FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Acknowledgements
1. This is a first action final office action after a request for continued examination (“RCE”) that addresses the claims and remarks filed February 2, 2026 in broadening reissue U.S. Application No. 18/130,711 (“instant application”). Examiners find the actual filing date of the instant application is April 4, 2023.
2. The instant application is a broadening reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 10,967,986, (“‘986 Patent”) issued Apr. 6, 2021. The ‘986 Patent was filed on Nov. 14, 2018 as U.S. Application No. 16/191,154 (“154 Application”), titled “POTENTIAL AIRCRAFT TRAJECTORY WIND EFFECT COMPUTATION”.
3. Examiners do not find any certificates of correction, ongoing/previous proceedings before the Office, or current ongoing litigation involving the ‘986 Patent.
4. The ‘986 Patent issued with claims 1-6 (“Patented Claims”). Claims 1-2 are canceled and claims 7-20 are added. Thus, claims 3-20 are pending and grouped as follows:
the “WindLong” claims: claim 3, claims 5-6, and claims 7-13.
the “WindLat” claims: claim 4 and claims 14-20.
Priority Claims
5. Examiners find the instant application is claiming domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 or 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) to Provisional App. No. 62/586,022 filed Nov. 14, 2017 (“’022 Application”).
6. Examiners find the instant application does not claim foreign priority.
7. While the instant application claims domestic priority to the ‘022 Application, the presumed effective U.S. filing date of the instant application is Nov. 14, 2018 (i.e., the filing date of the ‘154 Application) because Examiners do not find support for either the WindLong or the WindLat equations in the ‘022 Application.
Summary of this Action
8. Claims 3-20 are pending.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under §101.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under §112(a).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under §103.
Claims 7-20 are allowed.
Response to Remarks filed February 2, 2026
--112(a) rejections--
8. The 112(a) rejections of claims 3-6 were not traversed in the remarks filed February 2, 2026. Thus, they are maintained.
--112(b) rejections--
9. The claim amendments filed February 2, 2026 have overcome the 112(b) rejection of claims 5-6. Thus, the 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
--101 rejections--
-- STEP 2A-PRONG 2: INTEGRATION OF JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION --
10. The crux of Applicant’s argument is as follows. Remarks 9-11.
PNG
media_image1.png
240
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Under MPEP §2106.04(d)(II), Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Here, Applicant alleges the limitations “generation of accurate potential aircraft trajectories using a prediction model” and “generating accurate wind corrected positions along potential aircraft trajectories” integrates the exception into a practical application but these limitations are not claimed. Moreover, even if it were claimed, these limitations would be indefinite because the term “accurate” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “accurate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
--ALICE/MAYO TEST STEP 2B: WHETHER A CLAIM AMOUNTS TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE.--
11. The crux of Applicant’s argument is as follows. Remarks 12-14.
PNG
media_image2.png
332
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MPEP §2106.05(II) states in-pertinent-part:
PNG
media_image3.png
418
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As an initial matter, Examiners note that Applicant’s argument does not traverse the rejection presented. Specifically, the rejection provides the examination dictated by MPEP §2106.05(II), i.e., the ‘carry-over,’ ‘carry over,’ ‘re-evaluate,’ and ‘evaluate’ steps. Applicant, however, argues that the various equations in claims 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, and 18 go well beyond WURC, which does not traverse the presented rejection. For at least this reason, this argument is not persuasive.
Moreover, Applicant argues the patentability is in the claimed mathematical equations “WindLong”/”WindLat.” In other words, Applicant alleges the “WindLong”/”WindLat” equations are not abstract ideas.
Under MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), when determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. Here, Examiners determine that the “WindLong”/”WindLat” equations are mathematical concepts because they are mathematical equations. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(A)
PNG
media_image4.png
372
990
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Here, the equations are:
“WindLong=dt*WindKnots*Math.Sin(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60*Math.Cos(CurrentLatitude*0.0174533)), where dt is a time interval, WindKnots is a speed of the moving air mass in knots, and WindHeading is a direction of the moving air mass in degrees” and
“WindLat=dt*WindKnots*Math.Cos(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60), where dt is a time interval, WindKnots is the speed of the moving air mass in knots, and WindHeading is the direction of the moving air mass in degrees.”
Examiners maintain that these equations are like MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(A), Example (i), which is a formula for describing certain EM standing wave phenomena because here, the formulas are for describing “moving air mass relative to the aircraft.” Because Applicant argues the abstract concept (i.e., “WindLong”/”WindLat”) itself amounts to significantly more than the abstract concept, this argument is not persuasive.
Claims 7-20, however, contain limitations that Examiners find is more than WURC. Specifically, the limitation ”repeatedly using the lateral position offset and the longitudinal position offset to offset the wind independent positions” in independent claims 7 and 14 which claim amounts to more than what is well-understood, routine-conventional activity in the field because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not repeated use the same offset and to compensate for wind changes during the course of a flight. Thus, claims 7-20 are patent eligible because of the limitation ”repeatedly using the lateral position offset and the longitudinal position offset to offset the wind independent positions,” whereas claims 3-6 remain patent ineligible for the reasons set forth in the rejection below.
