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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/02/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 35 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: "a display operative coupled" appears to be a typographical error and likely should read "a display operatively coupled". Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7, 9-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gum et al. (US 2023/0288571 A1) in view of Lier et al. (US 10,749,252 B1) and further in view of GPS Block III (Wikipedia contributors. (2023, June 26). GPS Block III. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:56, January 8, 2026, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GPS_Block_III&oldid=1161985904 (Year: 2023)).
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 17, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teaches:
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: A global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal authentication system comprising: ([0139]: “determining the correct location of the GNSS receiver in the presence of GNSS spoofing”).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: a receive antenna configured to receive GNSS satellite signals ([0066]: “signal processing architecture 200 may receive signals GNSS1 and GNSS2 at a single radio frequency (RF) antenna 202”).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: including a first GNSS satellite signal and a second GNSS satellite signal from a single satellite ([0071]: “an SV in a GNSS constellation may transmit multiple GNSS signals at different carrier frequencies and/or frequency bands such as, for example, L1 and L2 frequency bands”).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: and a processor configured to compute a digital fingerprint based on a first digital signal and a second digital signal representing the first GNSS satellite signal and the second GNSS satellite signal, respectively, ([0073]: “sampled in-phase and quadrature components provided by ADCs 212 and 214 may be further processed according to a complex downconversion and digital baseband 216, which can be used to generate in-phase and quadrature components, and output pseudoranges derived from the GNSS signals”; [0120]: “a predicted frequency and a predicted code phase based on the non-GNSS position”).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: and determine that the first GNSS satellite signal and the second GNSS satellite signal are authentic based on the digital fingerprint, ([0134]: “If the GNSS receiver is already locked on to (e.g., tracking) GNSS signal 1010, the GNSS receiver will likely have valid time and ephemeris an may establish a window 1020 based the relative position of the satellite to the GNSS receiver (derived from time and ephemeris) within which the GNSS receiver tracks the GNSS signal”; [0140]: “signals causing such variations beyond the established threshold can be ignored” indicating authentic signals are within expected parameters).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: wherein the first digital signal and the second digital signal each include a ranging code that uniquely identifies a GNSS satellite ([0064]: “each satellite generally transmits at the same frequency but uses orthogonal coding such that different satellite signals may be detected and respective pseudoranges may be determined at the baseband”).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: that contemporaneously transmitted the first GNSS satellite signal and the second GNSS satellite signal ([0071]: satellites transmit multiple signals simultaneously from the same satellite at different frequencies).
Gum et al. (‘571) does not explicitly teach, but Lier et al. (‘252) teaches: from physically separate antennas of the GNSS satellite (Col. 1, lines 20-26: “Future global positioning system (GPS) spacecraft employ three different L-band antennas including earth coverage (EC), military earth coverage (MEC) and regional military protection (RMP) antennas to broadcast the full set of GPS L-band signals. Each antenna may have a separate phase and group delay center”).
GPS Block III further teaches: from physically separate antennas of the GNSS satellite (page 5: “In a major departure from previous GPS designs, the M-code is intended to be broadcast from a high-gain directional antenna, in addition to a wide angle (full Earth) antenna… Satellites will transmit two distinct signals from two antennas: one for whole Earth coverage, one in a spot beam”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the GNSS spoofing detection system of Gum et al. (‘571) to process signals transmitted from physically separate antennas as taught by Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Lier et al. (‘252) explicitly teaches that GPS Block III satellites were designed with multiple physically separate antennas (EC, MEC, RMP) specifically to broadcast the full set of GPS L-band signals (Col. 1, lines 20-23), and GPS Block III confirms these satellites transmit distinct signals from separate antennas for enhanced coverage. A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Gum et al. (‘571) already teaches receiving and processing multiple GNSS signals from the same satellite ([0071]), and GPS Block III satellites were already operational and transmitting signals from multiple antennas that existing GNSS receivers were designed to receive.
Regarding Claim 9, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teaches:
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: A global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal authentication method comprising: ([0172]: “A method of determining a mobile device location resistant to Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) spoofing”).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: receiving, by one or more processors, a first digital signal and a second digital signal, the first digital signal and the second digital signal each representing a first GNSS satellite signal and a second GNSS satellite signal, respectively, received from a GNSS satellite and including a ranging code that uniquely identifies the GNSS satellite, ([0066], [0071], [0064]: see analysis of Claim 1 above).
