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 .
This is in response to the correspondence received on 7/28/2025.
It is noted the PRO 63/223417 and application 17/864974 (present application is related as CIP of 17/864974) do not appear to provide support for the claims in the present application, especially limitations involving at least one processor and computational tools for designing an aircraft. Therefore, the effective filing date of the present application is 1/25/2024.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-14, and Species 2 (Figure 12B) from Group II, in the reply filed on 7/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Therefore Claims 15-20 are drawn to non-elected invention, and Figure 12A is drawn to a non-elected species.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3 “an aircraft requirements compliance check, and performing an iteration with updated geometry and engine thrust levels if the compliance check fails”, “the compliance check fails” is believed to be in error for -- the aircraft requirements compliance check fails -- .
In claim 3 “updated geometry and engine thrust levels” is believed to be in error for -- updated aircraft geometry and updated engine thrust levels --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11, 13-14 and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1: in the limitation “a particular aircraft” in line 6, it is unclear if the particular aircraft is the same as “an aircraft” in line 1 of the claim or a different aircraft.
Claim 1: in the limitation “Top-level Aircraft Requirements”, it is unclear what the definition of this limitation is intended to be. The term does not have an ordinary and customary meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art; the specification paragraph [0092] mentions Top-Level Aircraft Requirements and appears to further refer to 520-b, it shows examples, and indicates what it is not, but no actual definition is provided, making it impossible to determine when infringement would occur.
Claim 1: in the limitation “a particular aircraft” in line 8, it is unclear if the particular aircraft is the same as “an aircraft” in line 1 of the claim or a different aircraft, and it is also unclear if the aircraft in line 8 is the same or a different aircraft that the “a particular aircraft” in line 6.
Claim 2: in the recitation “the at least cryogenic fuel tank size based on propulsion and energy parameters”, it is unclear what “the propulsion and energy parameters” are. The specification Paragraph [0094] mentions the propulsion and energy parameters, and it shows examples but no actual definition is provided, making it impossible to determine when infringement would occur.
Claim 4: regarding the limitation “a cryogenic fuel tank”, it is unclear if it refers to the same a cryogenic fuel tank of claim 1, or a different cryogenic fuel tank.
Claim 5: the limitation “a typical mission” does not properly define what limitations of the claim are. The term does not have an ordinary and customary meaning to those of ordinary skill in the art; paragraph [0030] of the specification indicates that “a typical mission” is shorter than the maximum range capability of the aircraft, but no further information regarding specific distances, or operational environments or other specific information is provided, making it impossible to determine when infringement might occur.
Claim 6 recites he limitation “the regulatory fuel reserves”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7: in “an aircraft, a cryogenic fuel tank” it is unclear if and how “an aircraft” is related to “an aircraft” of claim 1 , and if and how “a cryogenic fuel tank” is related to “a cryogenic fuel tank” of claim 1
Claim 7: in the limitation “a particular aircraft” it is unclear if the particular aircraft is related to “an aircraft” recited earlier in the claim, and also how it relates to “an aircraft of claim 1.
Claim 8: in the limitation “a particular aircraft” in line 7, it is unclear if the particular aircraft is the same as “an aircraft” in line 1 of the claim or a different aircraft.
Claim 8: in the limitation “a particular aircraft” in line 9, it is unclear if the particular aircraft is the same as “an aircraft” in line 1 of the claim or a different aircraft, and it is also unclear if the aircraft in line 9 is the same or a different aircraft that the “a particular aircraft” in line 7.
Claim 11: regarding the limitation “a cryogenic fuel tank”, it is unclear if it refers to the same a cryogenic fuel tank of claim 8, or a different cryogenic fuel tank.
Claim 13 recites he limitation “the regulatory fuel reserves”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14: in “an aircraft, a cryogenic fuel tank” it is unclear if and how “an aircraft” is related to “an aircraft” of claim 8 , and if and how “a cryogenic fuel tank” is related to “a cryogenic fuel tank” of claim 8
Claim 14: in the limitation “a particular aircraft” it is unclear if the particular aircraft is related to “an aircraft” recited earlier in the claim, and also how it relates to “an aircraft of claim 8.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the Specification does not provide a meaning for terms rejected under 112(b) above, including the limitation “Top-level Aircraft Requirements” in claim 1, “a typical mission” in claim 5. The specification objected for failure to provide clear support under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvath “Comparison of Aircraft Conceptual Design Weight Estimation Methods to the Flight Optimization System” - NASA 20190000431 (Publication Date: January 8, 2018) in view of Nusseler 20250206458.
Regarding claim 1, Hovath teaches:
A process for designing an aircraft (Hovath teaches, inter alia, the use of FLOPS and publicly available methos used in aircraft design, Roskam and Raymer: “aircraft conceptual design process. The Flight Optimization System (FLOPS) is an aircraft conceptual design tool that has been the primary aircraft synthesis software used by the Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate at NASA Langley Research Center. – page 1, abstract, “examines several popular, publicly available weight estimation methods and compares them to the methods in NASA Flight Optimization System (FLOPS)” page 1, I. Introduction; pages 2-3) comprising:
obtaining operational data defining missions ranges requirements (inter alia, detailed mission performance analysis, and cost analysis (page 2, II, A.), fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II, A);
operating at least one processor (inter alia, FLOPS is a single computer program with an execution control module that executes eight other modules - page 2, II, A.) providing an automated aircraft sizing computational tool (inter alia, FLOPS) based on the defined missions ranges requirements (If the gross weight is specified, the mission fuel is calculated and FLOPS performs the mission analysis and estimates the range”, page 2, II, A), tanks sizing logic (FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II, A), Top-Level Aircraft Requirements (inter alia, takeoff and landing performance analysis, page 2, II, A), and aircraft geometry and engine thrust levels (weights analysis, aerodynamics analysis, engine cycle analysis, propulsion data scaling and interpolation, detailed mission performance analysis, takeoff and landing performance analysis, noise footprint analysis, and cost analysis, page 2, II, A), to iteratively develop at least fuel tank size for a particular aircraft (FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II, A); and
configuring a fuel tank based on the developed at least fuel tank size for a particular aircraft (weight, the number of engines scaled for distributed propulsion if applicable, and the maximum Mach number, FLOPS page 9 III F; and fuel system weight estimation method is a function of the total fuel volume, the volume of any integral tanks, the volume of any self-sealing protected tanks, and the overall number of tanks, page 9, III, F).
Hovath teaches the development and configuration of fuel tanks but is silent about the tanks being cryogenic.
However, Nusseler teaches an aircraft architecture (title) with a dual fuel propulsion system (abstract), using kerosene and cryogenic fuel [0028], and:
cryogenic fuel tank (“the required fuel storage for the mission can be limited to the actual flight time which is reducing the weight and volume of the cryogenic fuel tank significantly” [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hovath with Nusseler's teachings discussed above, providing cryogenic fuel tanks in order to have an aircraft “capable of performing a flight mission during which the first or the second selectively useable” (abstract) and “reducing the weight and volume of the cryogenic fuel tank significantly” [0028].
Regarding claim 2, Hovath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Hovath further teaches:
The process of claim 1 wherein operating further comprises developing the at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as already discussed) based on propulsion (inter alia, engine cycle analysis, propulsion data scaling and interpolation, detailed mission performance analysis, takeoff and landing performance analysis, noise footprint analysis, page 2 II. A; “FLOPS fuel system weight includes the weight of fuel tanks and necessary plumbing. It is calculated from the aircraft maximum fuel capacity in terms of weight, the number of engines scaled for distributed propulsion if applicable, and the maximum Mach number.” Page 9, III, F) and energy parameters (If the range is specified instead of the gross weight, FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II. A.).
Regarding claim 3, Hovath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Hovath further teaches:
The process of claim 1 wherein operating further comprises developing the at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as discussed above) based on an aircraft requirements compliance check (“weight estimation for a fuel system with integral tanks uses the provided Torenbeek method and is based on the number of engines, number of separate fuel tanks, the mission fuel weight (including reserves), and the specific weight of the fuel used”, Page 9, III, F, Roskam), and performing an iteration (If the range is specified instead of the gross weight, FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II. A) with updated geometry (based upon the aircraft geometry) and engine thrust levels (inter alia, engine cycle analysis, propulsion data scaling and interpolation, detailed mission performance analysis, takeoff and landing performance analysis, noise footprint analysis, and cost analysis, page 2, II. A) if the compliance check fails (If the range is specified instead of the gross weight, FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II. A, where a fuel requirement comprises reserve fuel in order to meet compliance checks.).
Regarding claim 4, Hovath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Hovath teaches the development of fuel tanks and Hovath in view of Nusseler, as disused above, teaches the development of cryogenic fuel tanks, but Hovath in view of Nusseler, as discussed so far, is silent about both cryogenic fuel tank and non-cryogenic fuel tanks at the same time as claimed
However, Nusseler teaches:
both a cryogenic fuel tank (the cryogenic fuel tank [0028]) and a non-cryogenic fuel tank (kerosene fuel tanks [0028]). Nusseler teaches “The proposed aircraft architecture is using a dual fuel engine technology in combination with the required dual fuel system and fuel tanks system to reduce significantly the weight and required space impact of hydrogen tanks and fuel systems for an aircraft” [0030].
Regarding claim 5, Hovath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Hovath further teaches:
The process of claim 1 wherein the operating produces the at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as already discussed) for a typical mission (the range is specified, page 2, II. A).
Regarding claim 6, Hovath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1.
Hovath further teaches:
operating produces a fuel tank size to provide energy for the regulatory fuel reserves (“weight estimation for a fuel system with integral tanks uses the provided Torenbeek method and is based on the number of engines, number of separate fuel tanks, the mission fuel weight (including reserves), and the specific weight of the fuel used”, Page 9, III, F, Roskam) and for a design range mission (the mission fuel weight (including reserves)”, Page 9, III, F, Roskam).
Hovath in view of Nusseler teaches operating produces fuel tank size but does nto explicitly teach the tank is a non-cryogenic tank.
However, Nusseler teaches:
operating produces a non-cryogenic fuel tank size to provide energy (the reserve fuel is hardly used during a usual flight mission profile, it is allocated to the kerosene fuel tanks [0028]) for the regulatory fuel reserves (Final reserve fuel is the minimum fuel required to fly for 45 minutes at 1,500 feet above the alternate aerodrome or, if an alternate is not required, at the destination aerodrome at holding speed in ISA conditions [0026]) and for a design range mission (An essential aspect of the invention is the design of such a system on the basis of an intended mission [0027], For a given 300 nm mission this quantity already presents a significant volume of more than 50% of the total required fuel quantity of a mission [0028]),
Regarding claim 7, Hovath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 1. Hovath further teaches:
The process of claim 1 further including manufacturing (Manufacturers use the resulting weight and performance estimates to plan budgets and schedules for production projects, page 1 Introduction) and installing in or integrating into an aircraft, a cryogenic fuel tank (as discussed for claim 1) based on the developed at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as discussed for claim 1) for a particular aircraft (The success of a production project depends heavily on the quality of the conceptual design phase analyses, page 1 Introduction).
Regarding claim 8, Hovath teaches:
An aircraft (aircraft conceptual design, title) having a right sized fuel tank, produced based on a process (Hovath teaches, inter alia, the use of FLOPS and publicly available methos used in aircraft design, Roskam and Raymer: “aircraft conceptual design process. The Flight Optimization System (FLOPS) is an aircraft conceptual design tool that has been the primary aircraft synthesis software used by the Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate at NASA Langley Research Center. – page 1, abstract, “examines several popular, publicly available weight estimation methods and compares them to the methods in NASA Flight Optimization System (FLOPS)” page 1, I. Introduction; pages 2-3); Manufacturers use the resulting weight and performance estimates to plan budgets and schedules for production projects, Page 1, I. Introduction) comprising:
obtaining operational data defining missions ranges requirements (inter alia, detailed mission performance analysis, and cost analysis (page 2, II, A.), fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II, A);
operating at least one processor (inter alia, FLOPS is a single computer program with an execution control module that executes eight other modules - page 2, II, A.) providing an automated aircraft sizing computational tool (inter alia, FLOPS) based on the defined missions ranges requirements (If the gross weight is specified, the mission fuel is calculated and FLOPS performs the mission analysis and estimates the range”, page 2, II, A), tank sizing logic (FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II, A), Top-Level Aircraft Requirements (inter alia, takeoff and landing performance analysis, page 2, II, A), and aircraft geometry and engine thrust levels (weights analysis, aerodynamics analysis, engine cycle analysis, propulsion data scaling and interpolation, detailed mission performance analysis, takeoff and landing performance analysis, noise footprint analysis, and cost analysis, page 2, II, A), to iteratively develop at least fuel tank size for a particular aircraft (FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II, A); and configuring a fuel tank based on the developed at least cryogenic fuel tank size for a particular aircraft (weight, the number of engines scaled for distributed propulsion if applicable, and the maximum Mach number, FLOPS page 9 III F; and fuel system weight estimation method is a function of the total fuel volume, the volume of any integral tanks, the volume of any self-sealing protected tanks, and the overall number of tanks, page 9, III, F).
Hovath teaches an aircraft conceptual design having a fuel tank as discussed above, but is silent about the aircraft having a right sized cryogenic fuel tank.
However, Nusseler teaches an aircraft architecture (title) with a dual fuel propulsion system (abstract), using kerosene and cryogenic fuel [0028], and:
An aircraft (Fig. 1a) having a right sized (fuel storage tanks host the required fuel for the flight mission plus reserve fuel, Abstract) cryogenic fuel tank (liquid hydrogen fuel, abstract)
cryogenic fuel tank (“the required fuel storage for the mission can be limited to the actual flight time which is reducing the weight and volume of the cryogenic fuel tank significantly” [0028]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hovath with Nusseler's teachings discussed above, in order to have an aircraft “capable of performing a flight mission during which the first or the second selectively useable” (abstract) and “reducing the weight and volume of the cryogenic fuel tank significantly” [0028].
Furthermore, regarding the limitation “produced based on a process comprising: obtaining operational data defining missions ranges requirements; operating at least one processor providing an automated aircraft sizing computational tool based on the defined missions ranges requirements, tank sizing logic, Top-Level Aircraft Requirements, and aircraft geometry and engine thrust levels, to iteratively develop at least cryogenic fuel tank size for a particular aircraft; and configuring a cryogenic fuel tank based on the developed at least cryogenic fuel tank size for a particular aircraft”, MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims states: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 9, Hovath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 8. Hovath further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 8 wherein operating further comprises developing the at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as already discussed) based on propulsion (inter alia, engine cycle analysis, propulsion data scaling and interpolation, detailed mission performance analysis, takeoff and landing performance analysis, noise footprint analysis, page 2 II. A; “FLOPS fuel system weight includes the weight of fuel tanks and necessary plumbing. It is calculated from the aircraft maximum fuel capacity in terms of weight, the number of engines scaled for distributed propulsion if applicable, and the maximum Mach number.” Page 9, III, F) and energy parameters (If the range is specified instead of the gross weight, FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II. A.).
Regarding claim 10, Hovath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 8. Hovath further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 8 wherein operating further comprises developing the at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as discussed above) based on an aircraft requirements compliance check (“weight estimation for a fuel system with integral tanks uses the provided Torenbeek method and is based on the number of engines, number of separate fuel tanks, the mission fuel weight (including reserves), and the specific weight of the fuel used”, Page 9, III, F, Roskam), and performing an iteration (If the range is specified instead of the gross weight, FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II. A) with updated geometry (based upon the aircraft geometry) and engine thrust levels (inter alia, engine cycle analysis, propulsion data scaling and interpolation, detailed mission performance analysis, takeoff and landing performance analysis, noise footprint analysis, and cost analysis, page 2, II. A) if the compliance check fails (If the range is specified instead of the gross weight, FLOPS will perform the mission analysis and iterate until the mission fuel matches the fuel required to meet the minimum range constraint, page 2, II. A, where a fuel requirement comprises reserve fuel in order to meet compliance checks).
Regarding claim 11, Hovath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 8. Hovath teaches the development of fuel tanks and Hovath in view of Nusseler, as disused above, teaches the development of cryogenic fuel tanks, but Hovath in view of Nusseler, as discussed so far, is silent about both cryogenic fuel tank and non-cryogenic fuel tanks at the same time as claimed
However, Nusseler teaches:
The aircraft of claim 8 wherein the operating develops sizes for both a cryogenic fuel tank (the cryogenic fuel tank [0028]) and a non-cryogenic fuel tank (kerosene fuel tanks [0028]). Nusseler teaches “The proposed aircraft architecture is using a dual fuel engine technology in combination with the required dual fuel system and fuel tanks system to reduce significantly the weight and required space impact of hydrogen tanks and fuel systems for an aircraft” [0030]).
Regarding claim 12, Hovath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 8. Hovath further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 8 wherein the operating produces the at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as already discussed) for a typical mission (the range is specified, page 2, II. A).
Regarding claim 13, Hovath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 8.
Hovath further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 8 wherein the operating produces fuel tank size to provide energy for the regulatory fuel reserves (“weight estimation for a fuel system with integral tanks uses the provided Torenbeek method and is based on the number of engines, number of separate fuel tanks, the mission fuel weight (including reserves), and the specific weight of the fuel used”, Page 9, III, F, Roskam) and for a design range mission (the mission fuel weight (including reserves)”, Page 9, III, F, Roskam).
Hovath in view of Nusseler teaches operating produces fuel tank size but does nto explicitly teach the tank is a non-cryogenic tank.
However, Nusseler teaches:
operating produces a non-cryogenic fuel tank size to provide energy (the reserve fuel is hardly used during a usual flight mission profile, it is allocated to the kerosene fuel tanks [0028]) for the regulatory fuel reserves (Final reserve fuel is the minimum fuel required to fly for 45 minutes at 1,500 feet above the alternate aerodrome or, if an alternate is not required, at the destination aerodrome at holding speed in ISA conditions [0026]) and for a design range mission (An essential aspect of the invention is the design of such a system on the basis of an intended mission [0027], For a given 300 nm mission this quantity already presents a significant volume of more than 50% of the total required fuel quantity of a mission [0028]),
Regarding claim 14, Hovath in view of Nusseler teaches the invention as discussed for claim 8. Hovath further teaches:
The aircraft of claim 8 further including manufacturing (Manufacturers use the resulting weight and performance estimates to plan budgets and schedules for production projects, page 1 Introduction) and installing in or integrating into an aircraft, a cryogenic fuel tank (as discussed for claim 1) based on the developed at least cryogenic fuel tank size (as discussed for claim 1) for a particular aircraft (The success of a production project depends heavily on the quality of the conceptual design phase analyses, page 1 Introduction).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Roberto T. Igue whose telephone number is (303)297-4389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/ROBERTO TOSHIHARU IGUE/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741