomo teaches “the marker has a variable marker shape;” (Fig. 4 and 5 and [0060]-[0062] teach the use of a varied target for a landing zone of a UAV) and “the first condition and the second condition include another condition that the variable marker shape indicates a mode transition.” ([0057] and [0062] teaches the use of a varied target to send various control or other information to the UAV)
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 Addonisio and Lim with Ohtomo; and have a reasonable expectation of success. All relate to the control of UAV systems with automatic vertical take-off and landing. As Ohtomo teaches in [0007] the use of a variable landing target allows for the transmission of controls from the landing target to the UAV. This allows for the UAV to quickly and efficiently receive new commands and react to the target as conditions change.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Flotow (US PG Pub 2019/0033889) teaches various embodiments of a rotocraft-assisted launch and retrieval system, and a method for controlling an airborne rotorcraft which includes controlling by a controller a first feedback loop about a longitudinal roll axis of the airborne rotocraft and controlling by the controller a second feedback loop about a horizontal pitch axis of the airborne rotocraft, without controlling a vertical yaw axis of the airborne rotocraft.
Yamane (US PG Pub 2004/0075018) teaches an unmanned helicopter 20 includes altitude control device for giving a command of a collective pitch rudder angle based on an altitude change rate command, etc., and performing altitude control of an airframe and takeoff device, upon reception of a takeoff start command from the ground, for causing the airframe to take off and climbing the airframe to a first altitude while increasing the collective pitch rudder angle without performing the altitude control of the altitude control device and then causing the altitude control device to start the altitude control. The unmanned helicopter further includes descending device for causing the airframe to descend to a second altitude while changing descent rate command of the altitude control device and giving a descent rate command smaller than the descent rate command to the second altitude to the altitude control device for causing the airframe to descend from the second altitude to the ground.
Chung (US PG Pub 2020/0148346) teaches a method for an aircraft is provided in one example embodiment and may include determining a transition from an airplane mode to a helicopter mode for a propulsion system of the aircraft, wherein the propulsion system comprises a plurality of rotor blades; determining whether a descent rate condition is satisfied, wherein the descent rate condition is associated with a maximum allowable descent rate for the aircraft; and controlling a collective pitch angle for the plurality of rotor blades based on the descent rate condition.
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