Gum et al. (‘571) does not explicitly teach, but Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teach: the first GNSS satellite signal and the second GNSS satellite signal transmitted contemporaneously from physically separate antennas onboard the GNSS satellite; (see analysis of Claim 1 above).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: computing, by the one or more processors, a digital fingerprint based on the first digital signal and the second digital signal; ([0073], [0074]: computing signal characteristics including code phase and frequency from digital signals).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: and determining, by the one or more processors, that the first GNSS satellite signal and the second GNSS satellite signal are authentic based on the digital fingerprint. ([0134], [0140]: determining authenticity based on whether signal characteristics fall within expected parameters).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the GNSS signal authentication method of Gum et al. (‘571) to process signals from physically separate antennas as taught by Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III for the same reasons and with the same reasonable expectation of success as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 17, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teaches:
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: A system comprising: a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receive antenna; ([0066]: “a single radio frequency (RF) antenna 202”).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: a processor; ([0073]: “complex downconversion and digital baseband 216” for processing; [FIG. 11]: “Processing Unit(s) 1130”).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: a display operatively coupled to the processor, ([FIG. 11]: “Output Device(s) 1150” which includes displays coupled to the processor in the mobile device).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: and a circuit configured to generate a first digital signal and a second digital signal from the receive antenna to the processor, the first digital signal and the second digital signal each representing a first GNSS satellite signal and a second GNSS satellite signal, respectively, received from a GNSS satellite and including a ranging code that uniquely identifies the GNSS satellite, ([0069]: “ADCs 212 and 214 may be adapted to sample output signals”; [0064], [0071]: see analysis of Claim 1 above).
Gum et al. (‘571) does not explicitly teach, but Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teach: the first GNSS satellite signal and the second GNSS satellite signal contemporaneously transmitted from physically separate antennas onboard the GNSS satellite, (see analysis of Claim 1 above).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: wherein the processor is configured to determine that the first GNSS satellite signal and the second GNSS satellite signal are authentic or not authentic based on the first digital signal and the second digital signal, ([0095]: “spoofing signals may be detected by a GNSS receiver”; [0134], [0140]).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: and cause the display to provide an indication that the first GNSS satellite signal and the second GNSS satellite signal are authentic or not authentic. ([FIG. 11]: mobile device with display outputs for providing results to users).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gum et al. (‘571) to process signals from physically separate antennas as taught by Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III for the same reasons and with the same reasonable expectation of success as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claims 2, 10, and 18, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teaches the system of claim 1.
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: wherein the digital fingerprint is a function of a measured relationship between a code phase of the first GNSS satellite signal and a code phase of the second GNSS satellite signal. ([0074]: “the other axis of search grid 250 is the code phase hypothesis (or code/time delay)”; [0073]: “the measurement may comprise a pseudorange, or a pseudorange and carrier phase”).
Regarding Claim 10, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teaches the method of claim 9.
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: wherein the digital fingerprint is a function of a first measured relationship between the first digital signal and the second digital signal, the first measured relationship being representative of a second measured relationship between a code phase of the first GNSS satellite signal and a code phase of the second GNSS satellite signal. ([0073], [0074]: see analysis of Claim 2 above).
Regarding Claim 18, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teaches the system of claim 17.
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: wherein the processor is further configured to compute a digital fingerprint as a function of a measured relationship between a code phase of the first digital signal and a code phase of the second digital signal, and the first digital signal and the second digital signal are determined to be authentic if the digital fingerprint is the same as an expected relationship between the first digital signal and the second digital signal for an orbital location of the GNSS satellite with respect to a location of the receive antenna. ([0119]: “an approximate location of a satellite relative to the mobile device can be determined from approximate position of the mobile device… time and/or time uncertainty, and/or ephemeris data for the satellite… Using this information, a GNSS receiver can determine the predicted frequency and code phase for a GNSS signal from the satellite”; [0134]: comparison of measured to expected values determines authenticity).
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III, as applied to claims 2 and 10 above, teaches the system of claim 2.
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: wherein the digital fingerprint is determined to be authentic if the measured relationship is the same as an expected relationship between the first GNSS satellite signal and the second GNSS satellite signal for an orbital location of the GNSS satellite with respect to a location of the receive antenna. ([0140]: “If the GNSS receiver is already locked on to (e.g., tracking) GNSS signal 1010, the GNSS receiver will likely have valid time and ephemeris an may establish a window 1020 based the relative position of the satellite to the GNSS receiver (derived from time and ephemeris)”).
Regarding Claim 11, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teaches the method of claim 10.
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: wherein the digital fingerprint is determined to be authentic if the measured relationship is the same as an expected relationship between the first digital signal and the second digital signal for an orbital location of the GNSS satellite with respect to a location of a receive antenna. ([0140]: see analysis of Claim 3 above).
Regarding Claims 4, 12, and 19, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III, as applied to claims 3, 11, and 18 above, teaches the system of claim 3.
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: wherein the expected relationship between the first GNSS satellite signal and the second GNSS satellite signal is based on satellite ephemeris and the location of the receive antenna relative to the orbital location of the GNSS satellite. ([0119]: “Ephemeris information may include long term ephemeris, regular ephemeris sent from a location server, and/or demodulated ephemeris for each satellite, and may be used to determine an approximate location of a given satellite, at a particular time. Using this information, a GNSS receiver can determine the predicted frequency and code phase for a GNSS signal from the satellite”).
Regarding Claim 12, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teaches the method of claim 11.
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: wherein the expected relationship between the first digital signal and the second digital signal is based on satellite ephemeris and the location of the receive antenna relative to the orbital location of the GNSS satellite. ([0119]: see analysis of Claim 4 above).
Regarding Claim 19, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teaches the system of claim 18.
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: wherein the expected relationship between the first digital signal and the second digital signal is based on satellite ephemeris and the location of the receive antenna relative to the orbital location of the GNSS satellite. ([0119]: see analysis of Claim 4 above).
Regarding Claim 7, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, teaches the system of claim 1.
Gum et al. (‘571) does not explicitly teach, but Lier et al. (‘252) teaches: wherein the first GNSS satellite signal is an Earth coverage M-code signal, and the second GNSS satellite signal is an RMP signal. (Col. 1, lines 20-23: “Future global positioning system (GPS) spacecraft employ three different L-band antennas including earth coverage (EC), military earth coverage (MEC) and regional military protection (RMP) antennas to broadcast the full set of GPS L-band signals”).
Gum et al. (‘571) does not explicitly teach , but GPS Block III further teaches: (page 5: “Satellites will transmit two distinct signals from two antennas: one for whole Earth coverage, one in a spot beam” regarding M-code transmission from separate antennas).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Earth coverage M-code and RMP signals as taught by Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III in the system of Gum et al. (‘571). A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Lier et al. (‘252) teaches that GPS Block III satellites were specifically designed to transmit signals from EC and RMP antennas (Col. 1, lines 20-23), and these signals were available for reception by compatible receivers. A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because GPS Block III satellites were already transmitting these specific signal types from their respective antennas, and GNSS receivers capable of processing M-code signals were known in the art.
Regarding Claim 15, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teaches the method of claim 9.
Gum et al. (‘571) does not explicitly teach, but Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teach: wherein the first GNSS satellite signal is an Earth coverage M-code signal and the second GNSS satellite signal is an RMP signal. (see analysis of Claim 7 above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the specific signal types in the method for the same reasons and with the same reasonable expectation of success as set forth in the rejection of Claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 16, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III, as applied to claim 9 above, teaches the method of claim 9.
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, that the first digital signal and the second digital signal are not authentic based on the digital fingerprint; ([0134]: “a spoofed signal 1030 (and some multipath signals with a very large error) can be ignored”).
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: and initiating one or more remedial actions. ([0134]: “Other location constraints may also be used to inform the size and location of the window 1020. In the case of vehicles, for example, these location restraints may comprise lane or road boundaries; buildings, obstacles, or other objects where vehicles cannot be (or are very unlikely to be) located”; [0138]: “the GNSS receiver can disregard the spoofed signal 1030” teaching that upon detecting spoofed signals, the system takes remedial action by disregarding those signals).
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gum et al. (US 2023/0288571 A1) in view of Lier et al. (US 10,749,252 B1) and GPS Block III, as applied to claims 3, 11, and 19 above, and further in view of Roberts (Everything the modern surveyor needs to know about multi-GNSS (and was too afraid to ask), 08/18/2019, https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/27564).
Regarding Claims 5, 13 and 20, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teaches the system of claim 3.
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: wherein the measured relationship and the expected relationship each represent a range difference between the first GNSS satellite signal and the second GNSS satellite signal, ([0073]: “output pseudoranges derived from the GNSS signals”).
Gum et al. (‘571) does not explicitly teach, but Roberts teaches: the range difference being scaled by a cosine of an arc angle between the location of the receive antenna and a point nadir of the GNSS satellite with respect to the location of the receive antenna. (page 4: “Position estimation performance is defined by the geometry of the satellite constellation along with how well the pseudo-random codes can be measured”). Geometric scaling factors including cosine relationships between satellite elevation and receiver position were well-known in GNSS positioning to account for signal path geometry.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gum et al. (‘571) to apply geometric scaling as taught by Roberts. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Roberts teaches that position estimation performance depends on satellite geometry (page 4), and applying geometric corrections was standard practice in GNSS signal processing to improve measurement accuracy. A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because geometric scaling based on satellite-receiver geometry was a well-established mathematical technique routinely applied in GNSS receivers at the time.
Regarding Claim 13, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252), GPS Block III, and Roberts teaches the method of claim 11 and system of claim 19, respectively.
Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Roberts teaches: wherein the measured relationship and the expected relationship each represent a range difference between the first digital signal and the second digital signal, the range difference being scaled by a cosine of an arc angle between the location of the receive antenna and a point nadir of the GNSS satellite with respect to the location of the receive antenna. (see analysis of Claim 5 above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method/system to apply geometric scaling for the same reasons and with the same reasonable expectation of success as set forth in the rejection of Claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 20 additional elements, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252), GPS Block III, and Roberts teaches the system of claim 19.
Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Roberts teaches: wherein the digital fingerprint and the expected relationship each represent a range difference between the first digital signal and the second digital signal, the range difference being scaled by a cosine of an arc angle between the location of the receive antenna and a point nadir of the GNSS satellite with respect to the location of the receive antenna, (see analysis of Claim 5 above).
Lier et al. (‘252) in view of Roberts teaches: and wherein the function of the measured relationship between the first digital signal and the second digital signal includes a differential code bias that is unique to the GNSS satellite. (see analysis of Claims 6 and 14 below).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system to incorporate geometric scaling and differential code bias for the same reasons and with the same reasonable expectation of success as set forth in the rejections of Claims 5 and 6 above.
Regarding Claim 6, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III, as applied to claims 3 and 11 above, teaches the system of claim 3.
Gum et al. (‘571) does not explicitly teach, but Lier et al. (‘252) teaches: wherein the function of the measured relationship between the first GNSS satellite signal and the second GNSS satellite signal includes a differential code bias that is unique to the GNSS satellite. (Col. 1, lines 25-27: “Each antenna may have a separate phase and group delay center, which can produce PNT errors if not suitably compensated”).
Gum et al. (‘571) does not explicitly teach the differential code bias, but Roberts teaches: (page 4: “Position estimation performance is defined by the geometry of the satellite constellation along with how well the pseudo-random codes can be measured which is dictated by time-delay estimation, carrier phase and doppler frequency measurement”). Differential code bias between signals transmitted from different antennas on the same satellite was a known characteristic in multi-frequency GNSS systems.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gum et al. (‘571) to account for differential code bias as taught by Lier et al. (‘252) and Roberts. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Lier et al. (‘252) explicitly teaches that each antenna on GPS satellites has separate phase and group delay centers that produce errors if not compensated (Col. 1, lines 25-27), indicating that accounting for such biases was recognized as important for accurate GNSS positioning. A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because differential code bias was an established parameter in GNSS systems that receivers were already designed to measure and compensate for.
Regarding Claim 14, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252), GPS Block III, and Roberts teaches the method of claim 11.
Gum et al. (‘571) does not explicitly teach, but Lier et al. (‘252) in view of Roberts teaches: wherein the function of the measured relationship between the first digital signal and the second digital signal includes a differential code bias that is unique to the GNSS satellite. (see analysis of Claim 6 above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method to account for differential code bias for the same reasons and with the same reasonable expectation of success as set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gum et al. (US 2023/0288571 A1) in view of Lier et al. (US 10,749,252 B1) and GPS Block III, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marmet (US 2020/0371247 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Gum et al. (‘571) in view of Lier et al. (‘252) and GPS Block III teaches the system of claim 1.
Gum et al. (‘571) teaches: further comprising a radio frequency (RF) receiver circuit coupled between the receive antenna and the processor, ([0066]: “SAW filter 204 and low-noise amplifier 206”; [0069]: ADCs for signal conversion).
Gum et al. (‘571) does not explicitly teach, but Marmet (‘247) teaches: the RF receiver circuit configured to convert the first GNSS satellite signal and the second GNSS satellite signal into the first digital signal and the second digital signal, respectively. ([0062]: “an RF chain 311, which is in charge of filtering, down converting and digitizing the RF signal. Down conversion of the signal consists in transposing it from the carrier frequency to baseband or intermediate frequency. Digitization is made by way of an ADC (acronym for Analog to Digital Converter)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gum et al. (‘571) to include the explicit RF chain configuration of Marmet (‘247). A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Marmet (‘247) teaches that filtering, downconversion, and digitization are standard operations performed by RF chains in GNSS receivers ([0062]), and such processing was necessary to prepare received signals for digital baseband processing. A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success because RF chains performing these functions were standard components in GNSS receivers at the time, as evidenced by both Gum et al. (‘571) and Marmet (‘247).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648