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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The examiner received amendments to the claims and arguments dated 09 March 2026 in response to the non-final rejection office action dated 08 December 2025 (hereinafter the document of concern when referencing “outstanding rejections”, “outstanding objections”, “prior office action”, or the like). No new matter was entered.
The examiner notes that the outstanding objection to claim 20 has been resolved by way of amendment. All outstanding claim objections are withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the examiner notes that applicant has amended the claim set to remove all instances of the language previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Therefore, the outstanding 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation no longer applies and is withdrawn.
Regarding outstanding prior art (35 U.S.C. 103) rejections, the examiner has reviewed applicant’s arguments but ultimately notes that arguments are moot as applicant has amended the claim language. For completeness, applicant appears to argue that the combination of references previously cited did not teach the invention recited in the independent claims. The examiner notes that new grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, using references previously provided by the examiner, are provided below. Put plainly, the examiner notes that the independent claims merely recite an obvious combination of a landing system disclosed by the primary art of note alongside an autonomous tug of the secondary art of note.
Status of Claims
The most recent revision of the claim set is dated 09 March 2026. Claims 5 and 15 are cancelled. Claims 1, 11, and 21 are independent claims. Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-21 are pending and rejected, as described further below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, 16-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Burghardt et al. (US 2024/0144835 A1; filed 31 Oct 2023 claiming benefit of earlier-filed provisional application 63/420,914 filed 31 Oct 2022, hereinafter Burghardt) in view of Vidal Rojas et al. (US 2023/0303267 A1; filed 15 Feb 2023 claiming benefit of PCT application PCT/US21/47346, filed 24 Aug 2021, claiming benefit of earlier-filed provisional application filed 25 Aug 2020, hereinafter VR).
Regarding independent claims 1 (system), 11 (method), and 21 (system): Burghardt discloses A system comprising: (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0022, 0052] and Figure [4, 10], Burghardt discloses a system) / A method for controlling landing of an air mobility vehicle, the method comprising: (per claim 11) (Paragraph [0020, 0037, 0141, 0157-0160] and Figure [7-9], Burghardt discloses a method for controlling vertical takeoff and landing of aircraft such as a helicopter or drone (an air mobility vehicle, per instant application paragraph [0049])) / An airport configured to: (per claim 21) (Paragraph [0137] and Figure [6], Burghardt discloses an aerial facility (airport) with a configuration of components)
an air mobility vehicle configured to transmit a radio signal for determining a relative position of the air mobility vehicle in response to receiving a signal indicating that landing on a landing pad is permitted; and (per claim 1) / receiving a radio signal for determining a relative position of the air mobility vehicle, the radio signal being received from the air mobility vehicle in response to a signal indicating that landing on a landing pad of an airport is permitted; (per claim 11) / determine wither a landing pad of the airport is available based on receiving a signal indicating that landing on the landing pad is permitted; (per claim 21) (Paragraph [0049-0050, 0082, 0136, 0145-0148] and Figure [7-9], First regarding “permitting” the landing, Burghardt discloses that a provider may permit certain entities to even enter the facility (landing is “permitted” there). Further, Burghardt also discloses that control is based on inclusion of an authorization to maneuver the aircraft to a particular location (also considered that landing is “permitted” prior to the landing maneuver itself). Second regarding transmission of radio signals, Burghardt further discloses that the air vehicle transmits a radio signal used to determine positioning, as discussed further below)
an airport configured to receive the radio signal, determine the relative position of the air mobility vehicle, and transmit the relative position; (per claim 1) / receiving the relative position of the air mobility vehicle; (per claim 11) / receive a radio signal from an air mobility vehicle for determining a relative position of the air mobility vehicle, when it is determined that the landing pad is available; determine the relative position of the air mobility vehicle; and (per claim 21) (Paragraph [0129, 0133, 0137, 0145-0151] and Figure [4, 7], Burghardt discloses that radar reflectors positioned at the facility (thus, an “airport”, as it is a device at the airport) receives the transmitted signal and reflects radio signals. The computing system then calculates the position of the air vehicle in relation to the landing pad of the facility. The computing system may be located remotely from the aircraft, such as being included in a system of the aerial facility (airport, thus an airport). Finally, in figure [4], Burghardt discloses a plurality of networked subsystems that may generally be considered “airport” or “service providers”. Put more plainly, the aircraft transmits a radio signal (paragraph [0145]), the computing system (which is located at the aerial facility and not on the aircraft, as noted in paragraph [0137) receives the signals and determines the relative location of the aircraft (paragraphs [0146-0149]), and transmit instructions to the aircraft including a motion control instruction containing maneuvering information relative to the landing pad of interest (paragraph [0151]), confirmation that the relative location is within a threshold distance (paragraph [0129]), and indicating a relative location of the aircraft with respect to the particular landing pad (paragraph [0133]))
transmitting a command for allowing the air mobility vehicle to land in response to a determination that the air mobility vehicle is located within a predetermined range from the landing pad based on the relative position of the air mobility vehicle; and […] (per claim 11) (Paragraph [0129, 0132-0137] and Figure [4, 7-9], Burghardt discloses that during a landing procedure, the relative location of the aircraft with respect to the particular landing pad can include confirmation that the aircraft is within a threshold distance of the particular landing pad. A maneuver action/navigation instruction is initiated (transmission of a command) for the aircraft relative to the particular landing pad based on location. Finally, in figure [4], Burghardt discloses a plurality of networked subsystems that may generally be considered “airport” or “service providers”)
wherein the airport comprises a plurality of N numbers of receivers, each configured to receive the radio signal, […] (per claim 1) / […] wherein the airport comprises a plurality of N numbers of receivers, each receiving the radio signal; and […] (per claim 11) / […] wherein the airport comprises a plurality of N numbers of receivers, each configured to receive the radio signal, and […] (per claim 21) (Paragraph [0103, 0123], Burghardt discloses that the landing pad/airport facility contains one or more (N) radar reflectors/receivers (receivers as they receive a radio signal))
[…] wherein the air mobility vehicle is configured to: receive a command for allowing the air mobility vehicle to land vertically based on the relative position and based on determining that the air mobility vehicle is located within a predetermined range from the landing pad; and […] (per claim 1) (Paragraph [0002, 0090, 0129, 0132-0137] and Figure [4, 7-9], Burghardt discloses that during a landing procedure, the relative location of the aircraft with respect to the particular landing pad can include confirmation that the aircraft is within a threshold distance of the particular landing pad. A maneuver action/navigation instruction is initiated (transmission of a command) for the aircraft relative to the particular landing pad based on location. Per paragraph [0132] “The computing system 615 can initiate one or more actions 680 (e.g., a maneuver action for the aircraft) at the particular landing pad of the aerial facility 605 based on the absolute location 660 of the aircraft 620 and/or, in some implementation, the relative location 665 of the aircraft 620 with respect to the particular landing pad” and is further disclosed as providing an instruction to the aircraft (including landing); thus, the action and/or instruction is received by the aircraft. The aircraft is described as potentially being a VTOL aircraft to perform a vertical take-off and landing maneuver)
Burghardt discloses that the aerial facility comprises a motorized tug (Paragraph [0064] but does not explicitly state that it is autonomous or controlled by the airport facility.