--103 rejections--
12. As an initial matter, claims 3-6 do not claim the “repeatedly using the lateral position offset and the longitudinal position offset.” Thus, the argument is not persuasive as to claims 3-6 the argued ‘repeated use’ is not claimed. Claims 7-20, however, contain this limitation.
Applicants allege that the motivation to modify the Barber reference is based on a false premise – specifically because if compensating for wind changes during the course of the flight was a motivation a person of ordinary skill in the art would not repeatedly use the same offset and would instead frequently change the offset to compensate for the wind changes over the course of the flight. See Remarks 15.
This argument is persuasive. As such, the §103 rejection of claims 7-20 is withdrawn. Claims 3-6, however, do not contain a limitation “repeatedly using the lateral position offset and the longitudinal position offset.” Thus, the rejection is maintained as to claims 3-6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
CLAIM 3
--ALICE/MAYO TEST STEP 1--
Claim 3 is directed to a machine because the preamble claims “an avionics system for an aircraft….”
--ALICE/MAYO TEST STEP 2A-PRONG 1: WHETHER THE CLAIM IS DIRECTED TO A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION. –
Under MPEP §2106.04(d)(II), the claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 3:
An avionics system for an aircraft, the avionics system comprising:
a storage device for storing instructions for monitoring an actual performance of the aircraft; and
one or more data processors configured to execute the instructions to:
generate a lateral component and a longitudinal component of a measured moving air mass relative to the aircraft;
generate a lateral position offset based on the lateral component and a longitudinal position offset based on the longitudinal component according to:
WindLong=dt*WindKnots*Math.Sin(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60*Math.Cos(CurrentLatitude*0.0174533)), where
dt is a time interval,
WindKnots is a speed of the moving air mass in knots, and
WindHeading is a direction of the moving air mass in degrees;
generate a plurality of wind independent positions of the aircraft along a potential aircraft trajectory based on a prediction model; and
generate a plurality of wind corrected positions of the aircraft based
on the plurality of wind independent positions,
on the lateral position offset, and
on the longitudinal position offset.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”), claim 3 is an avionics system comprising a storage device and data processors that execute instructions to generate values for “a lateral component,” “a longitudinal component,” “a lateral position offset,” a longitudinal position offset,” “a plurality of wind independent positions,” and a “plurality of wind corrected positions.” There are no claimed steps that use the generated values to automatically control features of aircraft #100; the data processors only “generate” values and do not, e.g., claim steps that generate control signals that are subsequently used to automatically control features of the aircraft #100 (col. 4:62). In other words, the claimed machine merely generates values. No steps are claimed for actually correcting the positions for wind. And, no steps are claimed for actually controlling the aircraft according to the wind corrected positions, e.g., by a controller.
Moreover, the BRI of the limitation “generate a lateral position offset based on the lateral component and a longitudinal position offset based on the longitudinal component according to: WindLong=dt*WindKnots*Math.Sin(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60*Math.Cos(CurrentLatitude*0.0174533))” applies only to the “longitudinal position offset” because the equation is for the “longitudinal position.” The “lateral position offset” is described as being generated by a different equation, i.e., WindLat=dt*WindKnots*Math.Cos(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60).
Examiners find the “generate” steps recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Specifically, the “generate a lateral component and a longitudinal component of a measured moving air mass relative to the aircraft” step is a mathematical calculation because it is the decomposition of a vector into its unit vectors, i.e., the x-vector and the y-vector. In other words, the lateral component would be x-vector (A*cos[Symbol font/0x71]) and the longitudinal component would be the y-vector (A*cos[Symbol font/0x71]), where ‘A’ is the magnitude of the vector. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
The “generate a lateral position offset based on the lateral component and a longitudinal position offset based on the longitudinal component according to:
WindLong=dt*WindKnots*Math.Sin(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60*Math.Cos(CurrentLatitude*0.0174533)), where dt is a time interval, WindKnots is a speed of the moving air mass in knots, and WindHeading is a direction of the moving air mass in degrees” is a mathematical calculation because it uses mathematical methods, i.e., the WindLong equation, to determine a variable or number. See MPEP§2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
The “generate a plurality of wind independent positions of the aircraft along a potential aircraft trajectory based on a prediction model” is a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Specifically, this step may be performed in the human mind when a person makes the judgement to steer the aircraft along a particular trajectory before correcting for the wind thereby generating a plurality of wind independent positions of the aircraft.
