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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10 and 11, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 21 under 35 USC 112(a) and (b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. The rejection of 03/16/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 05/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-21 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the amendments to the claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bothwell et al. (US 20180292841, cited in previous applicant IDS).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irwin, III et al. (US 10877487, previously cited) in view of Bothwell et al. (US 20180292841, cited in applicant IDS) in view of Eglin (US 20180072411, previously cited).
Claim 1.
Irwin, III et al. teaches:
a data processing system comprising one or more processors
(Irwin – Col. 42, lines 43-46) “the method 1500 of FIG. 15 can be initiated or controlled by one or more processors, such as one or more processors included in a control system.”
receive, from a sensor, a velocity of an aerial vehicle along a vertical axis of a body of the aerial vehicle
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 37-44) “The target state may include, or correspond to, a target horizontal state (e.g., an airspeed hold state or an acceleration hold state). The aircraft velocity may include, or correspond to, the aircraft velocity 422 of FIG. 4 or the vertical velocity 534 of FIG. 5, and the pitch attitude deviation from the reference may include, or correspond to, the aircraft pitch attitude command 550 of FIG. 5”
receive, from at least one input device, a value for an angle between a longitudinal axis of the body and a trajectory of the aerial vehicle and an input to maneuver the aerial vehicle to have a non-zero pitch relative to a horizontal axis
(Irwin – Col. 10, lines 18-23) “The processing circuitry 408 is configured to generate a pitch attitude command 454 (e.g., an aircraft pitch attitude command) based on the predicted pitch attitude trim value 442 and one or more other inputs, such as a second pilot input 414 (e.g., a pitch maneuver input as illustrated in FIG. 4).”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 30-33) “The method 1500 includes, at 1502, generating a predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value for a target state of the aircraft based on an aircraft velocity and a pitch attitude deviation from a reference.”
(Irwin – Col. 30, lines 23-25) “the pitch attitude deviation from the reference may include, or correspond to, the aircraft pitch attitude command 550”
[Examiner’s Note: In a situation in which the aircraft vertical speed is 0, the pitch attitude command of the aircraft is equivalent to the angle between the longitudinal axis and the trajectory.]
generate a command for collective control of a pitch of blades of a rotor of the aerial vehicle based on a comparison of the velocity with the reference velocity
(Irwin – Col. 4, lines 55-58) “vertical acceleration is maintained at zero and rate of climb is maintained at a desired value, where the desired value of rate of climb/descent can be zero or non-zero”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 30-33) “The method 1500 includes, at 1502, generating a predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value for a target state of the aircraft based on an aircraft velocity and a pitch attitude deviation from a reference.”
[Examiner’s Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a target state of the aircraft would include a target vertical velocity.]
control, via an actuator, the pitch of the blades of the rotor in accordance with the command
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 46-49) “The method 1500 includes, at 1504, adjusting propulsor collective blade pitch angle of a propulsor of the aircraft based on the predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value.”
While Irwin, III et al. teaches a pilot input, Irwin, III et al. does not explicitly teach a user defined collective command. However, Bothwell et al. teaches:
one or more processors, coupled with memory
(Bothwell – [0056]) “a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program to be executed by the processor”
a second input to maneuver the aerial vehicle comprising a user defined collective command
(Bothwell – [0033]) “if the difference between the stick position and the position suggested or driven by the trim motor 209 and 213 is greater than a threshold, that the pilot is inputting a command or otherwise in control of the stick 231 and 233.”
[Examiner’s Note: The stick 233 in Bothwell et al. refers to a collective control stick.]
determine that the user defined collective command is within a range
(Bothwell – [0033]) “if the difference between the stick position and the position suggested or driven by the trim motor 209 and 213 is greater than a threshold, that the pilot is inputting a command or otherwise in control of the stick 231 and 233.”
[Examiner’s Note: The threshold taught by Bothwell et al. corresponds to the claimed range for the user defined collective command.]
responsive to detecting that the user defined collective control is within the range, generate a command for collective control of a pitch of blades of a rotor of the aerial vehicle based on a comparison of the velocity with the reference velocity
(Bothwell – [0019] “The pitch of each main rotor blade 105 may be controlled by a swashplate 107 in order to selectively control the attitude, altitude and movement of the rotorcraft 101.”
(Bothwell – [0033]) “the FCCs 205 provide a vertical speed hold capability when the collective stick 233 is ID.”
(Bothwell – [0035]) “The FCCs 205… will control the engines 115 and main rotor 103 to maintain the selected vertical speed.”
[Examiner’s Note: “ID” here is an abbreviation for “in detent”, that is, a situation in which the pilot is not inputting a command using the collective stick.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the pitch and thrust control system of Irwin, III et al. with the in-detent vertical speed hold functionality of Bothwell et al. Both Irwin, III et al. and Bothwell et al. involve vertical speed control of a helicopter; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this combination could be made with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this to assist in stabilization of the helicopter (Bothwell – [0002]).
Irwin, III et al. does not explicitly teach controlling an angle of attack; however, Eglin teaches:
receive, from at least one input device, a value for an angle between a longitudinal axis of the body and a trajectory of the aerial vehicle
(Eglin – [0025]) “the collective pitch of the blades may be controlled automatically so as to control a vertical air speed of the aircraft in such a manner as to maintain the aerodynamic angle of attack of the aircraft equal to a reference angle of attack”
determine a reference velocity of the aerial vehicle along the vertical axis to maintain the angle
(Eglin – [0025]) “the collective pitch of the blades may be controlled automatically so as to control a vertical air speed of the aircraft in such a manner as to maintain the aerodynamic angle of attack of the aircraft equal to a reference angle of attack”
control, via an actuator, the pitch of the blades of the rotor in accordance with the command to maintain the angle between the longitudinal axis of the body and the trajectory of the aerial vehicle while the aerial vehicle maneuvers based on the input
(Eglin – [0025]) “the collective pitch of the blades may be controlled automatically so as to control a vertical air speed of the aircraft in such a manner as to maintain the aerodynamic angle of attack of the aircraft equal to a reference angle of attack”
[Examiner’s Note: A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, in conditions with negligible wind, the angle of attack of an aircraft is the angle between the longitudinal axis of the aircraft body and the aircraft trajectory.]
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the pitch and thrust control system of Irwin, III et al. with the angle of attack control of Eglin. Irwin, III et al. teaches controlling a blade trim value based on a pitch attitude deviation and a vertical velocity, and Eglin teaches controlling the collective pitch to maintain a particular angle of attack; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the two teachings could be combined with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this in order to reduce pilot workload and minimize the drag on the aircraft (Eglin – [0019]).
Claim 2.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Bothwell et al., and Eglin teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. further teaches:
collectively control the pitch of the blades of the rotor in accordance with the command to maintain the constant angle between a trajectory of the aerial vehicle and the longitudinal axis of the body of the aerial vehicle
(Irwin – Col. 12, lines 64-66) “The pitch command model 506 generates the aircraft pitch attitude command 550 based on the selected pitch attitude trim value 546 and the pitch attitude input signal 548.”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 30-33) “The method 1500 includes, at 1502, generating a predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value for a target state of the aircraft based on an aircraft velocity and a pitch attitude deviation from a reference.”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 37-44) “The target state may include, or correspond to, a target horizontal state (e.g., an airspeed hold state or an acceleration hold state). The aircraft velocity may include, or correspond to, the aircraft velocity 422 of FIG. 4 or the vertical velocity 534 of FIG. 5, and the pitch attitude deviation from the reference may include, or correspond to, the aircraft pitch attitude command 550 of FIG. 5”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 46-49) “The method 1500 includes, at 1504, adjusting propulsor collective blade pitch angle of a propulsor of the aircraft based on the predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value.”
Claim 3.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Bothwell et al., and Eglin teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. further teaches:
compare the velocity to the reference velocity to determine an error between the velocity and the reference velocity
(Irwin – Col. 29, lines 42-47) “The speed select circuitry 508 generates the speed error signal 1040 based on subtracting the aircraft velocity 422 from the pitch independent speed command 1038 and applies the velocity error gain F(verr) to the speed error signal 1040 to generate the speed select mode acceleration command 552”
generate the command using the error
(Irwin – Col. 29, lines 42-47) “The speed select circuitry 508 generates the speed error signal 1040 based on subtracting the aircraft velocity 422 from the pitch independent speed command 1038 and applies the velocity error gain F(verr) to the speed error signal 1040 to generate the speed select mode acceleration command 552”
Claim 4.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Bothwell et al., and Eglin teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. further teaches:
the reference velocity is zero
(Irwin – Col. 4, lines 55-58) “vertical acceleration is maintained at zero and rate of climb is maintained at a desired value, where the desired value of rate of climb/descent can be zero or non-zero”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 37-44) “The target state may include, or correspond to, a target horizontal state (e.g., an airspeed hold state or an acceleration hold state). The aircraft velocity may include, or correspond to, the aircraft velocity 422 of FIG. 4 or the vertical velocity 534 of FIG. 5, and the pitch attitude deviation from the reference may include, or correspond to, the aircraft pitch attitude command 550 of FIG. 5”
the control of the pitch of the blades of the rotor in accordance with the command causes the velocity of the aerial vehicle along the vertical axis of the body of the aerial vehicle to approach zero
(Irwin – Col. 4, lines 55-58) “vertical acceleration is maintained at zero and rate of climb is maintained at a desired value, where the desired value of rate of climb/descent can be zero or non-zero”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 46-49) “The method 1500 includes, at 1504, adjusting propulsor collective blade pitch angle of a propulsor of the aircraft based on the predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value.”
Claim 5.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Bothwell et al., and Eglin teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 below, Irwin, III et al. teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
348
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: A diagram illustrating helicopter controls according to Irwin, III et al. (originally Irwin Fig. 2D)
the vertical axis of the body of the aerial vehicle is perpendicular with the longitudinal axis of the body of the aerial vehicle
As seen in Fig. 1, the vehicle has a longitudinal and a vertical axis, which are perpendicular to each other.
Claim 6.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Bothwell et al., and Eglin teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. further teaches:
receive a velocity of the aerial vehicle along the longitudinal axis of the body of the aerial vehicle
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 37-44) “The target state may include, or correspond to, a target horizontal state (e.g., an airspeed hold state or an acceleration hold state). The aircraft velocity may include, or correspond to, the aircraft velocity 422 of FIG. 4 or the vertical velocity 534 of FIG. 5, and the pitch attitude deviation from the reference may include, or correspond to, the aircraft pitch attitude command 550 of FIG. 5”
determine that the velocity is greater than a threshold
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 37-44) “The target state may include, or correspond to, a target horizontal state (e.g., an airspeed hold state or an acceleration hold state). The aircraft velocity may include, or correspond to, the aircraft velocity 422 of FIG. 4 or the vertical velocity 534 of FIG. 5, and the pitch attitude deviation from the reference may include, or correspond to, the aircraft pitch attitude command 550 of FIG. 5”
[Examiner’s Note: Holding an airspeed necessarily requires determining that the aircraft has exceeded the hold value, in order to determine when it must take steps to bring the aircraft back to the desired airspeed.]
collectively control the pitch of the blades of the rotor in accordance with the command responsive to a determination that the velocity is greater than the threshold
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 30-33) “The method 1500 includes, at 1502, generating a predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value for a target state of the aircraft based on an aircraft velocity and a pitch attitude deviation from a reference.”
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 46-49) “The method 1500 includes, at 1504, adjusting propulsor collective blade pitch angle of a propulsor of the aircraft based on the predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value.”
Claim 8.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Bothwell et al., and Eglin teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. further teaches:
receive data from a pitch sensor, the data indicating a pitch attitude of the aerial vehicle
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 30-33) “The method 1500 includes, at 1502, generating a predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value for a target state of the aircraft based on an aircraft velocity and a pitch attitude deviation from a reference.”
collectively control the pitch of the blades of the rotor in accordance with the command
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 46-49) “The method 1500 includes, at 1504, adjusting propulsor collective blade pitch angle of a propulsor of the aircraft based on the predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value.”
Irwin, III et al. does not explicitly teach a range of pitch attitudes; however, Eglin teaches:
compare the pitch attitude to a range of pitch attitudes to determine that the pitch attitude is within the range of pitch attitudes
(Eglin – [0054]) “out-of-range or dangerous values are not stored by bounding the reference angle of attack to a range of -4° to +4°, for example.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 9.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Bothwell et al., and Eglin teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. does not explicitly teach a back drive; however, Bothwell et al. further teaches:
determine a back drive to move an input device proportionally to a change in the pitch of the blades of the rotor indicated by the command, the input device to implement collective control of the pitch of the blades of the rotor
(Bothwell – [0029]) “The FCCs 205 generate the suggested collective stick position and send a corresponding suggested collective stick signal to the collective trim motors 213 to move the collective stick 233 to a particular position.”
operate an actuator of the input device to move the input device using the back drive
(Bothwell – [0029]) “The FCCs 205 generate the suggested collective stick position and send a corresponding suggested collective stick signal to the collective trim motors 213 to move the collective stick 233 to a particular position.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 10.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Bothwell et al., and Eglin teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. does not explicitly teach determining an input device position; however, Bothwell et al. teaches:
determine a position of an input device, the input device to implement collective control to change the pitch of the blades of the rotor
(Bothwell – [0029]) “The collective position sensors 215 detect the actual position of the collective stick 233 that is set by the collective trim motor 213 or input by the pilot”
determine that a user has not provided an input to the input device based on the position
(Bothwell – [0033]) “if the difference between the stick position and the position suggested or driven by the trim motor 209 and 213 is greater than a threshold, that the pilot is inputting a command or otherwise in control of the stick 231 and 233.”
collectively control the pitch of the blades of the rotor responsive to the determination that the user has not provided the input
(Bothwell – [0019] “The pitch of each main rotor blade 105 may be controlled by a swashplate 107 in order to selectively control the attitude, altitude and movement of the rotorcraft 101.”
(Bothwell – [0033]) “the FCCs 205 provide a vertical speed hold capability when the collective stick 233 is ID.”
(Bothwell – [0035]) “The FCCs 205… will control the engines 115 and main rotor 103 to maintain the selected vertical speed.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 11.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 12.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 13.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 3.
Claim 14.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim 15.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 5.
Claim 16.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim 17.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim 18.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 10.
Claim 19.
With respect to Fig. 1 above, Irwin, III et al. teaches:
A rotorcraft, comprising: processing circuitry
(Irwin – Col. 42, lines 43-46) “the method 1500 of FIG. 15 can be initiated or controlled by one or more processors, such as one or more processors included in a control system.”
As seen in Fig. 1 above, the aircraft is a rotorcraft.
The rest is rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 20.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 2.
Claim 21.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Eglin, and Gillett teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. further teaches:
receive, from the input device disposed within a cockpit of the aerial vehicle, an indication of a position a user moved the input device to, the position corresponding to the user defined collective command, the user defined collective command indicating a change to the pitch of the blades of the rotor of the aerial vehicle
(Bothwell – [0029]) “The FCCs 205 generate the suggested collective stick position and send a corresponding suggested collective stick signal to the collective trim motors 213 to move the collective stick 233 to a particular position.”
Irwin, III et al. does not explicitly teach a back drive; however, Bothwell et al. further teaches:
responsive to generating the command, determine a back drive that is proportional to the command
(Bothwell – [0029]) “The FCCs 205 generate the suggested collective stick position and send a corresponding suggested collective stick signal to the collective trim motors 213 to move the collective stick 233 to a particular position.”
operate a motor disposed within the input device to move the input device according to the back drive to move the input device to another position corresponding to the command
(Bothwell – [0029]) “The FCCs 205 generate the suggested collective stick position and send a corresponding suggested collective stick signal to the collective trim motors 213 to move the collective stick 233 to a particular position.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Irwin, III et al., Bothwell et al., and Eglin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gillett (US 20200023941, previously cited).
Claim 7.
The combination of Irwin, III et al., Bothwell et al., and Eglin teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Irwin, III et al. teaches:
measure an acceleration along the vertical axis of the body of the aerial vehicle
(Irwin – Col. 4, lines 55-58) “vertical acceleration is maintained at zero and rate of climb is maintained at a desired value, where the desired value of rate of climb/descent can be zero or non-zero”
[Examiner’s Note: Maintaining a constant acceleration requires measurement of the acceleration.]
generate the command for collective control of the pitch of the blades by the rotor of the aerial vehicle based on the velocity
(Irwin – Col. 28, lines 30-33) “The method 1500 includes, at 1502, generating a predicted propulsor collective blade pitch trim value for a target state of the aircraft based on an aircraft velocity and a pitch attitude deviation from a reference.”
Irwin, III et al. does not explicitly teach an inertial measurement unit; however, Gillett et al. further teaches:
an inertial measurement unit to measure an acceleration along the vertical axis of the body of the aerial vehicle
(Gillett – [0052]) “the VM1 signal may be indirectly received by measuring vertical inertial acceleration (e.g., a(t)) of the rotorcraft 101. Vertical inertial acceleration may be measured with a first one of the aircraft sensors 207, such as with an accelerometer.”
The data processing system coupled with the inertial measurement unit
(Gillett – [0052]) “the VM1 signal may be indirectly received by measuring vertical inertial acceleration (e.g., a(t)) of the rotorcraft 101. Vertical inertial acceleration may be measured with a first one of the aircraft sensors 207, such as with an accelerometer.”
receive data from the inertial measurement unit indicating the acceleration along the vertical axis of the body of the aerial vehicle
(Gillett – [0052]) “the VM1 signal may be indirectly received by measuring vertical inertial acceleration (e.g., a(t)) of the rotorcraft 101. Vertical inertial acceleration may be measured with a first one of the aircraft sensors 207, such as with an accelerometer.”
determine the velocity from the acceleration
(Gillett – [0052]) “the VM1 signal may be indirectly received by measuring vertical inertial acceleration (e.g., a(t)) of the rotorcraft 101. Vertical inertial acceleration may be measured with a first one of the aircraft sensors 207, such as with an accelerometer.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the pitch and thrust control system of Irwin, III et al. with the rotorcraft control system of Gillett et al. As both systems are directed toward the field of endeavor of controlling a rotorcraft, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this combination could be performed with predictable results. One would have been motivated to do this because the system of Gillett et al. allows for reducing of a pilot workload (Gillett – [0003]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights