DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8: “recharging drone batteries” should be “recharging the drone batteries”;
Claim 3, line 1: “imagine processing” should be “image processing”;
Claim 3: “charging hub integrated” should be “charging hub is integrated”;
Claim 3: “determine ideal battery” should be “determine the ideal battery”;
Claim 3: “into a drone” should be “into the drone”
determine ideal battery” should be “determine the ideal battery”;
Claim 12: “inspect drone” should be “inspect the drone”;
Claim 17: “multipole” should be “multiple”
Appropriate correction is required. Examiner notes that this does not necessarily represent a comprehensive list of grammar errors and suggests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims before submitting a formal response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an HVAC sub-system for cooling or heating depending on the environment in which the station is operated”. It is unclear if the “depending on the environment” indicates that the some versions of the system (i.e. for Alaska) have sub-systems just for heating while others (i.e. for Florida) have sub-systems just for cooling, or if all the sub-systems are capable of both heating and cooling depending on the current conditions.
Claim 1 recites “ internally lit landing pad”. It isn’t clear whether “internally” means that the lights are on the pad (i.e. integral) or literally within (contained inside) the pad. The specification fails to clarify.
Claim 2 recites “configured to reposition the drone on the landing pad, both on the x-y-z plane as well as the angle to the arm of the robot”. It is unclear what is meant by “as well as the angle to the arm of the robot”. An x-y-z plane would encompass 3-D space, including any angles, so it is not clear what “as well as the angle to the arm of the robot” further defines.
Claim 2 recites “the battery swapping robot”, however, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for this term. The prior recitation is “a robot”. The limitations should be matched, using proper antecedent basis, with later recitations using the definite article “the”.
Claim 4 recites “a battery charging hub”, however, there is a lack of proper antecedent basis for this term. The prior recitation is “a battery hub”. The limitations should be matched, using proper antecedent basis, with later recitations using the definite article “the”.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the landing pad further comprises a lighting sub-system”. It is unclear whether this light sub-system is a further definition of the “internally lit” feature of claim 1 or a distinct system.
Claim 10 recites “a monitoring device to determine if external weather conditions such as wind, rain, humidity, and radiation are suitable for landing and launching operations”. It is unclear whether this monitoring sub-system is a further definition of the “weather station” feature of claim 1 or a distinct system.
Claim 15 recites “an external camera for station inspection, safety, and prevention of theft”. It is unclear whether this camera is a further definition of the camera feature of claim 1 or a distinct system.
Examiner suggests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims and any amendments for proper antecedent basis before submitting a formal response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Toole US PGPUB 2022/0055770 in view of Lamb WIPO Publication WO 2020/181329 A1.
Regarding claim 1, O’toole discloses a docking station configured for semi or fully autonomous management of drones [par. 8-9 & 49; fig. 1A-1E, drone docking station 131 (“DRONEDEK”) allowing for autonomous drone delivery operations], comprising:
a. a robot with robotic arm that is capable of swapping batteries in a drone [par. 49; robotic arm 81 for exchanging batteries];
b. a drone landing pad for receipt of a landing drone [fig. 1D; the drone lands on a pad on top of the station (part 62/38); par. 49];
c. a camera with image processing capabilities to determine exact drone location on the landing pad [fig. 3a; pars. 94 & 96; camera has image processing capabilities and allows a user to see a package or the landing pad and thus a drone on the landing pad (and thus its exact location)];
d. a battery hub for recharging drone batteries [par. 49 & 94; claim 6; the docking station has a charging station for recharging and exchanging drone batteries];
e. an internally lit landing pad for night landing operations [pars. 36, 49, 96 & 99; flood lights/led lights for illuminating the landing pad];
f. an enclosure for operations in inclement weather [par. 37, 68 & 94, an enclosure against rain or other poor weather to protect packages delivered by drone];
g. a weather station to monitor weather conditions both outside and inside the docking station [pars. 5, 11, 36 & 49; weather monitoring station]; and
h. an HVAC sub-system for cooling or heating depending on the environment in which the station is operated [par. 49; temperature controlled environment with heating/cooling].
O’Toole does not explicitly disclose wherein the robot is configured to move within the station on the x-y-z axes.