The “generate a plurality of wind corrected positions of the aircraft based on the plurality of wind independent positions, on the lateral position offset, and on the longitudinal position offset” is a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Specifically, this step may be performed in the human mind when a person makes the judgement to steer the aircraft along a particular trajectory in response to the wind, thereby generating a plurality of wind corrected positions of the aircraft. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
--ALICE/MAYO TEST STEP 2A-PRONG 2: INTEGRATION OF JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION.--
Under MPEP §2106.04(d)(II), Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
As to (1), the “generate” limitations of claim 3 recite the abstract idea. The additional elements are as follows:
“An avionics system for an aircraft, the avionics system comprising:
a storage device for storing instructions for monitoring an actual performance of the aircraft; and
one or more data processors configured to execute the instructions…”
As to (2), these additional elements are evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
The preamble (“[a]n avionics system for an aircraft, the avionics system comprising…”) generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e., avionics systems, which does not make the abstract idea patent eligible. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
The “a storage device for storing instructions for monitoring an actual performance of the aircraft” limitation is insignificant pre-solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the claim. Adding a storage device for storing instructions to a process that only recites the abstract idea of flying an airplane in the wind does not add a meaningful limit to the process of adjusting an aircraft’s flight trajectory to compensate for the wind. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Examiners make no finding here as to whether this limitation is well understood, routine, conventional activity (“WURC”).
Similarly, the “one or more data processors configured to execute the instructions” limitation is insignificant pre-solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the claim. Adding data processors to execute the instructions to a process that only recites the abstract idea of flying an airplane in the wind does not add a meaningful limit to the process of adjusting an aircraft’s flight trajectory to compensate for the wind. The data processors are merely a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Examiners make no finding here as to whether this limitation is WURC.
Even viewed in combination, the additional limitations are directed to a patent ineligible machine that is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea of a flying an aircraft along a flight trajectory while compensating for the wind.
--ALICE/MAYO TEST STEP 2B: WHETHER A CLAIM AMOUNTS TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE.--
MPEP §2106.05(II) states in-pertinent-part:
PNG
media_image3.png
418
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Here, Examiners carry over their identification of the additional elements in the claim Step 2A-Prong Two, i.e., the “the storage device,” “the data processors,” and the preamble “avionics system.”
Examiners carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the conclusions discussed in MPEP §§2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h), i.e., the preamble merely links the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment (MPEP §2106.05(h)); “the storage device for storing instructions” is insignificant pre-solution activity (MPEP §2106.05(g)); and “the data processors configured to execute the instructions” is insignificant pre-solution activity (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
As to the re-evaluation of the additional elements that were considered to be insignificant pre-solution activity per MPEP §2106.05(g) (i.e., “the storage device for storing instructions” and “the data processors configured to execute the instructions”), Examiners find this limitation is WURC for the reason below.
Under MPEP§2106.05(d)(I)(2), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is WURC. The required factual determination must be expressly supported in writing. Appropriate forms of support include one or more of the following:
(a) A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the WURC nature of the additional element(s);
(b) A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP§2106.05(d)(II) as noting the WURC nature of the additional element(s);
(c) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the WURC nature of the additional element(s); and
(d) A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the WURC nature of the additional element(s).
In this case, Examiners support the conclusion that the additional elements (i.e., “the storage device for storing instructions” and “the data processors configured to execute the instructions”) with a citation to an express statement in the specification that demonstrates the WURC nature of the additional elements. Specifically, these additional limitations are WURC computer components. The additional limitations do not require anything other than conventional computer components operating according to their ordinary functions, as described by the ‘986 Patent specification at col. 2:29-60, which is reproduced below. Even viewed in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than WURC activity in the field of flying an aircraft using computers.
PNG
media_image5.png
574
416
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to the evaluation of whether the additional elements are other than WURC or simply append WURC previously known to the industry at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, i.e., the evaluation of MPEP §2106.05(d), Examiners find that the additional limitations do not require anything other than conventional computer components operating according to their ordinary functions, as described by the ‘986 Patent specification at col. 2:29-60, which is reproduced above.
Because the additional limitations, even viewed in combination, do not amount to significantly more than WURC activity in the field of flying an aircraft using computers, as evidenced by the ‘986 Patent specification at col.2:29-60, claim 3 is patent ineligible. In other words, the patentability is in the claimed mathematical equation “WindLong,” but a mathematical equation is not patent eligible, irrespective of the machine that employs it to generate values.
CLAIM 4
--ALICE/MAYO TEST STEP 1--
Claim 4 is directed to a machine because the preamble claims “an aircraft comprising….”
--ALICE/MAYO TEST STEP 2A-PRONG 1: WHETHER THE CLAIM IS DIRECTED TO A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION. –
Under MPEP §2106.04(d)(II), the claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 4:
An aircraft comprising:
a sensor system configured to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass; and
an avionics system comprising a storage device for storing instructions and one or more data processors configured to execute the instructions to:
measure the magnitude and direction of the moving air mass based on an output from the sensor system;
generate a lateral component and a longitudinal component of a measured moving air mass relative to the aircraft;
generate a plurality of wind independent positions of the aircraft along a potential aircraft trajectory based on a prediction model;
generate a longitudinal position offset based on the longitudinal component and a lateral position offset based on the lateral component according to:
WindLat=dt*WindKnots*Math.Cos(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60); where
dt is a time interval,
WindKnots is a speed of the moving air mass in knots, and
WindHeading is a direction of the moving air mass in degrees; and
generate a plurality of wind corrected positions of the aircraft based on the plurality of wind independent positions, on the lateral position offset, and on the longitudinal position offset.
The BRI of claim 4 is an aircraft comprising a sensor system and an avionics system comprising a storage device and data processors that execute instructions to generate values for “a lateral component,” “a longitudinal component,” “a lateral position offset,” a longitudinal position offset,” “a plurality of wind independent positions,” and a “plurality of wind corrected positions.” There are no claimed steps that use the generated values to automatically control features of aircraft #100; the data processors only “generate” values and do not, e.g., claim steps that generate control signals that are subsequently used to automatically control features of the aircraft #100 (col. 4:62). In other words, the claimed machine merely generates values. No steps are claimed for actually correcting the positions for wind. And, no steps are claimed for actually controlling the aircraft according to the wind corrected positions.
Moreover, the BRI of the limitation “generate a longitudinal position offset based on the longitudinal component and a lateral position offset based on the lateral component according to: WindLat=dt*WindKnots*Math.Cos(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60)” applies only to the “lateral position offset” because the equation is for the “lateral position.” The “longitudinal position offset” is described as being generated by a different equation, i.e., WindLong=dt*WindKnots*Math.Sin(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60*Math.Cos(CurrentLatitude*0.0174533)).
Examiners find the “generate” steps recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Specifically, the “generate a lateral component and a longitudinal component of a measured moving air mass relative to the aircraft” step is a mathematical calculation because it is the decomposition of a vector into its unit vectors, i.e., the x-vector and the y-vector. In other words, the lateral component would be x-vector (A*cos[Symbol font/0x71]) and the longitudinal component would be the y-vector (A*cos[Symbol font/0x71]), where ‘A’ is the magnitude of the vector. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
The “generate a plurality of wind independent positions of the aircraft along a potential aircraft trajectory based on a prediction model” is a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Specifically, this step may be performed in the human mind when a person makes the judgement to steer the aircraft along a particular trajectory before correcting for the wind thereby generating a plurality of wind independent positions of the aircraft.
The “generate a lateral position offset based on the lateral component and a longitudinal position offset based on the longitudinal component according to:
WindLat=dt*WindKnots*Math.Cos(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60), where dt is a time interval, WindKnots is a speed of the moving air mass in knots, and WindHeading is a direction of the moving air mass in degrees” is a mathematical calculation because it uses mathematical methods, i.e., the WindLat equation, to determine a variable or number. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
The “generate a plurality of wind corrected positions of the aircraft based on the plurality of wind independent positions, on the lateral position offset, and on the longitudinal position offset by offsetting each of the plurality of wind independent positions with the lateral position offset and the longitudinal position offset” is a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Specifically, this step may be performed in the human mind when a person makes the judgement to steer the aircraft along a particular trajectory in response to the wind, thereby generating a plurality of wind corrected positions of the aircraft. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
--ALICE/MAYO TEST STEP 2A-PRONG 2: INTEGRATION OF JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION.--
Under MPEP §2106.04(d)(II), Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
As to (1), the “generate” limitations of claim 4 recite the abstract idea. The additional elements are as follows:
“An aircraft comprising:
a sensor system configured to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass; and
an avionics system comprising a storage device for storing instructions and one or more data processors configured to execute the instructions to:
measure the magnitude and direction of the moving air mass based on an output from the sensor system….”
As to (2), these additional elements are evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
The preamble (“[a]n aircraft comprising…”) generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e., an aircraft, which does not make the abstract idea patent eligible. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
The “sensor system configured to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass…an avionics system…execut[ing] instructions to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass” is insignificant pre-solution activity because it is necessary data gathering in which all uses of the abstract idea (i.e., the “generate” steps) require such data gathering. See MPEP §2106.05(g)(3). In other words, the sensor system merely gathers the data to obtain input for the “WindLat” equation, i.e., wind speed and wind direction.
The “a storage device for storing instructions for one or more data processors configured to execute the instructions” limitation is insignificant pre-solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the claim. Adding a storage device for storing instructions to a process that only recites the abstract idea of flying an airplane in the wind does not add a meaningful limit to the process of adjusting an aircraft’s flight trajectory to compensate for the wind. Similarly, the “one or more data processors configured to execute the instructions” limitation is insignificant pre-solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the claim. Adding data processors to execute the instructions to a process that only recites the abstract idea of flying an airplane in the wind does not add a meaningful limit to the process of adjusting an aircraft’s flight trajectory to compensate for the wind. The data processors are merely a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Examiners make no finding here as to whether this limitation is WURC.
Even viewed in combination, the additional limitations are directed to a patent ineligible machine that is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea of a flying an aircraft along a flight trajectory while compensating for the wind.
