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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the Application Filed on 01/23/2026
Claims 1, 3–11, 13–20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawing(s) filed on 02/01/2023 are accepted by the Examiner.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Currently pending Claim(s):
Independent Claim(s):
Amended Claim(s):
Cancelled Claim(s):
1, 3–11, 13–20
1 and 11
1, 7–9, 11 and 17–19
2 and 12
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
This office action is responsive to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment received on 01/23/2026.
Applicant argues in regard to claim(s) 1 and 11, in summary the applied prior art (Holtz, Stojanovic, Lucas) does not disclose or suggest (see page(s) 8 and 9):
“wherein each peak of the plurality of peaks indicates a geographic location and is a local maximum of correlations between the semantic labels and the reference labels”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s line of reasoning. The Examiner has thoroughly reviewed the Applicant arguments but respectfully believes that the cited reference to reasonably and properly meet the claimed limitations.
Lucas compares two scene based on their topologies. The scenes are locations in the physical world and the cross correlation just shows the scenes that are most similar to each other and therefore indicating the same location. Examiner is interpreting the geographic location as representing a physical place in the image. See Lucas, [Pg. 6, ln. 15–20], “First, the topology of a scene is represented by the Laplacian matrix which is calculated based on the spatial relationship between the semantic classes as well as their degrees in the scene. We compare the topologies of two scenes based on a normalized cross correlation (NCC) [32] score”.
Applicant argues in regard to claim 7 and 17, in summary the applied prior art (Holtz, Stojanovic, Lucas) does not disclose or suggest (see page(s) 8 and 9):
“wherein the reference labels include one or more reference labels for dynamic elements , and wherein the one or more reference labels for dynamic elements include a value for a changeable state of the geographic location associated with the reference label”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s line of reasoning. The Examiner has thoroughly reviewed the Applicant arguments but respectfully believes that the cited reference to reasonably and properly meet the claimed limitations.
Holtz updates the map which the Examiner is interpreting at dynamically changing and associates a value of the risk factor for landing the UAV based semantic information of a detected object. See Holtz, ¶ [0099], In some embodiments, the ground map can be updated based on the semantic information by calculating a cost value associated with the detected object and adding that cost value to a cell that corresponds with a location of the detected object”.
Applicant argues in regards to claim 10 and 20, in summary the applied prior art (Holtz, Stojanovic, Lucas) does not disclose or suggest (see page(s) 8 and 9):
“wherein comparing the semantic labels to the reference labels associated with the reference map includes sliding the semantic labels over the reference labels to generate the current location estimate”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s line of reasoning. The Examiner has thoroughly reviewed the Applicant arguments but respectfully believes that the cited reference to reasonably and properly meet the claimed limitations.
Stojanovic correlates semantic features which are labeled features with the map in order to generate a current location. Sliding the semantic label over the reference label is just correlating the labels. See Stojanovic, ¶ [0080], In various embodiments, semantic image/map register 172 may perform the semantic feature correlation and spatial alignment of aerial-view semantic map 300 and drive-time aerial-view semantic image 640, as shown in FIG. 7. That is, the semantic image/map register 172 may generate a spatial and/or rotational correspondence between the semantic representations in aerial-view semantic map 300 (which indicate absolute positions of the objects) and the semantic representations of drive-time aerial-view image 640 (which indicate relative positions of the objects)”.
Thus, the Examiner maintains that the limitations with respect to claim 1 and 11 as rejected were properly and adequately met. Examiner cites Holtz to meet the limitations with respect to claim(s) 7 and 17. Examiner cites Stojanovic to meet the limitations with respect to claim(s) 10 and 20. Examiner is objecting to claim(s) 8, 9, 18 and 19 as being allowable if rewritten in independent form. Additional citations and/or modified citations may be present to more concisely address the limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3–7, 10, 11, and 13–17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtz et al. (US 2019/0248487 A1, hereafter, "Holtz") in view of Stojanovic et al. (US 2019/0050648 A1, hereafter, "Stojanovic") further in view of Lukas et al. (See NPL attached, "Multiple Hypothesis Semantic Mapping for Robust Data Association", hereafter, "Lucas").