However, Lamb discloses a drone charging station comprising a robot [abs. fig. 1], in which the robot is configured to move within the station on the x-y-z axes [pg. 4, line 25-pg. 5, par. 7; pg. 8, line 17-pg. 9, line 15].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Toole to further include wherein the robot is configured to move within the station on the x-y-z axes for the purpose of aiding in the capture and orientation of a drone, as taught by Lamb (pg. 4, line 25-pg. 5, par. 7).
Regarding claim 2, O’toole discloses further comprising: a. a grasper attached to the head of the battery swapping robot [par. 49; a grasper (securing latch) attached to the end of the arm (head of the robot].
O’toole does not explicitly disclose the grasper is configured to reposition the drone on the landing pad, both on the x-y-z plane as well as the angle to the arm of the robot or wherein the robot has the capabilities to turn the drone on or off, to remove a battery from within a drone, and to place a battery into the drone.
However, Lamb as applied in claim 1 discloses wherein the grasper is configured to reposition the drone on the landing pad [pg. 4, line 25-pg. 5, par. 7; pg. 8, line 17-pg. 9, line 15; “capturing” “orient…to align with an orientation”], both on the x-y-z plane as well as the angle to the arm of the robot [pg. 8, line 17-pg. 9, line 15; “x-y” “some combination of linear and/or rotary actuation devices to achieve two- or three-dimensional movement (with any number of DOFs) of the capture mechanism 150”] and wherein the robot has the capabilities to turn the drone on or off [pg. 12, line 9-14; once the UAV is captured the UAV powers down, thus the robot by capturing UAV affects the powering down of the UAV and thus has the capability to turn the drone off (via capture)], to remove a battery from within a drone, and to place a battery into the drone [pg. 4, line 25-pg. 5, par. 7; pg. 13, line 29-pg. 14, line 5].
Regarding claim 3, O’toole discloses wherein the camera with imagine processing capabilities is further configured to determine the exact location on the landing pad and the exact angle of the drone on the landing pad relative to the robotic arm [fig. 3a; pars. 94 & 96; camera has image processing capabilities and allows a user to see a package or the landing pad and thus a drone on the landing pad (and thus its exact location)].
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Toole US PGPUB 2022/0055770 in view of Lamp WIPO Publication WO 2020/181329 A1, further in view of Wang US PGPUB 2017/0088288 and further in view of Livingston et al. US PGPUB 2021/0380019.
Regarding claim 4, O’Toole does not explicitly disclose a. a battery charging hub capable of charging a plurality of drone batteries in parallel, wherein the battery charging hub integrated with monitoring circuitry and sensors to determine battery-full status of batteries in the process of being charged; b. a logic controller to determine ideal battery for swapping into a drone, and to determine available charging ports for batteries that have been taken out of drones are to be charged in the docking station; c. a monitoring system to detect the health status of batteries in a drone, and to determine the estimated remaining usage life of batteries in a drone, wherein the monitoring system includes also an alert system to notify when a drone battery is approaching the end of its life cycle; and d. a battery storage to enable storage of drone batteries.
However, Lamb further discloses a battery charging hub capable of charging a plurality of drone batteries and a battery storage to enable storage of drone batteries
[pg. 9, line 20-29; pg. 13, line 29-pg. 14 line 45; batteries (including spares) can be charged while the UAV is fling to prepare batteries for replacement, the batteries can be stored in units 501-503 and then used for replacement, thus a hub capable of charging multiple batteries].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Toole to further include a battery charging hub capable of charging a plurality of drone batteries and a battery storage to enable storage of drone batteries for the purpose of preparing batteries for replacement while the UAV is flying, as taught by Lamb (pg. 9, line 20-29; pg. 13, line 29-pg. 14 line 45).
The combination of Lamb and O’Toole does not explicitly disclose charging a plurality of drone batteries in parallel, wherein the battery charging hub integrated with monitoring circuitry and sensors to determine battery-full status of batteries in the process of being charged; b. a logic controller to determine ideal battery for swapping into a drone, and to determine available charging ports for batteries that have been taken out of drones are to be charged in the docking station; c. a monitoring system to detect the health status of batteries in a drone, and to determine the estimated remaining usage life of batteries in a drone, wherein the monitoring system includes also an alert system to notify when a drone battery is approaching the end of its life cycle.
However, Wang discloses a UAV battery charging station which charges a plurality of drone batteries in parallel [par. 106; fig. 5], wherein the battery charging hub integrated with monitoring circuitry and sensors to determine battery-full status of batteries in the process of being charged [pars. 89, 99, 130-131, 181 & 189; the battery station has electronics for detecting the state of charge of batteries (monitoring circuitry and sensors) such that batteries can be charged to certain particular levels]; a logic controller to determine ideal battery for swapping into a drone [pars. 120-124, 140-141 & 155; a particular battery for a particular type of drone is replaced, based on the reported type of battery the UAV uses], and to determine available charging ports for batteries that have been taken out of drones are to be charged in the docking station [pars. 88, 134, 178, 189; it is determined which ports have availability for charging].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lamb and O’Toole to further include a plurality of drone batteries in parallel, wherein the battery charging hub integrated with monitoring circuitry and sensors to determine battery-full status of batteries in the process of being charged; b. a logic controller to determine ideal battery for swapping into a drone, and to determine available charging ports for batteries that have been taken out of drones are to be charged in the docking station for the purpose of charging some batteries fully while other batteries less fully to maximize performance and longevity (Wang, pars. 89, 99, 130-131, 181 & 189), for the purpose of providing the UAV with the same type of battery used (Wang, pars. 120-124, 140-141 & 155) and for the purpose of instructing a UAV to land at a port capable of charging its battery (Wang pars. 88, 134, 178, 189).
The combination of Lamb, O’Toole and Wang does not explicitly disclose a monitoring system to detect the health status of batteries in a drone, and to determine the estimated remaining usage life of batteries in a drone, wherein the monitoring system includes also an alert system to notify when a drone battery is approaching the end of its life cycle. It is noted that “usage life” in this context is being interpreted as the long-term usage life over a plurality of cycles rather than the life of a single cycle (SOC).
However, Livingston discloses a monitoring system to detect the health status of batteries in a drone, and to determine the estimated remaining usage life of batteries in a drone, wherein the monitoring system includes also an alert system to notify when a drone battery is approaching the end of its life cycle [abs.; pars. 66-69 & 88; health status of drone batteries is detected, remaining useful life detecting, and a notification is send when the battery reaches end of life cycle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Lamb, O’Toole and Wang to further include a monitoring system to detect the health status of batteries in a drone, and to determine the estimated remaining usage life of batteries in a drone, wherein the monitoring system includes also an alert system to notify when a drone battery is approaching the end of its life cycle for the purpose of notifying a user to remove the unusable battery and replace it with a new one, as taught by Livingston (par. 88).
Regarding claim 5, O’Toole does not explicitly disclose wherein the drone landing pad is extendable in height for precision in the landing process of a drone, for achieving the best height of the landing pad during landing or launching to avoid external obstacles, and for repositioning the drone on the landing pad after landing or before launching.
However, Lamb as applied in claim 1 further discloses wherein the drone landing pad is extendable in height for precision in the landing process of a drone, for achieving the best height of the landing pad during landing or launching to avoid external obstacles, and for repositioning the drone on the landing pad after landing or before launching [fig. 2 & 5; pg. 8, In. 30-pg, 9, In. 14; the robotic arm, a part of the landing pad, is extendable in the vertical direction for optimal placement of the drone].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Toole US PGPUB 2022/0055770 in view of Lamb WIPO Publication WO 2020/181329 A1, further in view of Wang US PGPUB 2017/0088288, further in view of Livingston et al. US PGPUB 2021/0380019 and further in view of Filipovic et al. US PGPUB 2016/0270148.
Regarding claim 6, O’Toole wherein the landing pad further comprises a lighting sub-system in proximity to the landing pad [par. 36; a flood light and LED lights], wherein such lighting sub-system comprises: integrated lighting capabilities for night operations [par. 36; a flood light works for night operations], wherein such lighting may be in visible RGB spectrum or the infrared spectrum [par. 36].
The combination of O’Toole, Lamp, Wang and Livingston does not explicitly disclose circuitry and sensors to determine outdoor lighting conditions and a logic controller toggle for altering kind and degree of lighting based on outdoor lighting conditions at a time of landing or of launching.
However, Filipovic discloses a drone base station comprising circuitry and sensors to determine outdoor lighting conditions and a logic controller toggle for altering kind and degree of lighting based on outdoor lighting conditions at a time of landing or of launching [fig. 16A; pars. 36, 38 & 50; a drone landing station with a light which uses a light sensor to turn on at night].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of O’Toole, Lamp, Wang and Livingston to further include circuitry and sensors to determine outdoor lighting conditions and a logic controller toggle for altering kind and degree of lighting based on outdoor lighting conditions at a time of landing or of launching for the purpose of providing illumination at night, as taught by Filipov (pars. 38 & 50).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Toole US PGPUB 2022/0055770 in view of Wang US PGPUB 2017/0088288 and further in view of McClymond US PGPUB 2018/0312069.
Regarding claim 17, O’Toole discloses a system for managing the rapid replacement of batteries on a drone with charged batteries [par. 8-9 & 49; fig. 1A-1E, drone docking station 131 (“DRONEDEK”) allowing for autonomous drone delivery operations and battery exchange for the drones], comprising:
a. a drone docking station [par. 8-9 & 49; fig. 1A-1E, drone docking station 131 (“DRONEDEK”)] and rapid replacement of a battery with a charged battery [par. 49 & 78; robotic arm 81 for exchanging batteries];
b. command & control software on a server for receiving reports from the drone docking station, and conveying commands to the drone docking station [pars. 36, 49, 70 & 97; a remote server receives information from the drone dockings station and conveys commands (including opening/closing the internal door)];
c. a communicative connection between the drone docking station and the command & control software [fig. 2; cell/satellite/internet; pars. 36, 49, 70 & 97];
e. a command and control center that issues commands which are conveyed through the command & control software to the docking station [pars. 36, 49, 70 & 97; a remote server receives information from the drone dockings station and conveys commands (including opening/closing the internal door)].
O’Toole does not explicitly disclose the docking station is configured to provide identification of a drone by battery type.
O’Toole does not explicitly disclose a database storing data about multiple stations and multipole drones, wherein the database is updated by reports from specific drone docking stations related to the ongoing status of specific drones.
However, Wang discloses a UAV battery charging station which charges a plurality of drone batteries wherein the docking station is configured to provide identification of a drone by battery type [pars. 120-124, 140-141 & 155; a particular battery for a particular type of drone is replaced, based on the reported type of battery the UAV uses].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Toole to further include the docking station is configured to provide identification of a drone by battery type for the purpose of providing the UAV with the same type of battery used as taught by Wang (pars. 120-124, 140-141 & 155).
The combination of O’Toole and Wang does not explicitly disclose a database storing data about multiple stations and multipole drones, wherein the database is updated by reports from specific drone docking stations related to the ongoing status of specific drones.
However, McClymond discloses a battery exchange system for UAVs wherein a database storing data about multiple stations and multipole drones, wherein the database is updated by reports from specific drone docking stations related to the ongoing status of specific drones [pars. 100, 108 and 113; a database of each UAV (drone) and the status of their battery and actions performed at stations (charging)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of O’Toole and Wang to further include a database storing data about multiple stations and multipole drones, wherein the database is updated by reports from specific drone docking stations related to the ongoing status of specific drones for the purpose of storing and tracking information regarding UAVs and their batteries, as taught by McClymond (pars. 100, 106-108 and 113).
Regarding claim 18, O’Toole discloses in which the command and control center is fully automated, without human involvement, and the commands formed according to algorithms programmed into the command and control center [par. 97; an algorithm based on triggers controls the opening/closing of the drone docks].
Regarding claim 19, O’Toole does not explicitly disclose in which the command and control center is manned, and a person determines the commands to be sent to the docking station.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the aircraft control arts for a command center to be manned with a person determining commands send to the docking station, like an aircraft control tower. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify O’Toole to further include the command and control center is manned, and a person determines the commands to be sent to the docking station for the purpose of ensuring safe operation of the drones and docking station, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLaughlin et al. US PGPUB 2021/0284335 in view of McClymond US PGPUB 2018/0312069, and further in view of Lamb WIPO Publication WO 2020/181329 A1.
Regarding claim 20, McLaughlin discloses a method for a drone docking station to replace a battery with a charged battery in a drone [fig. 4a], comprising:
determining that a time has come to launch a drone [pars. 52; fig. 4b, step 450; fig. 12, 1226; par. 91];
b. activating components of a drone docking station to prepare to launch the drone [par. 64, 84 & 91; loading a battery (SC) into the uav, via the docking station];
c. launching the drone from a drone launching pad on the drone docking station [pars. 18, 52-53, 61-62, 81 & 84; fig. 1A, the landing zone 102 is also the “take-off” zone];
d. determining that a time has arrived to land the drone [fig. 4A; steps 400, 402, 404 & 410];
e. activating components of the drone docking station to prepare to accept the incoming drone [pars. 13, 15 & 62; preparing a dynamic landing system for the drone using various visual aids]
f. landing the drone on the drone launching pad [fig. 4a, 410]
h. changing the battery with a charged battery for this particular drone that is identical to the battery changed out [fig. 4a, steps 422, 420, 418, 416; par. 15, 64, 84 & 91; loading a battery (SC) into the uav, via the docking station];
i. in which replacing the used battery is controlled by a remote command and control center [pars. 48, 52, 57, 66 & 71; the RPS can be controlled remotely];
j. in which the command and control center determines the time of launch and the target location for the flight, and sends a command to the drone docking station to launch the drone [par. 48 & 66; a remote center can control mission planning];
k. in which the command and control center determines the time of landing and sends a command to the drone docking station to land the drone [pars. 48, 52, 57, 66, 71 & 89; the RPS can be controlled remotely; including the landing (steps 400-410, fig. 4A)].
McLaughlin discloses the command and control center but does not explicitly disclose the drone notifying the center that the drone docking station has replaced the used battery in the drone with a charged battery.
McLaughlin does not explicitly disclose operating a scanning camera to determine a position of the incoming drone on the launching pad, and the angle of the incoming drone on the launching pad related to other sub- systems of the docking station.
However, McClymond discloses a drone battery exchange system wherein the drone notifying the center that the drone docking station has replaced the used battery in the drone with a charged battery [pars. 100, 106-108 and 113; a database of each UAV (drone) and the status of their battery and actions performed at stations, including exchange of batteries, thus replacing the battery; the database 1678 (fig. 16) is a central center].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McLaughlin to further include the drone notifying the center that the drone docking station has replaced the used battery in the drone with a charged battery for the purpose of storing and tracking information regarding UAVs and their batteries, as taught by McClymond (pars. 100, 106-108 and 113).
The combination of McLaughlin and McClymond does not explicitly disclose operating a scanning camera to determine a position of the incoming drone on the launching pad, and the angle of the incoming drone on the launching pad related to other sub- systems of the docking station.
However, Lamb discloses a UAV battery exchange system which operates a scanning camera to determine a position of the incoming drone on the launching pad, and the angle of the incoming drone on the launching pad related to other sub- systems of the docking station [pg. 9, line 1-14; pg. 10, line 4-16; pg. 10, line 27-pg. 11, line 26; cameras are used to track UAVs as they are incoming and determine the position of the UAV with respect to the docking station].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of McLaughlin and McClymond to further include operating a scanning camera to determine a position of the incoming drone on the launching pad, and the angle of the incoming drone on the launching pad related to other sub- systems of the docking station for the purpose of aligning the robotic capture arm with the UAV, as taught by Lamb (pg. 9, line 1-14; pg. 10, line 4-16; pg. 10, line 27-pg. 11, line 26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claim 7, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “a. a dedicated housing for a drone remote controller with easy access for installation and removal; b. an antenna for communicating wirelessly between the docking station and a drone; c. an antenna mounting hole that allow for external positioning of the antenna for enhanced communications; and d. a toggle device for turning a drone remote controller on or off” in combination with all the other elements recited in claims 1-6, from which claim 7 depends.
Claims 8-16, being dependent on claim 7, would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE-GONGOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE-GONGOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859