--ALICE/MAYO TEST STEP 2B: WHETHER A CLAIM AMOUNTS TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE.--
MPEP §2106.05(II) states in-pertinent-part:
PNG
media_image3.png
418
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Here, Examiners carry over their identification of the additional elements in the claim Step 2A-Prong Two, i.e., “the sensor system,” the “the storage device,” “the data processors,” and the preamble “aircraft comprising.”
Examiners carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the conclusions discussed in MPEP §§2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h), i.e., the preamble merely links the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment (MPEP §2106.05(h)); “the storage device for storing instructions” is insignificant pre-solution activity (MPEP §2106.05(g)); and “the data processors configured to execute the instructions” is insignificant pre-solution activity (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
As to the re-evaluation of the additional elements that were considered to be insignificant pre-solution activity per MPEP §2106.05(g) (i.e., “the storage device for storing instructions” and “the data processors configured to execute the instructions” and “the sensor system configured to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass…an avionics system comprising...instructions to… measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass”), Examiners find this limitation is WURC for the reason below.
Under MPEP§2106.05(d)(I)(2), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is WURC. The required factual determination must be expressly supported in writing. Appropriate forms of support include one or more of the following:
(a) A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the WURC nature of the additional element(s);
(b) A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP§2106.05(d)(II) as noting the WURC nature of the additional element(s);
(c) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the WURC nature of the additional element(s); and
(d) A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the WURC nature of the additional element(s).
In this case, Examiners support the conclusion that the additional elements (i.e., “the storage device for storing instructions” and “the data processors configured to execute the instructions”) with a citation to an express statement in the specification that demonstrates the WURC nature of the additional elements. Specifically, these additional limitations are WURC computer components. The additional limitations do not require anything other than conventional computer components operating according to their ordinary functions, as described by the ‘986 Patent specification at col. 2:29-60, which is reproduced below. Even viewed in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than WURC activity in the field of flying an aircraft using computers.
PNG
media_image5.png
574
416
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiners support the conclusion that the additional element (i.e., “the sensor system configured to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass…an avionics system comprising...instructions to… measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass”) with a citation to an express statement in the specification that demonstrates the WURC nature of the additional elements. Specifically, the sensor system is described as well-known sensor systems. See ‘986 Patent specification at col. 1-12, which is reproduced below. Even viewed in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than WURC activity in the field of flying an aircraft using computers.
PNG
media_image6.png
246
410
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to the evaluation of whether the additional elements (“the sensor system configured to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass…an avionics system comprising...instructions to… measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass,” “the storage device for storing instructions,” and “the data processors configured to execute the instructions”) is WURC or simply append WURC previously known to the industry at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, i.e., the evaluation of MPEP §2106.05(d), Examiners find that the additional limitations do not require anything other than well-known sensor systems and conventional computer components operating according to their ordinary functions, as described by the ‘986 Patent specification at col. 2:29-60 and col.5:1-12, which is reproduced above.
Because the additional limitations, even viewed in combination, do not amount to significantly more than WURC activity in the field of flying an aircraft using computers, as evidenced by the ‘986 Patent specification at col.2:29-60 and col.5:1-12, claim 4 is patent ineligible.
CLAIMS 5-6
--ALICE/MAYO TEST STEP 1--
Claims 5-6 are directed to a machine because the preamble claims “an aircraft comprising….”
--ALICE/MAYO TEST STEP 2A-PRONG 1: WHETHER THE CLAIM IS DIRECTED TO A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION. –
Under MPEP §2106.04(d)(II), the claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 5:
An aircraft comprising:
a sensor system configured to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass; and
an avionics system comprising a storage device for storing instructions and one or more data processors configured to execute the instructions to:
measure the magnitude and direction of the moving air mass based on an output from the sensor system;
generate a lateral component and a longitudinal component of a measured moving air mass relative to the aircraft;
generate a plurality of wind independent positions of the aircraft along a potential aircraft trajectory based on a prediction model;
generate a longitudinal position offset based on the longitudinal component and a lateral position offset based on the lateral component according to:
WindLong=dt*WindKnots*Math.Sin(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60*Math.Cos(CurrentLatitude*0.0174533)), where
dt is a time interval of calculations used for the prediction model,
WindKnots is a speed of the moving air mass in knots, and
WindHeading is a direction of the moving air mass in degrees; and
generate a plurality of wind corrected positions of the aircraft at each time interval used in the prediction model based
on the plurality of wind independent positions,
on the lateral position offset, and
on the longitudinal position offset
by offsetting each of the plurality of wind independent positions with
the lateral position offset and longitudinal position offset
to generate a corresponding wind corrected position of the plurality of wind corrected positions.
The BRI of claim 5 is an aircraft comprising a sensor system and an avionics system comprising a storage device and data processors that execute instructions to generate values for “a lateral component,” “a longitudinal component,” “a lateral position offset,” a longitudinal position offset,” “a plurality of wind independent positions,” and a “plurality of wind corrected positions.” There are no claimed steps that use the generated values to automatically control features of aircraft #100; the data processors only “generate” values and do not, e.g., claim steps that generate control signals that are subsequently used to automatically control features of the aircraft #100 (col. 4:62). In other words, the claimed machine merely generates values. No steps are claimed for actually correcting the positions for wind. And, no steps are claimed for actually controlling the aircraft according to the wind corrected positions.
Moreover, the BRI of the limitation “generate a lateral position offset based on the lateral component and a longitudinal position offset based on the longitudinal component according to: WindLong=dt*WindKnots*Math.Sin(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60*Math.Cos(CurrentLatitude*0.0174533))” applies only to the “longitudinal position offset” because the equation is for the “longitudinal position.” The “lateral position offset” is described as being generated by a different equation, i.e., WindLat=dt*WindKnots*Math.Cos(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60).
Examiners find the “generate” steps recite the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Specifically, the “generate a lateral component and a longitudinal component of a measured moving air mass relative to the aircraft” step is a mathematical calculation because it is the decomposition of a vector into its unit vectors, i.e., the x-vector and the y-vector. In other words, the lateral component would be x-vector (A*cos[Symbol font/0x71]) and the longitudinal component would be the y-vector (A*cos[Symbol font/0x71]), where ‘A’ is the magnitude of the vector. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
The “generate a plurality of wind independent positions of the aircraft along a potential aircraft trajectory based on a prediction model” is a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Specifically, this step may be performed in the human mind when a person makes the judgement to steer the aircraft along a particular trajectory before correcting for the wind thereby generating a plurality of wind independent positions of the aircraft.
The “generate a lateral position offset based on the lateral component and a longitudinal position offset based on the longitudinal component according to:
WindLong=dt*WindKnots*Math.Sin(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60*Math.Cos(CurrentLatitude*0.0174533)), where dt is a time interval, WindKnots is a speed of the moving air mass in knots, and WindHeading is a direction of the moving air mass in degrees” is a mathematical calculation because it uses mathematical methods, i.e., the WindLong equation, to determine a variable or number. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
The “generate a plurality of wind corrected positions of the aircraft at each time interval used in the prediction model based on the plurality of wind independent positions, on the lateral position offset, and on the longitudinal position offset by offsetting each of the plurality of wind independent positions with the later position offset and the longitudinal position offset” is a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). Specifically, this step may be performed in the human mind when a person makes the judgement to steer the aircraft along a particular trajectory in response to the wind, thereby generating a plurality of wind corrected positions of the aircraft. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
--ALICE/MAYO TEST STEP 2A-PRONG 2: INTEGRATION OF JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION.--
Under MPEP §2106.04(d)(II), Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
As to (1), the “generate” limitations of claim 5 recite the abstract idea. The additional elements are as follows:
“An aircraft comprising:
a sensor system configured to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass; and
an avionics system comprising a storage device for storing instructions and one or more data processors configured to execute the instructions to:
measure the magnitude and direction of the moving air mass based on an output from the sensor system….”
As to (2), these additional elements are evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
The preamble (“[a]n aircraft comprising…”) generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e., an aircraft, which does not make the abstract idea patent eligible. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
The “sensor system configured to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass…an avionics system…execut[ing] instructions to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass” is insignificant pre-solution activity because it is necessary data gathering in which all uses of the abstract idea (i.e., the “generate” steps) require such data gathering. See MPEP §2106.05(g)(3). In other words, the sensor system merely gathers the data to obtain input for the “WindLong” equation, i.e., wind speed and wind direction.
The “a storage device for storing instructions for one or more data processors configured to execute the instructions” limitation is insignificant pre-solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the claim. Adding a storage device for storing instructions to a process that only recites the abstract idea of flying an airplane in the wind does not add a meaningful limit to the process of adjusting an aircraft’s flight trajectory to compensate for the wind. Similarly, the “one or more data processors configured to execute the instructions” limitation is insignificant pre-solution activity that does not meaningfully limit the claim. Adding data processors to execute the instructions to a process that only recites the abstract idea of flying an airplane in the wind does not add a meaningful limit to the process of adjusting an aircraft’s flight trajectory to compensate for the wind. The data processors are merely a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). Examiners make no finding here as to whether this limitation is WURC.
Even viewed in combination, the additional limitations are directed to a patent ineligible machine that is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea of a flying an aircraft along a flight trajectory while compensating for the wind.
--ALICE/MAYO TEST STEP 2B: WHETHER A CLAIM AMOUNTS TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE.--
MPEP §2106.05(II) states in-pertinent-part:
PNG
media_image3.png
418
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Here, Examiners carry over their identification of the additional elements in the claim Step 2A-Prong Two, i.e., “the sensor system,” the “the storage device,” “the data processors,” and the preamble “aircraft comprising.”
Examiners carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the conclusions discussed in MPEP §§2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h), i.e., the preamble merely links the abstract idea to a field of use or technological environment (MPEP §2106.05(h)); “the storage device for storing instructions” is insignificant pre-solution activity (MPEP §2106.05(g)); and “the data processors configured to execute the instructions” is insignificant pre-solution activity (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
As to the re-evaluation of the additional elements that were considered to be insignificant pre-solution activity per MPEP §2106.05(g) (i.e., “the storage device for storing instructions” and “the data processors configured to execute the instructions” and “the sensor system configured to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass…an avionics system comprising...instructions to… measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass”), Examiners find this limitation is WURC for the reason below.
Under MPEP§2106.05(d)(I)(2), a factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is WURC. The required factual determination must be expressly supported in writing. Appropriate forms of support include one or more of the following:
(a) A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the WURC nature of the additional element(s);
(b) A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP§2106.05(d)(II) as noting the WURC nature of the additional element(s);
(c) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the WURC nature of the additional element(s); and
(d) A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the WURC nature of the additional element(s).
In this case, Examiners support the conclusion that the additional elements (i.e., “the storage device for storing instructions” and “the data processors configured to execute the instructions”) with a citation to an express statement in the specification that demonstrates the WURC nature of the additional elements. Specifically, these additional limitations are WURC computer components. The additional limitations do not require anything other than conventional computer components operating according to their ordinary functions, as described by the ‘986 Patent specification at col. 2:29-60, which is reproduced below. Even viewed in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than WURC activity in the field of flying an aircraft using computers.
PNG
media_image5.png
574
416
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiners support the conclusion that the additional element (i.e., “the sensor system configured to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass…an avionics system comprising...instructions to… measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass”) with a citation to an express statement in the specification that demonstrates the WURC nature of the additional elements. Specifically, the sensor system is described as well-known sensor systems. See ‘986 Patent specification at col. 1-12, which is reproduced below. Even viewed in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than WURC activity in the field of flying an aircraft using computers.
PNG
media_image6.png
246
410
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to the evaluation of whether the additional elements (“the sensor system configured to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass…an avionics system comprising...instructions to… measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass,” “the storage device for storing instructions,” and “the data processors configured to execute the instructions”) is WURC or simply append WURC previously known to the industry at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, i.e., the evaluation of MPEP §2106.05(d), Examiners find that the additional limitations do not require anything other than well-known sensor systems and conventional computer components operating according to their ordinary functions, as described by the ‘986 Patent specification at col. 2:29-60 and col.5:1-12, which is reproduced above.
Because the additional limitations, even viewed in combination, do not amount to significantly more than WURC activity in the field of flying an aircraft using computers, as evidenced by the ‘986 Patent specification at col.2:29-60 and col.5:1-12, claim 5 is patent ineligible.
---------------------------------------
Claim 6:
The aircraft of claim 5, wherein the one or more data processors are configured to execute the instructions
to offset each of the plurality of wind independent positions with the lateral position offset and longitudinal position offset
to generate a corresponding wind corrected position by adding the lateral position offset and the longitudinal position offset to each of the plurality of wind independent positions.
This limitation is an abstract idea because it is a mathematical calculation, i.e., vector kinematics. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). Even viewed in combination, the additional limitations are directed to a patent ineligible machine that is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea of a flying an aircraft along a flight trajectory while compensating for the wind. Thus, claim 6 is patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 3 and 5-6, the following claim limitation is not described because the equation generates “a longitudinal position offset,” WindLong, but does not generate “a lateral position offset.” In other words, the phrase “generate a lateral position offset based on the lateral component and a longitudinal position offset based on the longitudinal component according to Windlong…” is not described because the “lateral position offset” is described as being generated by a different equation, i.e., WindLat=dt*WindKnots*Math.Cos(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60).
As to claim 4, the following claim limitation is not described because the equation generates “a lateral position offset,” WindLat, but does not generate “a longitudinal position offset.” In other words, the phrase “generate a longitudinal position offset based on the longitudinal component and a lateral position offset based on the lateral component according to WindLat…” is not described because the “longitudinal position offset” is described as being generated by a different equation, i.e., WindLong=dt*WindKnots*Math.Sin(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60*Math.Cos(CurrentLatitude*0.0174533)),
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,746,343 to Barber et al. published Aug. 29, 2017 (“Barber”) in view of US 2013/0204467A1 to Spinelli et al. published August 8, 2013 (“Spinelli”).
As to claim 3, Barber discloses “an avionics system for an aircraft” because the disclosed method/apparatus is for operating an aircraft (col.1:9-12).
Barber discloses “a storage device for storing instructions for monitoring an actual performance of the aircraft” because Barber teaches using storage devices in the Avionics Systems Processor (“ASP”) (col.4:7-19).
Barber discloses “one or more data processors configured to execute” because Barber teaches ASP (#130) may be comprised of any electronic data processing unit which executes software (col.2:20-45).
Barber discloses “generate a lateral component and a longitudinal component of a measured moving air mass relative to the aircraft” because Barber teaches receiving navigation data representative of the aircraft direction comprising a measured value of a Wind Correction Adjustment (“WCA”) (col.4:34-42).