Regarding claim 1, Holtz discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (See Holtz, ¶ [0031], technique is introduced that enables autonomous smart landing by a UAV. [FIG. 21], 2112 Processor, 2116 Memory), cause the UAV to perform actions comprising:
receiving, from a camera of the UAV, a captured image (See Holtz, ¶ [0032], The UAV 100 also includes various sensors for automated navigation and flight control 112, and one or more image capture devices 114 and 115 for capturing images of the surrounding physical environment while in flight. See also [FIG.1], 115);
generating, by the UAV, semantic labels for a plurality of objects visible in the captured image (See Holtz, ¶ [0098], At step 906, the ground map is updated based on the extracted semantic information regarding the detected physical objects in the physical environment. As previously mentioned, semantic information may include a label, tag, or any other data indicative of the detected object. For example, semantic information associated with the rock 806 in FIG. 8 may include a "rock" label);
[comparing, by the UAV, the semantic labels to reference labels associated with geographic locations of a reference map to determine a current location estimate;
updating, by the UAV, an accumulated location estimate using the current location estimate; and
determining, by the UAV, an estimated location of the UAV based on the accumulated location estimate
wherein the accumulated location estimate includes a plurality of peaks, wherein determining the estimated location of the UAV based on the accumulated location estimate includes selecting a peak from the plurality of peaks, and wherein each peak of the plurality of peaks is a local maximum of correlations between the semantic labels and the reference labels].
However, Holtz fail(s) to teach comparing, by the UAV, the semantic labels to reference labels associated with geographic locations of a reference map to determine a current location estimate.
Stojanovic, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: comparing, by the UAV, the semantic labels to reference labels associated with geographic locations of a reference map to determine a current location estimate (See Stojanovic, ¶ [0080], In some embodiments, the semantic image/map register 172 may generate a spatial and/or rotational correspondence between the absolute positions of the objects (indicated in aerial-view semantic map 300) and the relative positions of the objects (indicated drive-time serial-view semantic image 640). Note that in the image registration 700 shown in FIG. 7, the drive-time aerial-view semantic image 640 is overlayed on top of the aerial-view semantic map 300, such that the semantic features depicted in the aerial-view semantic map 300 and the drive-time aerial-view semantic image 640 are in spatial alignment);
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holtz’s reference comparing, by the UAV, the semantic labels to reference labels associated with geographic locations of a reference map to determine a current location estimate based on the method of Stojanovic’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the localization of the objects on the surface of the earth regardless or factors such as environmental changes (See Stojanovic, ¶ [0008–0009]).
However, Holtz and Stojanovic fail(s) to teach updating, by the UAV, an accumulated location estimate using the current location estimate; and determining, by the UAV, an estimated location of the UAV based on the accumulated location estimate; wherein the accumulated location estimate includes a plurality of peaks, wherein determining the estimated location of the UAV based on the accumulated location estimate includes selecting a peak from the plurality of peaks, and wherein each peak of the plurality of peaks is a local maximum of correlations between the semantic labels and the reference labels.
Lucas, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: updating, by the UAV, an accumulated location estimate using the current location estimate (See Lucas, [Pg. 3, Col. 1, ln. 42–46], We approach this problem by introducing locally optimized submaps. Each submap maintains an individual Multiple Hypothesis Tree (MHt) and propagates a first-moment estimate to proximate submaps. Note: Examiner is interpreting the multiple hypothesis tree as the accumulated location estimate that is updated by new measurements); and
determining, by the UAV, an estimated location of the UAV based on the accumulated location estimate (See Lucas, [Pg. 5, Col. 1, ln. 31–33], Every time a submap is completed, the resulting map as well as the odometry measurements are used to compute a trajectory estimate. Note: Examiner is interpreting the trajectory as the estimated location since the trajectory includes the current location);
wherein the accumulated location estimate includes a plurality of peaks, wherein determining the estimated location of the UAV based on the accumulated location estimate includes selecting a peak from the plurality of peaks, and wherein each peak of the plurality of peaks is a local maximum of correlations between the semantic labels and the reference labels (See Lucas, [Pg. 6, Col. 1, ln. 11-19], First, the topology of a scene is represented by the Laplacian matrix which is calculated based on the spatial relationship between the semantic classes as well as their degrees in the scene. We compare the topologies of two scenes based on a normalized cross correlation (NCC) [32] score,
s
N
C
C
. Second, another score,
s
s
c
e
n
e
, expresses the overall similarity of the landmarks in the two scenes. For this the landmarks get associated with the Hungarian algorithm on the estimated landmark positions of each scene and their Euclidean distances. See Lucas, [Pg. 5, Col. 1, ln. 31-33], Every time a submap is completed, the resulting map as well as the odometry measurements are used to compute a trajectory estimate).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holtz’s reference updating, by the UAV, an accumulated location estimate using the current location estimate; and determining, by the UAV, an estimated location of the UAV based on the accumulated location estimate; wherein the accumulated location estimate includes a plurality of peaks, wherein determining the estimated location of the UAV based on the accumulated location estimate includes selecting a peak from the plurality of peaks, and wherein each peak of the plurality of peaks is a local maximum of correlations between the semantic labels and the reference labels based on the method of Lucas’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to make accurate data association and less errors (See Lucas, [Fig. 6]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lucas and Stojanovic with Holtz to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Holtz in view of Stojanovic further in view of Lucas teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, [wherein selecting the peak from the plurality of peaks includes comparing the plurality of peaks to a location determined using a supplemental positioning modality].
However, Holtz and Stojanovic fail(s) to teach wherein selecting the peak from the plurality of peaks includes comparing the plurality of peaks to a location determined using a supplemental positioning modality.
Lucas, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein selecting the peak from the plurality of peaks includes comparing the plurality of peaks to a location determined using a supplemental positioning modality (See Lucas, [Pg. 5, Col. 1, ln. 31-33], Every time a submap is completed, the resulting map as well as the odometry measurements are used to compute a trajectory estimate. Note: Examiner is interpreting the odometry as the supplemental positioning modality).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holtz’s reference wherein selecting the peak from the plurality of peaks includes comparing the plurality of peaks to a location determined using a supplemental positioning modality based on the method of Lucas’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to make accurate data association and less errors (See Lucas, [Fig. 6]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lucas with Holtz and Stojanovic to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Holtz teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 3, wherein the supplemental positioning modality includes one or more of a global satellite navigation system (GNSS) or an inertial navigation system (See Holtz, ¶ [0196], UAV system 2100 may include a global positioning system (GPS) receiver 2120. FIG. 21 shows a GPS receiver 2120 coupled to the peripherals interface 2110. Alternately, the GPS receiver 2120 may be coupled to an input controller 2140 in the I/O subsystem 2160).
Regarding claim 5, Holtz in view of Stojanovic further in view of Lucas teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, [wherein selecting the peak from the plurality of peaks includes comparing the plurality of peaks to a previously selected peak].
However, Holtz and Stojanovic fail(s) to teach wherein selecting the peak from the plurality of peaks includes comparing the plurality of peaks to a previously selected peak.
Lucas, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein selecting the peak from the plurality of peaks includes comparing the plurality of peaks to a previously selected peak (See Lucas, [Pg. 4, Col. 1, ln. 24–31], The likelihood of the associations of new measurements
z
t
at time t with landmarks,
θ
t
, is expressed by
f
θ
t
z
t
,
Θ
t
-
1
,
z
t
-
1
. We assume that at each time step a landmark in the scene can at most generate one observation. Inspired by the dependent DP formulation in [17], we differentiate four cases: (i) landmarks that have already been seen in the current submap, (ii) landmarks seen in previous submaps, (iii) new landmarks and (iv) false positives).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holtz’s reference wherein selecting the peak from the plurality of peaks includes comparing the plurality of peaks to a previously selected peak based on the method of Lucas’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to make accurate data association and less errors (See Lucas, [Fig. 6]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lucas with Holtz and Stojanovic to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Holtz in view of Stojanovic further in view of Lucas teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the actions further comprise: [initializing the accumulated location estimate using a supplemental positioning modality that includes one or more of a GNSS, an inertial navigation system, or a position notification from a fleet management computing system].
However, Holtz and Lucas fail(s) to teach initializing the accumulated location estimate using a supplemental positioning modality that includes one or more of a GNSS, an inertial navigation system, or a position notification from a fleet management computing system.
Stojanovic, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: initializing the accumulated location estimate using a supplemental positioning modality that includes one or more of a GNSS, an inertial navigation system, or a position notification from a fleet management computing system (See Stojanovic, ¶ [0069], Determining the coarse localization of an object, such as vehicle 104 may be enabled via various signal triangularization methods. Vehicle 104 and/or navigation computer 106 may be equipped with a signal receiver for a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) system. For example, vehicle 404 may be equipped with a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holtz’s reference to initializing the accumulated location estimate using a supplemental positioning modality that includes one or more of a GNSS, an inertial navigation system, or a position notification from a fleet management computing system based on the method of Stojanovic’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the localization of the objects on the surface of the earth regardless or factors such as environmental changes (See Stojanovic, ¶ [0008–0009]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Stojanovic with Holtz and Lucas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Holtz teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the reference labels include one or more reference labels for dynamic elements , and wherein the one or more reference labels for dynamic elements include a value for a changeable state of the geographic location associated with the reference label (See Holtz, ¶ [0099], In some embodiments, the ground map can be updated based on the semantic information by calculating a cost value associated with the detected object and adding that cost value to a cell that corresponds with a location of the detected object. The “cost value” in this context may be indicative of a level of risk, for example, of damage to person or property, collision with the object, unsuccessful landing, etc.).