However, VR, in a similar field of endeavor of airport support systems, teaches […] wherein the airport is configured to control a towing vehicle so that the towing vehicle moves passengers by autonomously driving from the landing pad to a boarding field or from the boarding field to the landing pad, and (per claim 1) / […] controlling a towing vehicle so that the towing vehicle moves passengers by autonomously driving from the landing pad to a boarding field or from the boarding field to the landing pad, […] (per claim 11) / […] control a towing vehicle so that the towing vehicle moves passengers by autonomously driving from the landing pad to a boarding field or from the boarding field to the landing pad, […] (per claim 21) (Paragraph [0096-0097, 0104-0108], VR teaches that during a landing phase, a base station (airport) receives information about a landing aircraft including a position, type of ground contacting structure, etc. The relevant information is transmitted to the autonomous tug to transport the aircraft to a target location (the terms analogous to landing pads and boarding fields))
and wherein the air mobility vehicle is configured to: […] transmit a request message requesting support for air mobility vehicle movement to the airport when the air mobility vehicle is unable to move to the boarding field on ground. (per claim 1) / […] receiving a request message requesting support for air mobility vehicle movement to the airport when the air mobility vehicle is unable to move to the boarding field on ground. (per claim 11) / […] wherein the airport receives a request message requesting support for the air mobility vehicle movement from the air mobility vehicle, when the air mobility vehicle is unable to move to the boarding field on a ground. (per claim 21) (Paragraph [0006, 0096-0097, 0104-0108], VR teaches that the aircraft sends information to the control system during the first phase of the landing (analogous to a support request/message) and processes the information to generate a set of commands for the tug to transport the aircraft from an origin to a target point. Regarding “when the air mobility vehicle is unable to move to the boarding field on ground” (and analogous), the examiner notes that VR also explicitly teaches elements of VTOL craft and states “As a result, they will not have powered landing gear and will be unable to independently locomote on skyport surfaces.” (Paragraph [0006]))
Burghardt and VR are in a similar field of endeavor of airport support systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Burghardt to explicitly include an autonomous tug to transport the aircraft as taught by VR (and by extension, the passengers within the craft) between locations, as Burghardt discloses that the airport comprises support vehicles such as tugs (Burghardt, Paragraph [0064]). Merely providing the addition of an autonomous tug is an obvious combination of known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Rationale to utilize an autonomous towing vehicle is taught by VR in order to cope with increased congestion (Paragraph [0007], VR) in addition to reducing human error (Paragraph [0008], VR). In summary, merely combining a known airport support system (Burghardt) with a known form of autonomous tug (VR) would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation for success, for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claims 2 and 12: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Burghardt in view of VR. Burghardt further discloses wherein the air mobility vehicle is configured to: transmit a signal requesting landing permission; and (per claim 2) / further comprising: receiving a signal requesting landing permission from the air mobility vehicle; and (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0132-0138, 0153], Burghardt discloses that the computing system can initiate actions, such as a navigation instruction for landing, a landing assistance instruction, and/or a motion control instruction, based upon receipt of data from the aircraft. The computing system can coordinate among aircraft to authorize certain aircraft to land in certain areas and other aircraft to land in other areas. The appearance of an aircraft in proximity of the facility to land constitutes the computer receiving a signal request for landing permission, such as through the received radio data)
receive the signal indicating that the landing on the landing pad is permitted based on information of the air mobility vehicle, wherein the information of the air mobility vehicle includes information to determine whether the landing on the landing pad is permitted. (per claim 2) / transmitting the signal indicating that the landing on the landing pad of the airport is permitted based on information of the air mobility vehicle, wherein the information of the air mobility vehicle includes information to determine whether the landing on the landing pad is permitted. (per claim 12) (Paragraph [0138-0140], Burghardt discloses that aircraft characteristics (information of the air vehicle) determined from aerial transport data contributes to actions that are authorized or not authorized based on landing maneuverability or other aircraft specifications. Further, Burghardt discloses the computer system being configured to coordinate maneuver actions based on size and maneuverability factors associated with the aircraft (such as larger aircraft to larger landing pads). Finally, Burghardt discloses certain parties having access to certain landing pads)
Regarding claims 6 and 16: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Burghardt in view of VR. Burghardt further discloses wherein the airport is configured to set one of the plurality of N numbers of receivers as a reference receiver and to calculate a first distance between the reference receiver and the air mobility vehicle. (per claim 6) / wherein one of the plurality of N numbers of receivers is set as a reference receiver, and wherein a first distance between the reference receiver and the air mobility vehicle is calculated. (per claim 16) (Paragraph [0093, 0103, 0123], Burghardt discloses that one reflector may be used. In this instance, it is a “reference receiver”. The computing system calculates the distance between the aircraft and each (in this case, the only) reflector)
Regarding claims 7 and 17: Parent claims 6 and 16 are unpatentable over Burghardt in view of VR. Burghardt further discloses wherein the airport is configured to calculate a second distance to an N-th distance respectively corresponding to distances between the air mobility vehicle and receivers other than the reference receiver among the plurality of N numbers of receivers. (per claim 7) / wherein a second distance to an N-th distance respectively corresponding to distances between the air mobility vehicle and the receivers other than the reference receiver among the plurality of N number of receivers are calculated. (per claim 17) (Paragraph [0024, 0093, 0103, 0123], Burghardt discloses that the computing system calculates distance between the aircraft and the plurality of radar reflectors, thus at least a second distance to an N-th (where N is at least 2) distance)
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burghardt in view of VR in further view of Adolf et al. (US 2021/0375146 A1; hereinafter Adolf).
Regarding claims 3 and 13: Parent claims 2 and 12 are unpatentable over Burghardt in view of VR. Burghardt discloses the signal indicating landing permission as discussed in parent claims. However, Burghardt does not explicitly disclose a determination that a landing pad is available in the manner recited.
However, Adolf, in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic control systems and methods, teaches wherein the airport is configured to determine whether the landing pad is available when the signal indicating that the landing is permitted is received. (per claim 3) / further comprising: after transmitting the signal indicating that the landing on the landing pad of the airport is permitted, requesting a determination of whether the landing pad is available from the airport; and receiving a result of a determination of whether the landing pad is available from the airport. (per claim 13) (Paragraph [0018-0019, 0028, 0033, 0036], Adolf teaches that a safe landing request is made and that the system detects a state of the vertiport’s landing sites to determine if the site is already occupied and/or obstructed)
Burghardt and Adolf are in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic control systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Burghardt with a determination as to the status of the landing pad as taught by Adolf in order to ensure that the landing site is clear and safe (Adolf, Paragraph [0017, 0019]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14: Parent claims 3 and 13 are unpatentable over Burghardt in view of VR in further view of Adolf. Burghardt further discloses wherein the airport is configured to determine the relative position of the air mobility vehicle with respect to the landing pad based on the radio signal received from the air mobility vehicle [in response to a result of the determination being that the landing pad is available]. (per claim 4) / further comprising requesting the relative position of the air mobility vehicle with respect to the landing pad from the airport [in response to the result of the determination of whether the landing pad is available being that the landing pad is available]. (per claim 14) (Paragraph [0002, 0022, 0129] and Figure [7], Burghardt discloses that the position of the air vehicle is calculated with respect to the landing pad when triggered by an event such as arriving in proximity to an aerial facility)
Burghardt does not explicitly disclose landing pad availability in the manner recited.
However, Adolf, in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic control systems and methods, teaches …in response to a result of the determination being that the landing pad is available. (per claim 4) / …in response to the result of the determination of whether the landing pad is available being that the landing pad is available. (per claim 14) (Paragraph [0018-0019, 0028, 0033, 0036, 0079], Adolf teaches that a safe landing request is made and that the system detects a state of the vertiport’s landing sites to determine if the site is already occupied and/or obstructed prior to continuing to access the destination vertiport)
Burghardt and Adolf are in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic control systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Burghardt with a determination as to the status of the landing pad as taught by Adolf in order to ensure that the landing site is clear and safe (Adolf, Paragraph [0017, 0019]).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burghardt in view of VR in further view of Posamentier (US 2007/0073513 A1; hereinafter Posamentier).
Regarding claims 8 and 18: Parent claims 7 and 17 are unpatentable over Burghardt in view of VR. Burghardt discusses the plurality of distances as described in parent claims, but is silent regarding determining positioning based on a difference in distances.
However, Posamentier, in a similar field of endeavor of radio signal based positioning/localization, teaches wherein the [airport] is configured to: calculate a first value that is a difference between the first distance and the second distance to a second value that is a difference between the first distance and the N-th distance; and determine the relative position based on the first value to the second value. (per claim 8) / wherein a first value that is a difference between the first distance and the second distance to a second value that is a difference between the first distance and the N-th distance are calculated, and wherein the relative position is determined based on the first value to the second value. (per claim 18) (Paragraph [0013, 0018, 0020], Posamentier teaches determining the location of an RFID (radio frequency identification) tag through multiple antennas using the difference in reception times to determine the relative distance between the tag and each antennae. Then, the difference in distance may be used to calculate the location of the RFID tag relative to the locations of the other antennas. Posamentier explicitly teaches a comparison of the difference in distances in paragraph [0018, 0020] rather than a comparison of distances to determine position)
Burghardt and Posamentier are in a similar field of endeavor of radio signal based positioning/localization. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Burghardt to utilize a comparison of difference in distances as taught by Posamentier for the benefit of accuracy of calculation of position at a lower cost (Posamentier, Paragraph [0001]).
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burghardt in view of VR in further view of Laughlin et al. (US 2018/0373246 A1; hereinafter Laughlin).
Regarding claims 9 and 19: Parent claims 1 and 11 are unpatentable over Burghardt in view of VR. Burghardt further discloses wherein the air mobility vehicle is configured to: [transmit a landing completion message] to the airport in response to a determination that the air mobility vehicle has landed on the landing pad; and move to the boarding field. (per claim 9) / further comprising [receiving a landing completion message] in response to a determination that the air mobility vehicle has landed on the landing pad and has moved to the boarding field. (per claim 19) (Paragraph [0044, 0048, 0136-0140], Burghardt discloses the air vehicle landing at an airport having a plurality of ground based locations, including landing/arrival and boarding)
Regarding transmission/receiving of a landing completion message, Burghardt does not explicitly disclose a landing completion message.
However, Laughlin, in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic control systems, teaches transmit a landing completion message (per claim 9) / receiving a landing completion message (per claim 19) (Paragraph [0093-0094], Laughlin teaches that an aircraft transmits/communicates that the aircraft has completed a landing phase and further that the aircraft has completed a taxi phase when it arrives at the gate)
Burghardt and Laughlin are in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic control systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Burghardt to include explicit disclosure of transmission of a landing completion message as taught by Laughlin in the interest of tracking air assets for safe management of the airspace and airports to prevent collisions and expedite and organize the flow of air traffic (Laughlin, Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20: Parent claim 9 is unpatentable over Burghardt in view of VR in further view of Laughlin. Parent claim 11 is unpatentable over Burghardt in view of VR. The examiner notes that claims 10 and 20 depend upon different parent claims (claim 10 depends upon claim 9 whereas claim 20 depends upon claim 11), however the claims contain analogous subject matter that may be grouped for a concise explanation provided below.
Burghardt further discloses that one or more vehicle positioning devices (motorized tugs) may be used at the facility (Paragraph [0064]), but does not explicitly disclose that the towing is controlled by the airport device, nor that the towing is in response to a message.
However, Laughlin, in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic control systems, teaches wherein the airport is configured to control the towing vehicle such that the air mobility vehicle is moved to the boarding field in response to the landing completion message being received and the request message requesting the support for air mobility vehicle movement being received from the air mobility vehicle. (per claim 10) / further comprising receiving a landing completion message in response to a determination that the air mobility vehicle has landed on the landing pad, wherein the landing completion message comprises a request message requesting assistance of the towing vehicle to move the air mobility vehicle to the boarding field. (per claim 20) (Paragraph [0068, 0093-0094], Laughlin teaches sending status updates such as landing completion messages, taxiing messages, arrival at gate messages, etc. Laughlin further teaches that a towing of the aircraft may be autonomous and may be in communication with a computing device (airport device) that may send a signal (message/request) to move toward the gate for towing operations when the aircraft has landed and is in the taxi phase)
Burghardt and Laughlin are in a similar field of endeavor of air traffic control systems. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the disclosure of Burghardt to include triggers (messages/requests) for control of ground assets in the interest of organizing allocation of resources and preparing service assets in a staggered manner to ensure that services are rendered as soon as the aircraft reaches a certain area, such as a gate (Laughlin, Paragraph [0069]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 BENJAMIN J BROSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571)272-4876. 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.
/B.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/JASON HOLLOWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights