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 the Claims
The claims 1-7 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1-3 and 7.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment filed October 6, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 are currently pending in the Application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the specification and claim objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed June 5th, 2025.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Although applicant states that amendments have been made to traverse the rejection, applicant does not identify any specific claim limitation that is not disclosed by Neto, nor does the applicant explain how the applied reference fails to anticipate the amended claims. As discussed below, Neto discloses determining a horizontal Dubins path, determining a vertical Dubins path based on height information, and determining a three-dimensional trajectory based on the horizontal and vertical Dubins paths. The amendments to the claims do not introduce any limitations that distinguish over the applied reference. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Although applicant states that amendments have been made to traverse the rejections, applicant does not identify any specific claim limitation that is taught or suggested by the applied references, nor does the applicant explain how the amendments render the claims nonobvious over the cited combinations. The amendments to the claims do not introduce any substantive limitations that distinguish the claims from the teachings of Neto in view of Liu, Bai, and/or Saunders, as applied. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the amended claims, which now recite a computer-readable medium, overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection (See page 6 of Applicant’s remarks). However, applicant does not explain how the amendment integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application or provide an improvement to a computer technology or another technical field.
The Examiner has considered such arguments; however, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claims remain directed to a judicial exception—specifically, mathematical concepts and mental processes. The claimed steps of “determining a horizontal Dubins path…”, “determining a vertical Dubins path…”, and “determining a three-dimensional driving trajectory…” recite mathematical calculations and path planning operations based on input information. Performing these steps using “a computer-readable medium” merely amounts to generic computer implementation and automation of mathematical calculations that could otherwise be performed mentally or manually and does not transform the nature of the claim into a technological process or practical application. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the amended claims do not include additional elements sufficient to meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or to provide an inventive concept. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is therefore maintained for claims 1-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a method including at least one step.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1. A three-dimensional trajectory planning method in a computer- readable medium, said method comprises:
determining a horizontal Dubins path from a starting point to a target point based on a driving mode, a horizontal position information and heading information of a starting point, and a horizontal position information and heading information of a target point;
determining a vertical Dubins path from the starting point to the target point based on a height information of the starting point and a height information of the target point;
determining a three-dimensional driving trajectory from the starting point to the target point based on the horizontal Dubins path and the vertical Dubins path.
The method in claim 1, specifically the limitations “determining a horizontal Dubins path…”and “determining a vertical Dubins path…” emphasized above, recite a mathematical concept and, therefore, an abstract idea. As is evident from the specification, the claimed steps highlighted above are a mathematical calculation of Dubins paths, which are known geometric constructs used to determine constrained paths between points. These steps involve evaluating possible trajectories and selecting a path using established geometric principles and mathematical modeling. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus the claim recites a concept that falls into the “mathematical concept” group of abstract ideas.
The method in claim 1, specifically the limitation “determining a three-dimensional driving trajectory from the starting point to the target point based on the horizontal Dubins path and the vertical Dubins path” emphasized above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of determining a three-dimensional driving trajectory. This is equivalent to a person mentally viewing the area and determining the trajectory.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract “idea”).
Claim 1. A three-dimensional trajectory planning method in a computer- readable medium, said method comprises:
determining a horizontal Dubins path from a starting point to a target point based on a driving mode, a horizontal position information and heading information of a starting point, and a horizontal position information and heading information of a target point;
determining a vertical Dubins path from the starting point to the target point based on a height information of the starting point and a height information of the target point;
determining a three-dimensional driving trajectory from the starting point to the target point based on the horizontal Dubins path and the vertical Dubins path.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The limitation “in a computer- readable medium” is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity such that it does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The computer-readable medium merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The computer-readable medium is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps. The limitation can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of “in a computer- readable medium” is/are merely means to apply the exception and do not amount to “significantly more”, as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. There are no additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract ideas.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 2 further limits the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more.
As such, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible. For example, in claim 2, the additional limitation of “wherein when the horizontal Dubins path includes three sub-paths, the horizontal Dubins path from the starting point to the target point is determined according to the driving mode, the horizontal position information and heading information of the starting point, and the horizontal position information and heading information of the target point; wherein if the driving mode is in a landing guidance mode, driving direction of an end sub-path of the horizontal Dubins path is determined, and the horizontal Dubins path from the starting point to the target point is determined from a preset landing guidance driving direction combination according to driving direction of the end sub-path, the horizontal position information and heading information of the starting point, and the horizontal position information and heading information of the target point; wherein if the driving mode is in a non-landing guidance mode, the horizontal Dubins path from the starting point to the target point is determined from a preset non-landing guidance driving direction combination” are additional steps that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using a similar analysis applied to claim 1 above. The method in claim 2, specifically the limitation above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of calculating a movement amount of the vehicle. This is equivalent to a person mentally viewing the vehicle and determining the movement amount.
