DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of claims
Claims 1 and 9 are amended.
No new claim is added.
Applicant’s amendments are entered.
Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made
necessitated by the applicant’s amendments and remarks. Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/03/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding the arguments on page 2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with
Applicant’s position that there is no discussion in Robin regarding a discomfort zone in the optimal position determination. Examiner respectfully traverse the argument. In Robin para[0016],[0045] and [0091] and in figure 4 it is clearly mentioned that “Each influence zone ZT comprises a discomfort zone ZI and an optimization zone ZO”.
Regarding the arguments on page 2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position that Robin does not discuss or suggest a second trajectory corresponding to a phantom aircraft representing the follower aircraft permanently in an optimal position... comprising a placement of the follower aircraft at a predefined distance from the estimated position of the wake vortex when allowed by dimensions of the potential discomfort window, and otherwise at a predefined margin from the potential discomfort window. Robin teaches optimized trajectory based on optimal position determination method and device of a follower aircraft where each optimization segment corresponding to a distance between two current positions of the follower aircraft n the environs or in the optimization zone (see paras[0015], [0035]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over US20190310642A1 to Robin et al. (herein after “Robin”) in view of Induced moment effects of formation flight using two F/A-18 Aircraft to Hansen et al. (herein after “Hansen”) and EP 3438949 A1 to Lebas et al. (herein after “Lebas”).
Regarding claim 1, Robin teaches A method for assisting a formation flight of aircraft, the method being implemented by a system comprising (see Robin Abstract Method and device for determining trajectory to optimal position of a follower aircraft with respect to vortices generated by a leader aircraft) electronic circuitry on board an aircraft acting as a follower aircraft, the method comprising the following steps (see Robin pare[0011] According to the disclosure herein, the method comprises the succession of following steps: a first section control step, a second section control step and a third section control step); determining trajectories comprising: a first trajectory (see Robin optimized trajectory) , to be followed by the follower aircraft, as a trajectory for approaching and tracking the wake vortex, so as to benefit from the upward airflow induced by the wake vortex (See Robin para[0015] the follower aircraft follows an optimized trajectory to the optimization zone in which it benefits from the effects of a vortex enabling it in particular to make fuel savings. Moreover, in the course of this optimized trajectory, the risks of the follower aircraft undergoing turbulence related to a vortex causing a feeling of discomfort before reaching the optimization zone are minimized.) , while remaining outside a potential discomfort window (see Robin the influence zone comprising a discomfort zone and the optimization zone.) defined by the estimation uncertainty around the estimated position of the wake vortex, and, a second trajectory corresponding to a phantom aircraft representing the follower aircraft permanently in an optimal position relative to the wake vortex, the optimal position comprising a placement of the follower aircraft at a predefined distance from the estimated position of the wake vortex when allowed by dimensions of the potential discomfort window, and otherwise at a predefined margin from the potential discomfort window (see Robin para[0086] The system 5, represented in FIG. 1, is configured to control the trajectory of the follower aircraft AC2, from a safety position PS to an optimal position PO, as represented in FIG. 5. The safety position PS corresponds to a position of the follower aircraft AC2 in which it does not feel any effect of at least one of the vortices V1, V2 generated by the leader aircraft AC1. The optimal position PO corresponds to a position at which the follower aircraft AC2 benefits from effects of at least one of the vortices V1, V2. These effects may in particular result in the follower aircraft AC2 making fuel savings,); and modifying the first trajectory to be followed by the follower aircraft as a function of the future overshoots (see Robin para[0137] The control module 6 receives an item of information in respect of passage to a new search segment SRn and commands such a change of trajectory so as to avoid the discomfort zone ZI).