Regarding claim 10, Holtz in view of Stojanovic further in view of Lucas teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, [wherein comparing the semantic labels to the reference labels associated with the reference map includes sliding the semantic labels over the reference labels to generate the current location estimate].
However, Holtz and Lucas fail(s) to teach wherein comparing the semantic labels to the reference labels associated with the reference map includes sliding the semantic labels over the reference labels to generate the current location estimate.
Stojanovic, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: wherein comparing the semantic labels to the reference labels associated with the reference map includes sliding the semantic labels over the reference labels to generate the current location estimate (See Stojanovic, ¶ [0080], In various embodiments, semantic image/map register 172 may perform the semantic feature correlation and spatial alignment of aerial-view semantic map 300 and drive-time aerial-view semantic image 640, as shown in FIG. 7. That is, the semantic image/map register 172 may generate a spatial and/or rotational correspondence between the semantic representations in aerial-view semantic map 300 (which indicate absolute positions of the objects) and the semantic representations of drive-time aerial-view image 640 (which indicate relative positions of the objects)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Holtz’s reference wherein comparing the semantic labels to the reference labels associated with the reference map includes sliding the semantic labels over the reference labels to generate the current location estimate based on the method of Stojanovic’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve the localization of the objects on the surface of the earth regardless or factors such as environmental changes (See Stojanovic, ¶ [0008–0009]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Stojanovic with Holtz and Lucas to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected the same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to the claim 11, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected the same as claim 3 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 3 are equally applicable to the claim 13, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 3 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected the same as claim 4 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 4 are equally applicable to the claim 14, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 4 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected the same as claim 5 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 5 are equally applicable to the claim 15, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 5 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same as claim 6 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to the claim 16, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 6 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected the same as claim 7 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 7 are equally applicable to the claim 17, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 7 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same as claim 10 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 10 are equally applicable to the claim 20, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 10 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 18 and 19 contain subject matter that is not disclosed or made obvious in the cited art.
In regard to claim 8, when considering claim 8 as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 7, wherein the actions further comprise:
receiving one or more dynamic element updates from a fleet management computing system; and
updating the values for the changeable states of the geographic locations associated with the reference labels for dynamic elements based on the dynamic element updates prior to comparing the semantic labels to the reference labels”.
In regard to claim 9, when considering claim 9 as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 7, wherein the reference labels for dynamic elements include an occupied landing space label and an unoccupied landing space label, wherein the occupied landing space label includes a value that indicates a UAV is present in the landing space, and wherein the unoccupied landing space label includes a value that indicates the landing space is clear”.
In regard to claim 18, when considering claim 18 as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“The method of claim 17, further comprising:
receiving one or more dynamic element updates from a fleet management computing system; and
updating the values for the changeable states of the geographic locations associated with the reference labels for dynamic elements based on the dynamic element updates prior to comparing the semantic labels to the reference labels”.
In regard to claim 19, when considering claim 19 as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“The method of claim 17, wherein the reference labels for dynamic elements include an occupied landing space label and an unoccupied landing space label, wherein the occupied landing space label includes a value that indicates a UAV is present in the landing space, and wherein the unoccupied landing space label includes a value that indicates the landing space is clear”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hartman (US 20190392211 A1) teaches Systems and methods to analyze visible, near infrared, and thermal imagery of a land parcel in order to track and report changes to that land. A set of image processing techniques and algorithms can be utilized to generate composite images, align the imagery, compute differences, detect which features have changed, and meaningfully display the changed features. A moving window calculates differences in intensity between a first composite image and a second composite image and compares the differences against a threshold value. An interactive overlay user interface allows a user to adjust the magnitude and particular areas to be analyzed and presents the change.
Qu et al. (US 20220170749 A1) teaches the present disclosure is related to systems and methods for positioning. The method includes obtaining estimated pose data of a subject. The method also includes generating a local map associated with the estimated pose data. The method also includes obtaining, based on the estimated pose data, a reference map. The method also includes correlating the local map and the reference map in a frequency domain. The method further includes determining, based on the estimated pose data and the correlation between the local map and the reference map in the frequency domain, target pose data of the subject.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DION J SATCHER whose telephone number is (703)756-5849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm, Friday 5:30 am - 9:30 am PST.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/DION J SATCHER/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676