As such, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alves Neto ("Minimal 3D Dubins Path with Bounded Curvature and Pitch Angle.").
Regarding Claim 1, Alves Neto teaches A three-dimensional trajectory planning method in a computer-readable medium, said method comprises: determining a horizontal Dubins path from a starting point to a target point based on a driving mode, a horizontal position information and heading information of a starting point, and a horizontal position information and heading information of a target point (See at least Section III paragraph 1, “The problem of finding the 3D optimal path for curvature constrained vehicles must consider not only the vehicle's position in space but also its departure (arrival) orientation from the initial (final) location. The notion of the special Euclidean group SE(n) is therefore utilized to represent the homeomorphic topological space where the path planning is performed. Both the minimum turning radius and pitch angle are addressed, and therefore, the configuration of the vehicle is denoted as qk E {xk, yk, zk, Wk, Yk} to represent the pose k in SE(3), where {xk, yk, zk} are spatial coordinates of the vehicle, Wk is the vehicle's heading and Yk is the vehicle's pitch. Since we consider generations of 2D paths, the projection of the configuration qk E SE(3) into SE(2) corresponding with the horizontal XY plane is a function P(qk) = {xk, yk, zk} that maps qk into P(qk) E SE(2). We further denote the Euclidean magnitude of a vector as |.|, 2D Dubins function proposed in [6] as D(.) and {k}2pi for the modulus after the division of an angle k by 2pi|” and Section IV paragraph 2, “The proposed method consists of two fundamental steps. Initially, the horizontal curve Dh of the 3D curve is computed as the 2D Dubins path connecting the projections of qi and qf into the XY (latero-directional) plane using the horizontal turning radius ph.”); determining a vertical Dubins path from the starting point to the target point based on a height information of the starting point and a height information of the target point (See at least Section IV paragraph 2, “Secondly, the altitude profile of the 3D curve is also computed as the 2D Dubins path with the minimum vertical turning radius pv. In the vertical case, the configurations are projected into the SZ (longitudinal) plane, where the axis S represents the traveled horizontal distance, and the axis Z represents the altitude, i.e., the longitudinal plane captures the changes in the altitude along the traveled path in the latero-directional plane, see Fig. 2.”); determining a three-dimensional driving trajectory from the starting point to the target point based on the horizontal Dubins path and the vertical Dubins path (See at least Section IV paragraph 1, “The proposed approach to finding a feasible Dubins path in the three-dimensional space is based on the separation of the path into its horizontal and vertical parts.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Alves Neto teaches The three-dimensional trajectory planning method according to claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above. Alves Neto teaches wherein when the vertical Dubins path comprises three sub-paths, the vertical Dubins path from the starting point to the target point is determined according to the height information of the starting point and the height information of the target point (See at least Fig. 2, Section IV, paragraphs 1-2, “The proposed approach to finding a feasible Dubins path in the three-dimensional space is based on the separation of the path into its horizontal and vertical parts. The overall idea is similar to [5], where the horizontal projection of the final path is computed as the 2D Dubins path, and the vertical profile is an interpolation between the altitude at the initial and final location. However, the interpolation might provide unfeasible paths because abrupt changes in the pitch angle in [5]. The herein proposed heuristic addresses this issue by computing the vertical profile, also like the 2D Dubins path, to ensure a smooth connection at the endpoints. Thus, it respects both initial and final configurations of the vehicle, which can be further utilized in multi-goal planning. Furthermore, the horizontal radius ph and vertical turning radius pv are addressed separately such that the final length is minimized while the maximally allowed curvature is not exceeded. The proposed method consists of two fundamental steps. Initially, the horizontal curve Dh of the 3D curve is computed as the 2D Dubins path connecting the projections of qi and qf into the XY (latero-directional) plane using the horizontal turning radius ph. Secondly, the altitude profile of the 3D curve is also computed as the 2D Dubins path with the minimum vertical turning radius pv. In the vertical case, the configurations are projected into the SZ (longitudinal) plane, where the axis S represents the traveled horizontal distance, and the axis Z represents the altitude, i.e., the longitudinal plane captures the changes in the altitude along the traveled path in the latero-directional plane, see Fig. 2” and Section IV paragraphs 7-9, “The proposed heuristic for finding the 3D Dubins path consists of the following three parts that are summarized in Algorithm 2. 1) An initial feasible solution is found such that the horizontal turning radius ph is incrementally increased until the length of the horizontal curve Dh is sufficient to find its vertical counterpart that is feasible. The Decoupled procedure listed in Algorithm 1 is utilized and the feasibility of vertical curve Dv is checked by the procedure IsFeasible(Dv; T) to meet (2). 2) The length of the found path is improved by a local optimization using the hill-climbing technique such that the most beneficial horizontal radius ph is selected. The optimization is stopped when the step triangle is less than a minimum change of the radius triangle min. 3) The final 3D path is constructed as a combination of horizontal and vertical Dubins curves Dh and Dv, respectively.”); wherein if a difference between the height information of the target point and the height information of the starting point is greater than or equal to a first threshold value, a first sub-path of the vertical Dubins path from the starting point to the target point spirals up and a remaining sub-paths remain unchanged (See at least Section III paragraph 4, “The vehicle pitch denotes the climb (or dive) angle of the vehicle, and it is proportional to the ascent (or descent) rate of the vehicle in R3. Therefore, it is the fundamental constraint for a vehicle with the bounded angle of the attack, such as fixed-wing aircraft. The pitch angle is constrained by the given interval T = [ Ymin; Ymax] where particular values of Ymin and Ymax depend on many factors such as velocity or spatial orientation of the vehicle. The feasibility conditions on the requested path ~>r(t) to respect all the considered motion constraints of the vehicle can be expressed as equation 2” and Section IV-A, “In addition to the heuristic solution of the 3D Dubins path, the proposed decoupled approach can also be utilized for estimating the lower bound of the optimal path length. The idea is based on setting both horizontal and vertical turning radii to their minimal values in Algorithm 1. For the vertical radius, its minimum value is given by the minimum turning radius pmin. On the other hand, the horizontal radius can be even smaller for Y doesnotequal 0, when the turn is a spiral and the minimum value roofph can be derived from (4) according to the maximum absolute value of the pitch angle as eq. 6.”); wherein if the difference between the height information of the target point and the height information of the starting point is less than or equal to a second threshold value, the end sub-path of the vertical Dubins path from the starting point to the target point spirals down and the remaining sub-paths remain unchanged (See at least Fig. 2, Section III paragraph 4, “The vehicle pitch denotes the climb (or dive) angle of the vehicle, and it is proportional to the ascent (or descent) rate of the vehicle in R3. Therefore, it is the fundamental constraint for a vehicle with the bounded angle of the attack, such as fixed-wing aircraft. The pitch angle is constrained by the given interval T = [ Ymin; Ymax] where particular values of Ymin and Ymax depend on many factors such as velocity or spatial orientation of the vehicle. The feasibility conditions on the requested path ~>r(t) to respect all the considered motion constraints of the vehicle can be expressed as equation 2”, Section IV, paragraphs 1-2, “The proposed approach to finding a feasible Dubins path in the three-dimensional space is based on the separation of the path into its horizontal and vertical parts. The overall idea is similar to [5], where the horizontal projection of the final path is computed as the 2D Dubins path, and the vertical profile is an interpolation between the altitude at the initial and final location. However, the interpolation might provide unfeasible paths because abrupt changes in the pitch angle in [5]. The herein proposed heuristic addresses this issue by computing the vertical profile, also like the 2D Dubins path, to ensure a smooth connection at the endpoints. Thus, it respects both initial and final configurations of the vehicle, which can be further utilized in multi-goal planning. Furthermore, the horizontal radius ph and vertical turning radius pv are addressed separately such that the final length is minimized while the maximally allowed curvature is not exceeded. The proposed method consists of two fundamental steps. Initially, the horizontal curve Dh of the 3D curve is computed as the 2D Dubins path connecting the projections of qi and qf into the XY (latero-directional) plane using the horizontal turning radius ph. Secondly, the altitude profile of the 3D curve is also computed as the 2D Dubins path with the minimum vertical turning radius pv. In the vertical case, the configurations are projected into the SZ (longitudinal) plane, where the axis S represents the traveled horizontal distance, and the axis Z represents the altitude, i.e., the longitudinal plane captures the changes in the altitude along the traveled path in the latero-directional plane, see Fig. 2”, and Section IV-A, “In addition to the heuristic solution of the 3D Dubins path, the proposed decoupled approach can also be utilized for estimating the lower bound of the optimal path length. The idea is based on setting both horizontal and vertical turning radii to their minimal values in Algorithm 1. For the vertical radius, its minimum value is given by the minimum turning radius pmin. On the other hand, the horizontal radius can be even smaller for Y doesnotequal 0, when the turn is a spiral and the minimum value roofph can be derived from (4) according to the maximum absolute value of the pitch angle as eq. 6.”); wherein if the difference between the height information of the target point and the height information of the starting point is greater than the second threshold value and less than the first threshold value, the vertical Dubins path from the starting point to the target point climbs or descends throughout, and wherein the first threshold value is greater than the second threshold value (See at least Fig. 2, Section III paragraph 4, “The vehicle pitch denotes the climb (or dive) angle of the vehicle, and it is proportional to the ascent (or descent) rate of the vehicle in R3. Therefore, it is the fundamental constraint for a vehicle with the bounded angle of the attack, such as fixed-wing aircraft. The pitch angle is constrained by the given interval T = [ Ymin; Ymax] where particular values of Ymin and Ymax depend on many factors such as velocity or spatial orientation of the vehicle. The feasibility conditions on the requested path ~>r(t) to respect all the considered motion constraints of the vehicle can be expressed as equation 2” and Section V paragraph 6, “An example of the determined 3D Dubins path for the benchmark instance Long 3 accompanied with the visualization of the curvature and inclination profiles along the path are shown in Fig. 3 to demonstrate that the horizontal and vertical turning radii may have two very different values. The curvature of the path depends on the particular turn at the specific part of the path. From the visualized proles, it can be seen that there is only a little space for further optimization of the found 3D path because the pitch angle is saturated for most of the time. Note that the relative gap of the path length to the determined lower bound is 0.855%.”).
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alves Neto ("Minimal 3D Dubins Path with Bounded Curvature and Pitch Angle.") in view of LIU (CN 108958292 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Alves Neto teaches The three-dimensional trajectory planning method according to claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above. wherein when the horizontal Dubins path includes three sub-paths, the horizontal Dubins path from the starting point to the target point is determined (See at least Section II paragraph 5, “A sub-optimal approach to generate paths between two 3D poses dealing with both curvature and pitch constraints is proposed in [17]. The final path is considered as a union of three possible subpaths: two subpaths at the extreme points to address the pitch angle constraint and one in the middle of the final path to deal with the horizontal displacement”, Section III paragraph 1, “The problem of finding the 3D optimal path for curvature constrained vehicles must consider not only the vehicle's position in space but also its departure (arrival) orientation from the initial (final) location. The notion of the special Euclidean group SE(n) is therefore utilized to represent the homeomorphic topological space where the path planning is performed. Both the minimum turning radius and pitch angle are addressed, and therefore, the configuration of the vehicle is denoted as qk E {xk, yk, zk, Wk, Yk} to represent the pose k in SE(3), where {xk, yk, zk} are spatial coordinates of the vehicle, Wk is the vehicle's heading and Yk is the vehicle's pitch. Since we consider generations of 2D paths, the projection of the configuration qk E SE(3) into SE(2) corresponding with the horizontal XY plane is a function P(qk) = {xk, yk, zk} that maps qk into P(qk) E SE(2). We further denote the Euclidean magnitude of a vector as |.|, 2D Dubins function proposed in [6] as D(.) and {k}2pi for the modulus after the division of an angle k by 2pi|”, and Section IV paragraphs 7-9, “The proposed heuristic for finding the 3D Dubins path consists of the following three parts that are summarized in Algorithm 2. 1) An initial feasible solution is found such that the horizontal turning radius ph is incrementally increased until the length of the horizontal curve Dh is sufficient to find its vertical counterpart that is feasible. The Decoupled procedure listed in Algorithm 1 is utilized and the feasibility of vertical curve Dv is checked by the procedure IsFeasible(Dv; T) to meet (2). 2) The length of the found path is improved by a local optimization using the hill-climbing technique such that the most beneficial horizontal radius ph is selected. The optimization is stopped when the step triangle is less than a minimum change of the radius triangle min. 3) The final 3D path is constructed as a combination of horizontal and vertical Dubins curves Dh and Dv, respectively.”).
Alves Neto does not explicitly disclose, however, LIU, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein if the driving mode is in a landing guidance mode, driving direction of an end sub-path of the horizontal Dubins path is determined, and the horizontal Dubins path from the starting point to the target point is determined from a preset landing guidance driving direction combination according to driving direction of the end sub-path, the horizontal position information and heading information of the starting point, and the horizontal position information and heading information of the target point (See at least paragraph [0031], “The flight altitude and flight speed of the aircraft are set as constant values, and the problem is simplified to a two-dimensional horizontal trajectory planning problem. The Dubins path is a simplified model of an aircraft flying at a constant speed and at a constant altitude. Considering the turning angle of the aircraft, the trajectory of the aircraft from the initial state (xini, yini, θini) to the final state (x<sub>fin</sub>, y<sub>fin</sub>, θ<sub>fin</sub>) is composed of arcs and line segments with the minimum turning radius ρ of the aircraft as the radius. For a Dubins path with an end direction constraint, the shortest Dubins path is one of D = {RSL, LSR, RSR, LSL, RLR, LRL}, where R represents an arc turning in a clockwise direction, L represents an arc turning in a counterclockwise direction, and S represents a line segment. For a Dubins path without end direction constraints, the shortest Dubins path is an arc or a combination of an arc and a line segment, and the shortest Dubins path set is D = {LS, RL, RS, L}. The dynamic equation of the aircraft based on the Dubins path is:”.); wherein if the driving mode is in a non-landing guidance mode, the horizontal Dubins path from the starting point to the target point is determined from a preset non-landing guidance driving direction combination (See at least paragraph [0031], “The flight altitude and flight speed of the aircraft are set as constant values, and the problem is simplified to a two-dimensional horizontal trajectory planning problem. The Dubins path is a simplified model of an aircraft flying at a constant speed and at a constant altitude. Considering the turning angle of the aircraft, the trajectory of the aircraft from the initial state (xini, yini, θini) to the final state (x<sub>fin</sub>, y<sub>fin</sub>, θ<sub>fin</sub>) is composed of arcs and line segments with the minimum turning radius ρ of the aircraft as the radius. For a Dubins path with an end direction constraint, the shortest Dubins path is one of D = {RSL, LSR, RSR, LSL, RLR, LRL}, where R represents an arc turning in a clockwise direction, L represents an arc turning in a counterclockwise direction, and S represents a line segment. For a Dubins path without end direction constraints, the shortest Dubins path is an arc or a combination of an arc and a line segment, and the shortest Dubins path set is D = {LS, RL, RS, L}. The dynamic equation of the aircraft based on the Dubins path is:”.); wherein when the horizontal Dubins path includes three sub-paths, the horizontal Dubins path from the starting point to the target point is determined according to the driving mode (See at least paragraph [0031], “The flight altitude and flight speed of the aircraft are set as constant values, and the problem is simplified to a two-dimensional horizontal trajectory planning problem. The Dubins path is a simplified model of an aircraft flying at a constant speed and at a constant altitude. Considering the turning angle of the aircraft, the trajectory of the aircraft from the initial state (xini, yini, θini) to the final state (x<sub>fin</sub>, y<sub>fin</sub>, θ<sub>fin</sub>) is composed of arcs and line segments with the minimum turning radius ρ of the aircraft as the radius. For a Dubins path with an end direction constraint, the shortest Dubins path is one of D = {RSL, LSR, RSR, LSL, RLR, LRL}, where R represents an arc turning in a clockwise direction, L represents an arc turning in a counterclockwise direction, and S represents a line segment. For a Dubins path without end direction constraints, the shortest Dubins path is an arc or a combination of an arc and a line segment, and the shortest Dubins path set is D = {LS, RL, RS, L}. The dynamic equation of the aircraft based on the Dubins path is:”.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Alves Neto with the teachings of LIU such that the Dubins path calculator of Alves Neto is further configured to, wherein when the horizontal Dubins path includes three sub-paths, determine the horizontal Dubins path from the starting point to the target point according to the driving mode, the horizontal position information and heading information of the starting point, and the horizontal position information and heading information of the target point and wherein if the driving mode is in a landing guidance mode, determine the driving direction of an end sub-path of the horizontal Dubins path, determine the horizontal Dubins path from the starting point to the target point is from a preset landing guidance driving direction combination according to the driving direction of the end sub-path, the horizontal position information and heading information of the starting point, and the horizontal position information and heading information of the target point; wherein if the driving mode is in a non-landing guidance mode, and determine the horizontal Dubins path from the starting point to the target point is from a preset non-landing guidance driving direction combination, as taught by LIU (See paragraph [0031].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be increasing survivability and combat effectiveness, as taught by LIU (See paragraph [0004].).
Regarding Claim 3, Alves Neto and LIU teach The three-dimensional trajectory planning method according to claim 2, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Alves Neto does not explicitly disclose, however, LIU, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein if driving direction of the end sub-path is a left turn, the preset landing guidance driving direction combination comprises: right turn left turn right turn, right turn straight ahead right turn and left turn straight ahead right turn (See at least paragraph [0031], “The flight altitude and flight speed of the aircraft are set as constant values, and the problem is simplified to a two-dimensional horizontal trajectory planning problem. The Dubins path is a simplified model of an aircraft flying at a constant speed and at a constant altitude. Considering the turning angle of the aircraft, the trajectory of the aircraft from the initial state (xini, yini, θini) to the final state (x<sub>fin</sub>, y<sub>fin</sub>, θ<sub>fin</sub>) is composed of arcs and line segments with the minimum turning radius ρ of the aircraft as the radius. For a Dubins path with an end direction constraint, the shortest Dubins path is one of D = {RSL, LSR, RSR, LSL, RLR, LRL}, where R represents an arc turning in a clockwise direction, L represents an arc turning in a counterclockwise direction, and S represents a line segment. For a Dubins path without end direction constraints, the shortest Dubins path is an arc or a combination of an arc and a line segment, and the shortest Dubins path set is D = {LS, RL, RS, L}. The dynamic equation of the aircraft based on the Dubins path is:”.); wherein if driving direction of end sub-path is a right turn, the preset landing guidance driving direction combination comprises: left turn right turn left turn, left turn straight ahead left turn and right turn straight ahead left turn (See at least paragraph [0031], “The flight altitude and flight speed of the aircraft are set as constant values, and the problem is simplified to a two-dimensional horizontal trajectory planning problem. The Dubins path is a simplified model of an aircraft flying at a constant speed and at a constant altitude. Considering the turning angle of the aircraft, the trajectory of the aircraft from the initial state (xini, yini, θini) to the final state (x<sub>fin</sub>, y<sub>fin</sub>, θ<sub>fin</sub>) is composed of arcs and line segments with the minimum turning radius ρ of the aircraft as the radius. For a Dubins path with an end direction constraint, the shortest Dubins path is one of D = {RSL, LSR, RSR, LSL, RLR, LRL}, where R represents an arc turning in a clockwise direction, L represents an arc turning in a counterclockwise direction, and S represents a line segment. For a Dubins path without end direction constraints, the shortest Dubins path is an arc or a combination of an arc and a line segment, and the shortest Dubins path set is D = {LS, RL, RS, L}. The dynamic equation of the aircraft based on the Dubins path is:”.); wherein the preset non-landing guidance driving direction combination comprises: right turn left turn right turn, right turn straight ahead right turn, left turn straight ahead right turn, left turn right turn left turn, left turn straight ahead left turn and right turn straight ahead left turn (See at least paragraph [0031], “The flight altitude and flight speed of the aircraft are set as constant values, and the problem is simplified to a two-dimensional horizontal trajectory planning problem. The Dubins path is a simplified model of an aircraft flying at a constant speed and at a constant altitude. Considering the turning angle of the aircraft, the trajectory of the aircraft from the initial state (xini, yini, θini) to the final state (x<sub>fin</sub>, y<sub>fin</sub>, θ<sub>fin</sub>) is composed of arcs and line segments with the minimum turning radius ρ of the aircraft as the radius. For a Dubins path with an end direction constraint, the shortest Dubins path is one of D = {RSL, LSR, RSR, LSL, RLR, LRL}, where R represents an arc turning in a clockwise direction, L represents an arc turning in a counterclockwise direction, and S represents a line segment. For a Dubins path without end direction constraints, the shortest Dubins path is an arc or a combination of an arc and a line segment, and the shortest Dubins path set is D = {LS, RL, RS, L}. The dynamic equation of the aircraft based on the Dubins path is:”.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Alves Neto with the teachings of LIU such that the Dubins path calculator of Alves Neto is further configured to utilize, wherein if the driving direction of the end sub-path is a left turn, the preset landing guidance driving direction combination comprising: right turn left turn right turn, right turn straight ahead right turn and left turn straight ahead right turn; wherein if the driving direction of end sub-path is a right turn, the preset landing guidance driving direction combination comprising: left turn right turn left turn, left turn straight ahead left turn and right turn straight ahead left turn; wherein the preset non-landing guidance driving direction combination comprising: right turn left turn right turn, right turn straight ahead right turn, left turn straight ahead right turn, left turn right turn left turn, left turn straight ahead left turn and right turn straight ahead left turn, as taught by LIU (See paragraph [0031].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be increasing survivability and combat effectiveness, as taught by LIU (See paragraph [0004].).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alves Neto ("Minimal 3D Dubins Path with Bounded Curvature and Pitch Angle.") in view of BAI (CN 110764527 A).
Regarding Claim 5, Alves Neto teaches The three-dimensional trajectory planning method according to claim 1, as set forth in the anticipation rejection above. Alves Neto does not explicitly disclose, however, BAI, in the same field of endeavor, teaches after a three-dimensional driving trajectory from the starting point to the target point is determined, controlling a flight device to drive in accordance with the three-dimensional driving trajectory (See at least paragraph [0005], “Finally, based on the current status of the aircraft, a trajectory that meets the flight performance is planned in real time and controlled to accurately track the trajectory for emergency landing”, paragraph [0046], “According to the altitude difference of the UAV returning to the field and the standard lateral range and glide angle constraints, the 3D Dubins track is divided into four glide types, namely: shallow glide type, standard glide type, S-turn maneuver turning type, and spiral maneuver extended range type”, and paragraph [0047], “After selecting a suitable landing site, the route online planning management unit initializes the initial and terminal posture states of the UAV, and uses the 3D Dubins path planning algorithm to plan a reachable three-dimensional trajectory.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Alves Neto with the teachings of BAI such that the Dubins path calculator of Alves Neto is further configured to, after a three-dimensional driving trajectory from the starting point to the target point is determined, control a flight device to drive in accordance with the three-dimensional driving trajectory, as taught by BAI (See paragraph [0005], [0046], [0047].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be increasing travel trajectory accuracy, particularly in emergencies, as taught by BAI (See paragraph [0005].).
Regarding Claim 6, Alves Neto and BAI teach The three-dimensional trajectory planning method according to claim 5, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Alves Neto does not explicitly disclose, however, BAI, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: invoking a straight-line travel thread to control the flight device to drive in a straight-line path in a three-dimensional driving path (See at least paragraph [0005], “Finally, based on the current status of the aircraft, a trajectory that meets the flight performance is planned in real time and controlled to accurately track the trajectory for emergency landing” and paragraph [0144], “Three maneuvering trajectories are planned through the emergency return route management unit. The trajectory P<sub>s</sub>→P<sub>1</sub>→P<sub>2</sub>→P<sub>3</sub>→P<sub>e</sub> is an extended trajectory of the spiral maneuver, in which the heading adjustment segment trajectory P<sub>s</sub>→P<sub>1</sub> rotates 1.7346 rad clockwise, the straight segment trajectory P<sub>1</sub>→P<sub>2</sub> has a glide path angle of -3.3959°, the intermediate adjustment segment trajectory P<sub>2</sub>→P<sub>3</sub> rotates 2.9209 rad clockwise, and the heading alignment segment trajectory P<sub>3</sub>→P<sub>e</sub> rotates three full circles counterclockwise around the H<sub>ac</sub> circle. The trajectory P<sub>s</sub>′→P<sub>1</sub>′→P′<sub>2</sub>→P′<sub>3</sub>→P′<sub>e</sub> is the S-turn maneuver turning trajectory, in which the heading adjustment segment trajectory P′<sub>s</sub>→P<sub>1</sub>′ rotates 1.7181 rad clockwise, the straight line segment trajectory P<sub>1</sub>′→P′<sub>2</sub> has a glide path angle of -5.0351°, the intermediate adjustment segment trajectory P′<sub>2</sub>→P′<sub>3</sub> rotates 3.2681 rad clockwise, and the heading alignment segment trajectory P′<sub>3</sub>→P′<sub>e</sub> rotates 2.9762 rad counterclockwise around the H<sub>ac</sub> circle. The trajectory P″<sub>s</sub>→P<sub>1</sub>″→P″<sub>2</sub>→P″<sub>3</sub>→P″<sub>e</sub> is the standard maneuvering trajectory, among which the heading adjustment segment trajectory P″<sub>s</sub>→P<sub>1</sub>″ rotates 3.3151 rad clockwise, the return straight line segment trajectory P<sub>1</sub>″→P″<sub>2</sub> has an altitude glide angle of -2.8186°, and the heading alignment segment trajectory rotates 1.305 rad counterclockwise around the H<sub>ac</sub> circle. The glide path angles of the turning sections of the three maneuvering trajectories are all - 10°, and since the initial headings are the same, the three maneuvering trajectories have the same heading aligned with the Hac circle.”); invoking a circling travel thread to control the flight device to drive in a left turn path and in the right turn path (See at least paragraph [0144], “Three maneuvering trajectories are planned through the emergency return route management unit. The trajectory P<sub>s</sub>→P<sub>1</sub>→P<sub>2</sub>→P<sub>3</sub>→P<sub>e</sub> is an extended trajectory of the spiral maneuver, in which the heading adjustment segment trajectory P<sub>s</sub>→P<sub>1</sub> rotates 1.7346 rad clockwise, the straight segment trajectory P<sub>1</sub>→P<sub>2</sub> has a glide path angle of -3.3959°, the intermediate adjustment segment trajectory P<sub>2</sub>→P<sub>3</sub> rotates 2.9209 rad clockwise, and the heading alignment segment trajectory P<sub>3</sub>→P<sub>e</sub> rotates three full circles counterclockwise around the H<sub>ac</sub> circle. The trajectory P<sub>s</sub>′→P<sub>1</sub>′→P′<sub>2</sub>→P′<sub>3</sub>→P′<sub>e</sub> is the S-turn maneuver turning trajectory, in which the heading adjustment segment trajectory P′<sub>s</sub>→P<sub>1</sub>′ rotates 1.7181 rad clockwise, the straight line segment trajectory P<sub>1</sub>′→P′<sub>2</sub> has a glide path angle of -5.0351°, the intermediate adjustment segment trajectory P′<sub>2</sub>→P′<sub>3</sub> rotates 3.2681 rad clockwise, and the heading alignment segment trajectory P′<sub>3</sub>→P′<sub>e</sub> rotates 2.9762 rad counterclockwise around the H<sub>ac</sub> circle. The trajectory P″<sub>s</sub>→P<sub>1</sub>″→P″<sub>2</sub>→P″<sub>3</sub>→P″<sub>e</sub> is the standard maneuvering trajectory, among which the heading adjustment segment trajectory P″<sub>s</sub>→P<sub>1</sub>″ rotates 3.3151 rad clockwise, the return straight line segment trajectory P<sub>1</sub>″→P″<sub>2</sub> has an altitude glide angle of -2.8186°, and the heading alignment segment trajectory rotates 1.305 rad counterclockwise around the H<sub>ac</sub> circle. The glide path angles of the turning sections of the three maneuvering trajectories are all - 10°, and since the initial headings are the same, the three maneuvering trajectories have the same heading aligned with the Hac circle.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Alves Neto with the teachings of BAI such that the Dubins path calculator of Alves Neto is further configured to invoke a straight-line travel thread to control the flight device to drive in a straight-line path in a three-dimensional driving path and a circling travel thread to control the flight device to drive in a left turn path and in the right turn path, as taught by BAI (See paragraph [0005], [0144].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be increasing travel trajectory accuracy, particularly in emergencies, as taught by BAI (See paragraph [0005].).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alves Neto ("Minimal 3D Dubins Path with Bounded Curvature and Pitch Angle.") in view of BAI (CN 110764527 A) and Saunders (US 20200118446 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Alves Neto and BAI teach The three-dimensional trajectory planning method according to claim 5, as set forth in the obviousness rejection above. Alves Neto and BAI do not explicitly disclose, however, Saunders, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising: in a process of controlling the flight device to drive in accordance with current sub-trajectory, if a remaining driving distance of current sub-trajectory is detected to be less than a preset distance, then driving in accordance with a next sub-trajectory (See at least paragraph [0057], “Brute force trajectory methods involve considering the possible trajectories from the starting point to a short distance ahead, identifying a trajectory segment with the least cost that moves the aerial vehicle towards the objective, choosing that segment, and repeat that process from the end of the segment. The brute force trajectory cycle continues until the segments arrive at the objective (e.g., an objective location or waypoint). Brute force methods can be fast and can create feasible trajectories; however they are not able to avoid obstacles in the environment easily and dynamically”, paragraph [0065], “The Dubins path iterations create short trajectories that the brute force method can use to create a simple trajectory to the objective end point. The brute force algorithm breaks the waypoint path into short segments, and links the segments together by short Dubins path trajectories. For example, the brute force trajectory can be used as a representative trajectory for a modified RRT algorithm to link as seed waypoints. In one example, a modified RRT algorithm: 1) links (or attempts to link) the initial state to the seed waypoints; 2) checks whether the waypoints go to the objective end point (if the waypoints go to the objective end point then the first solution is identified, and if not, the algorithm links (or attempts to link) the end of the seeds to the objective for the first solution); 3) picks a random state and adds to the tree according to the RRT algorithm; 4) links (or attempts to link) the random point to the seed waypoints; 5) checks if the waypoints go to the objective end point (if the waypoints go to the objective end point then a solution is determined, and if not, the algorithm links (or attempts to link) the end of the seeds to the objective for a solution); 6) repeats steps 3-5 until a solution is determined, a maximum number of iterations is reached, or a minimum number of iterations is reached after finding a solution; and 7) executes smoothing to reduce the length of the trajectory”, and paragraph [0104], “FIGS. 6a, 6b, and 6c illustrate an example method that can be used to calculate a trajectory for an aerial vehicle in accordance with this disclosure. Referring to FIG. 6a, an aerial vehicle's flight-control system may begin a trajectory planning algorithm at step 602. The flight control system may have a separate trajectory planning system that executes the trajectory planning method 600. After beginning execution, at step 604, the trajectory planner executes the iterative Dubins path algorithm at step 604.”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Alves Neto with the teachings of BAI and Saunders such that the Dubins path calculator of Alves Neto is further configured to, after a three-dimensional driving trajectory from the starting point to the target point is determined, control a flight device to drive in accordance with the three-dimensional driving trajectory, as taught by BAI (See paragraph [0005], [0046], [0047].), and to control the flight device to drive in accordance with the current sub-trajectory, if a remaining driving distance of a current sub-trajectory is detected to be less than a preset distance, then driving in accordance with a next sub-trajectory, as taught by Saunders (See paragraph [0057], [0065], [0104].), with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be increasing travel trajectory accuracy, particularly in emergencies, as taught by BAI (See paragraph [0005].). The motivation for doing so would be increasing obstacle avoidance on the trajectory, as taught by Saunders (See paragraph [0003].).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEWEL ASHLEY KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5542. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/JEWEL A KUNTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666