However, Robin does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach acquiring information relating to a leader aircraft generating a wake vortex inducing an upward airflow; determining an effect of the wake vortex experienced by the follower aircraft as a difference between measurements, taken by sensors of the follower aircraft, and modelling of the a control model of an aircraft modelled as the follower aircraft in a wake vortex-free environment represented as flight outside of and unaffected by the wake vortex; determining an estimated position of the wake vortex from the acquired information relating to the leader aircraft and from a wake vortex model, and determining an estimation uncertainty around the estimated position of the wake vortex from the determined effect of the wake vortex experienced by the follower aircraft. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Hansen teaches acquiring information relating to a leader aircraft generating a wake vortex inducing an upward airflow (see Hensen page 3 the vortex effects from this series of flight tests were also to be used to validate preexisting data from vortex-effect prediction codes); determining an effect of the wake vortex experienced by the follower aircraft as a difference between measurements, taken by sensors of the follower aircraft, and modelling of the a control model of an aircraft modelled as the follower aircraft in a wake vortex-free environment represented as flight outside of and unaffected by the wake vortex (see Hansen “Methodology” The incremental coefficients caused by vortex influence were calculated as the difference between the free-flight coefficients (assuming no vortex interaction) and the actual flight-measured vortex coefficients (measured while the airplane was positioned within the vortex influence) at a particular flight condition); determining an estimated position of the wake vortex from the acquired information relating to the leader aircraft and from a wake vortex model(See Hansen page 3 accurate mathematical model of the induced aerodynamic effects as a function of relative position and flight condition, The database of rolling, pitching and yawing moments that are caused by the vortex used in the mathematical model, see equation 4), and determining an estimation uncertainty around the estimated position of the wake vortex from the determined effect of the wake vortex experienced by the follower aircraft (see Hansen conclusion for determining if aerodynamic prediction codes can reliably estimate these effects for future applications).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Robin’s method and device for controlling trajectory of a follower aircraft with Hansen’s methodology of finding the effect of vortex as a difference between measured value and model value(vortex-free/a wake vortex free environment) in order to allow for in order to allow for to validate vortex-effect prediction methods and provide a database for the design of a formation flight autopilot (see Hansen Abstract).
However, Robin does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach assessing, with respect to the second trajectory, future overshoots of the phantom aircraft relative to maneuvering capabilities of the follower aircraft and to passenger comfort rules, with respect to the second trajectory; and modifying the first trajectory to be followed by the follower aircraft as a function of the future overshoots. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Lebas teaches assessing, with respect to the second trajectory, future overshoots of the phantom aircraft relative to maneuvering capabilities of the follower aircraft and to passenger comfort rules, with respect to the second trajectory (see Lebas para[0017] a control unit 5 configured to bring (and maintain) the follower aircraft AC2 in said safety position PS, as soon as information on the risk of collision is received and the safety position PS has been calculated by the calculation unit 3 (and transmitted via a link 6 to the control unit 5); based on optimal position PO, control unit calculate the safety position PS);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Robin’s method and device for controlling trajectory of a follower aircraft in order to allow for Lebas’s assessing, with respect to the second trajectory , future overshoots of the phantom aircraft by calculate safety position PS based on optimal position PO in order to allow for to maintain a constant spacing between follower and lead aircraft to avoid collision (see Lebas para[0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Robin, Hansen and Lebas remain applied as Claim 1. Robin teaches wherein the system is configured to assess the first trajectory to determine whether the follower aircraft approaches the potential discomfort window (see Robin discomfort zone ZI) below a distance threshold THvf, and, when this threshold TH_vf is reached, the system is configured to makes a tactical decision to move the follower aircraft away from the wake vortex so as to place the follower aircraft at a minimum distance from the wake vortex at which an impact of the wake vortex on the follower aircraft is null ( see Robin at least para[0099]-[0104]).
Regarding claim 3, Robin, Hansen and Lebas remain applied as Claim 1. Robin teaches wherein, when the assessed future overshoots are smaller in magnitude than a threshold TH_os and are greater in magnitude than a threshold TH_mos, with TH_mos < TH_os, the system is further configured to make a tactical decision to shift the target position in order to move the follower aircraft away from the wake vortex by a distance that is equal to a predefined margin(See Robin at least para[0022] in a formation flight step E1, the flight management system 3F of the follower aircraft F defines a flight plan so that the pilot assistance system 4F of the follower aircraft brings the follower aircraft F to a predetermined distance).
Regarding claim 8, Robin, Hansen and Lebas remain applied as Claim 1. Robin teaches wherein the estimated position of the wake vortex and the estimation uncertainty concerning the estimated position of the wake vortex are determined using a recursive Bayesian filter. (see Robin para[0036] Kalman filter until convergence of the optimal position obtained by the Kalman filter and that obtained by theoretical model of vortex characteristics is obtained; Kalman filter is one type of Batesian filter).
Regarding claim 9, Robin teaches A system for assisting in a formation flight of aircraft, the system comprising (see Robin Abstract Method and device for determining trajectory to optimal position of a follower aircraft with respect to vortices generated by a leader aircraft): electronic circuitry configured to be placed on board an aircraft acting as a follower aircraft, the electronic circuitry configured to(see Robin pare[0011] According to the disclosure herein, the method comprises the succession of following steps: a first section control step, a second section control step and a third section control step);
determine trajectories comprising: a first trajectory (see Robin optimized trajectory), followed by the follower aircraft, as a trajectory for approaching and tracking the wake vortex, so as to seek to benefit from the upward airflow induced by the wake vortex (See Robin para[0015] the follower aircraft follows an optimized trajectory to the optimization zone in which it benefits from the effects of a vortex enabling it in particular to make fuel savings. Moreover, in the course of this optimized trajectory, the risks of the follower aircraft undergoing turbulence related to a vortex causing a feeling of discomfort before reaching the optimization zone are minimized.) ,, while remaining outside a potential discomfort window (see Robin the influence zone comprising a discomfort zone and the optimization zone.) defined by an estimation uncertainty around the estimated position of the wake vortex(see Robin para[0086] The system 5, represented in FIG. 1, is configured to control the trajectory of the follower aircraft AC2, from a safety position PS to an optimal position PO, as represented in FIG. 5. The safety position PS corresponds to a position of the follower aircraft AC2 in which it does not feel any effect of at least one of the vortices V1, V2 generated by the leader aircraft AC1. The optimal position PO corresponds to a position at which the follower aircraft AC2 benefits from effects of at least one of the vortices V1, V2. These effects may in particular result in the follower aircraft AC2 making fuel savings,); and modifying the first trajectory to be followed by the follower aircraft as a function of the future overshoots (see Robin para[0137] The control module 6 receives an item of information in respect of passage to a new search segment SRn and commands such a change of trajectory so as to avoid the discomfort zone ZI).
However, Robin does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach acquiring information relating to a leader aircraft generating a wake vortex inducing an upward airflow; determining an effect of the wake vortex experienced by the follower aircraft as a difference between measurements, taken by sensors of the follower aircraft, and modelling of the a control model of an aircraft modelled as the follower aircraft in a wake vortex-free environment represented as flight outside of and unaffected by the wake vortex; determining an estimated position of the wake vortex from the acquired information relating to the leader aircraft and from a wake vortex model, and determining an estimation uncertainty around the estimated position of the wake vortex from the determined effect of the wake vortex experienced by the follower aircraft. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Hansen teaches acquiring information relating to a leader aircraft generating a wake vortex inducing an upward airflow (see Hensen page 3 the vortex effects from this series of flight tests were also to be used to validate preexisting data from vortex-effect prediction codes); determining an effect of the wake vortex experienced by the follower aircraft as a difference between measurements, taken by sensors of the follower aircraft, and modelling of the a control model of an aircraft modelled as the follower aircraft in a wake vortex-free environment represented as flight outside of and unaffected by the wake vortex (see Hansen “Methodology” The incremental coefficients caused by vortex influence were calculated as the difference between the free-flight coefficients (assuming no vortex interaction) and the actual flight-measured vortex coefficients (measured while the airplane was positioned within the vortex influence) at a particular flight condition); determining an estimated position of the wake vortex from the acquired information relating to the leader aircraft and from a wake vortex model(See Hansen page 3 accurate mathematical model of the induced aerodynamic effects as a function of relative position and flight condition, The database of rolling, pitching and yawing moments that are caused by the vortex used in the mathematical model, see equation 4), and determining an estimation uncertainty around the estimated position of the wake vortex from the determined effect of the wake vortex experienced by the follower aircraft (see Hansen conclusion for determining if aerodynamic prediction codes can reliably estimate these effects for future applications).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Robin’s method and device for controlling trajectory of a follower aircraft with Hansen’s methodology of finding the effect of vortex as a difference between measured value and model value(vortex-free/a wake vortex free environment) in order to allow for in order to allow for to validate vortex-effect prediction methods and provide a database for the design of a formation flight autopilot (see Hansen Abstract).
However, Robin does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach assessing, with respect to the second trajectory, future overshoots of the phantom aircraft relative to maneuvering capabilities of the follower aircraft and to passenger comfort rules, with respect to the second trajectory; and modifying the first trajectory to be followed by the follower aircraft as a function of the future overshoots. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Lebas teaches assessing, with respect to the second trajectory, future overshoots of the phantom aircraft relative to maneuvering capabilities of the follower aircraft and to passenger comfort rules, with respect to the second trajectory (see Lebas para[0017] a control unit 5 configured to bring (and maintain) the follower aircraft AC2 in said safety position PS, as soon as information on the risk of collision is received and the safety position PS has been calculated by the calculation unit 3 (and transmitted via a link 6 to the control unit 5); based on optimal position PO, control unit calculate the safety position PS);
and modifying the first trajectory to be followed by the follower aircraft as a function of the future overshoots (see Robin para[0137] The control module 6 receives an item of information in respect of passage to a new search segment SRn and commands such a change of trajectory so as to avoid the discomfort zone ZI).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Robin’s method and device for controlling trajectory of a follower aircraft in order to allow for Lebas’s assessing, with respect to the second trajectory , future overshoots of the phantom aircraft by calculate safety position PS based on optimal position PO in order to allow for to maintain a constant spacing between follower and lead aircraft to avoid collision (see Lebas para[0002]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over US20190310642A1 to Robin et al. (herein after “Robin”) in view of Induced moment effects of formation flight using two F/A-18 Aircraft to Hansen et al. (herein after “Hansen”), EP 3438949 A1 to Lebas et al. (herein after “Lebas”) and WO2017161304A1 to Frolov et al. (Frolov).
Regarding claim 4, Robin, Hansen and Lebas remain applied as Claim 1. However, Robin does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach when the assessed future overshoots become greater than or equal in magnitude to the threshold TH_os, the system is further configured to make a tactical decision to move the follower aircraft away from the wake vortex so as to place the follower aircraft at a minimum distance from the wake vortex at which an impact of the wake vortex on the follower aircraft is null. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Frolov teaches when the assessed future overshoots become greater than or equal in magnitude to the threshold TH_os, the system is further configured to make a tactical decision to move the follower aircraft away from the wake vortex so as to place the follower aircraft at a minimum distance from the wake vortex at which an impact of the wake vortex on the follower aircraft is null (see FroLov figure 4, para[00101] Figure 4 shows spanwise separation 425 along the Y axis between an aircraft 410 and an aircraft 420 in a dual formation 400. Similarly, Figure 5 shows vertical separation 525 along the Z axis between an aircraft 510 and an aircraft 520 in a dual formation 500. While the X distance in a close formation may be relatively large (ranging between 1 and 100 wingspans), the Y and Z distances should be relatively small, i.e., less than a single wing span or a fraction of a wingspan).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Robin’s method and device for controlling trajectory of a follower aircraft in order to allow for Frolov’s spin wise separation in order to allow for to significantly reduce the aerodynamic drag and increase lift for the aircraft in formation (see Frolov para[0003]).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over US20190310642A1 to Robin et al. (herein after “Robin”) in view of Induced moment effects of formation flight using two F/A-18 Aircraft to Hansen et al. (herein after “Hansen”), EP 3438949 A1 to Lebas et al. (herein after “Lebas”) and US20200064866A1 to Landers et al. (herein after “Landers”).
Regarding claim 5, Robin, Hansen and Lebas remain applied as Claim 1. However, Robin does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach despite the tactical decision to move the follower aircraft away from the wake vortex so as to place the follower aircraft at a minimum distance from the wake vortex at which an impact of the wake vortex on the follower aircraft is null, the system is further configured to detect that the follower aircraft is approaching the potential discomfort window below a distance threshold TH_cr, and to make a tactical decision to perform an evasive maneuver. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Landers teaches despite the tactical decision to move the follower aircraft away from the wake vortex so as to place the follower aircraft at a minimum distance from the wake vortex at which an impact of the wake vortex on the follower aircraft is null, the system is further configured to detect that the follower aircraft is approaching the potential discomfort window below a distance threshold TH_cr, and to make a tactical decision to perform an evasive maneuver (see Landers para[0021] Plural predicted trajectories are calculated, each representing a different escape route that will avoid a hazard when the threshold or trigger point for that hazard is reached; para[0022] In this event, the protection system automatically deploys an autopilot mechanism to take evasive action to avoid the hazard condition).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Robin’s method and device for controlling trajectory of a follower aircraft in order to allow for Landers’s decision to way from the wake vortex in order to allow to identify a wake conflict; and maneuvering the subject aircraft based on the wake conflict (see Landers para[0013]).
Regarding claim 6, Robin, Hansen and Lebas remain applied as Claim 1. However, Robin does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach wherein the evasive maneuver involves diving in order to join a lower flight level. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Landers teaches wherein the evasive maneuver involves diving in order to join a lower flight level (see Landers at least para In general, the algorithms described herein predict the motion path of the wake of the intruder aircraft. The wake moves in time so it is a four-dimensional problem. In addition to predicting where in space the wake will be, the algorithms predict when in time the wake will be in that spot. Any segment of the wake has 5 characteristics: it has a width and a height that grows over time, an intensity that dissipates over time, and a lateral and vertical position that follows the wind and moves downward below the original path).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Robin’s method and device for controlling trajectory of a follower aircraft in order to allow for Landers’s decision to way from the wake vortex in order to allow to identify a wake conflict; and maneuvering the subject aircraft based on the wake conflict (see Landers para[0013]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over US20190310642A1 to Robin et al. (herein after “Robin”) in view of Induced moment effects of formation flight using two F/A-18 Aircraft to Hansen et al. (herein after “Hansen”), EP 3438949 A1 to Lebas et al. (herein after “Lebas”) and US6950037 B1 to Clavier et al. (herein after “Clavier”).
Regarding claim 7, Robin, Hansen and Lebas remain applied as Claim 1. However, Robin does not expressly disclose or otherwise teach each trajectory is determined by the following steps: time discretization of the trajectory according to a predefined time step, by assessing a total available prediction time corresponding to a time that is supposed to elapse in order for the follower aircraft to substantially cover a distance corresponding to the wake vortex already formed between the leader aircraft and a current position of the follower aircraft to be considered, so as to define iterative microcycles. Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Clavier teaches each trajectory is determined by the following steps: time discretization of the trajectory according to a predefined time step, by assessing a total available prediction time corresponding to a time that is supposed to elapse in order for the follower aircraft to substantially cover a distance corresponding to the wake vortex already formed between the leader aircraft and a current position of the follower aircraft to be considered, so as to define iterative microcycles; and, for each iterative microcycle: predicting a future state of the follower aircraft from a current state of the follower aircraft and modelling of the follower aircraft; predicting a position of the follower aircraft relative to a geodetic reference frame; and predicting positions of the follower aircraft relative to the wake vortex and law feedback ( See Clavler at least [ column 5, line 35 -47] (16) FIG. 4 represents a process 400 for determining that data for a particular aircraft has become unavailable and therefore the trajectory must be extrapolated. It determines when aircraft are sending outdated ADS-B messages and predicts their trajectories based on their last known status. It starts with a step 401. A step 402 initializes the process with a first aircraft in a list. A step 403 chooses the next aircraft to process in a program loop. A step 404 calculates the delta-time. A test 405 sees if the delta-time exceeds the sequence update time. If so, a step 406 predicts the future trajectory. A step 407 sets current state, current pathway and pathway leg to the predicted ones. A test 408 sees if the loop has finished. A step 409 increments the loop index).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to combine Robin’s method and device for controlling trajectory of a follower aircraft in order to allow for Clavler’s time discretization of the trajectory according to a predefined time step, total available prediction time in order to allow to improve the communication, navigation and surveillance services in aircraft operation (see Clavler para [column 5 lines 35-37).
Conclusion
The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs (or upon request, columns and line numbers) in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed Invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NAZIA AFRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-6.
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, Scott A Browne can be reached at 5712700151. 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.
/NAZIA AFRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666