Barber does not specifically disclose “generate a lateral position offset based on the lateral component and a longitudinal position offset based on the longitudinal component according to: WindLong=dt*WindKnots*Math.Sin(WindHeading*0.0174533)/(3600*60*Math.Cos(CurrentLatitude*0.0174533)), where dt is a time interval, WindKnots is a speed of the moving air mass in knots, and WindHeading is a direction of the moving air mass in degrees” because, while Barber discloses a WCA comprising lateral and longitudinal components, Barber does not disclose the claimed equation.
Barber teaches the following at figure 2:
PNG
media_image7.png
550
350
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Spinelli teaches deriving the longitudinal and lateral wind components from the positions, constant bank angle, and true airspeed of the aircraft (see ¶[0054]).
PNG
media_image8.png
500
428
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the longitudinal and lateral position offsets to correct Barber’s ground track with the WCA to adjust the flight path to correct for the wind according fundamental principles of aerodynamics. The rationale to support this conclusion is that the claimed invention is obvious is that design incentives prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the prior art in a predictable manner to result in the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(F). Specifically, Barber, which is in the same field of endeavor (i.e., steering an aircraft while correcting for the wind), includes a similar device (method or product) because Barber discloses all of the limitations of the claim except correcting the flight path with the specific claimed weights on the decomposed wind vectors (i.e., WINDLONG). At the time of the invention, there were design incentives, i.e., the physical design of the aircraft) which prompted adaptation of the known aircraft design (method, or product) because the aerodynamic effects of the aircraft are the study of the motion of air as it is affected by a solid object. As such, the physical design of the aircraft (e.g., a hot air balloon, an unmanned aerial vehicle, a commercial aircraft, etc.) would prompt an adaption of the wind correction of the intended flight path for an aircraft with a different physical design because the physical design would change the way the air (i.e., the wind) moves in response to the aircraft. The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are encompassed in a principle known (i.e., fluid dynamics/aerodynamics) in the prior art.
Barber discloses “generate a plurality of wind independent positions of the aircraft along a potential aircraft trajectory based on a prediction model” as shown by ground track (fig. 2, #204)
Barber discloses “generate a plurality of wind corrected positions of the aircraft based on the plurality of wind independent positions, on the lateral position offset, and on the longitudinal position offset” as shown by heading (fig. 4, #206).
Claim 5 contains all the limitations of claim 3 and includes limitations directed to “a sensor system configured to measure a magnitude and direction of a moving air mass…an avionics system comprising…instructions to…measure the magnitude and direction of the moving air mass based on an output from the sensor system…,” which is taught by Barber. Specifically, Barber teaches a position-heading image within a track-based image to correct for the flight path misalignment caused by the wind (col.1:52-54). As such, Barber’s “sensor system” is the image capture device (fig.1, #140).
Claim 6 is disclosed by Barber at figure 2, which is shown above, because the wind correction angle (“WCA”) is the claimed “offset” to “each of the plurality of wind independent positions with the lateral position offset and longitudinal position offset to generate a corresponding wind corrected position by adding the lateral position offset and the longitudinal position offset to each of the plurality of wind independent positions.”
PNG
media_image7.png
550
350
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Spinelli teaches deriving the longitudinal and lateral wind components from the positions, constant bank angle, and true airspeed of the aircraft (see ¶[0054]).
PNG
media_image8.png
500
428
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate the longitudinal and lateral position offsets to correct Barber’s ground track with the WCA to adjust the flight path to correct for the wind according fundamental principles of aerodynamics. The rationale to support this conclusion is that the claimed invention is obvious is that design incentives prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the prior art in a predictable manner to result in the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(F). Specifically, Barber, which is in the same field of endeavor (i.e., steering an aircraft while correcting for the wind), includes a similar device (method or product) because Barber discloses all of the limitations of the claim except correcting the flight path with the specific claimed weights on the decomposed wind vectors (i.e., WINDLAT). At the time of the invention, there were design incentives, i.e., the physical design of the aircraft) which prompted adaptation of the known aircraft design (method, or product) because the aerodynamic effects of the aircraft are the study of the motion of air as it is affected by a solid object. As such, the physical design of the aircraft (e.g., a hot air balloon, an unmanned aerial vehicle, a commercial aircraft, etc.) would prompt an adaption of the wind correction of the intended flight path for an aircraft with a different physical design because the physical design would change the way the air (i.e., the wind) moves in response to the aircraft. The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are encompassed in a principle known (i.e., fluid dynamics/aerodynamics) in the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 7-20 are allowed because the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “repeatedly using the lateral position offset and the longitudinal position offset to offset the wind independent positions” in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
13. All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEANDRA M HUGHES whose telephone number is (571)272-6982. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-Th 8AM-6PM.
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, Hetul Patel can be reached on 571-272-4184. 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.
Signed:
/DEANDRA M HUGHES/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/C. Michelle Tarae/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights