DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Previous rejection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment filed on 09/15/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Claims 1-11, 13-14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “determining at least one characteristic map point cloud from simultaneously acquired sensor data from two respective analog sensors of the at least two analog sensors relating to the state of the bleed air supply system over a predefined minimum period of time, comparing the characteristic map point cloud with a corresponding predefined characteristic curve for a relationship between the simultaneously acquired sensor data that is represented by the characteristic map point cloud, wherein comparing the characteristic map point cloud with the corresponding predefined characteristic curve comprises detecting a deviation of the characteristic map point cloud from the predefined characteristic curve, and a deviation of the characteristic map point cloud from the predefined characteristic curve beyond a predefined amount being detected, classifying the detected deviation by comparing the detected deviation to a plurality of characteristic deviation associated with different signs of wear or faults, and identifying a cause of the fault based on the classification.
” are abstract idea as they are directed to a combination of mathematical concept and mental process. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “monitoring a bleed air supply system of an aircraft, the bleed air supply system comprising at least two analog sensors for monitoring the-a state of the bleed air supply system based on the-sensor data” each of the two analog sensors comprising a pressure sensor or a temperature sensor, “simultaneously acquired sensor data from two respective analog sensors, of the at least two analog sensors, relating to the state of the bleed air supply system over a predefined minimum period of time,” “state sensors, on the bleed air supply system or on the aircraft,” “at least one pressure control valve, the activation state of which, preferably the binary blocking state of which characterizes different operating states,” “an analog sensor for monitoring the state of the bleed air supply system or the environment or a non-binary operating state value of the aircraft”, “a flow rate through the bleed air supply system, as recorded by an analog sensor provided for this purpose, and/or an air temperature recorded by an analog sensor provided for this purpose in the bleed air supply system or in the engine,” wherein each of the two analog sensors are respectively arranged in the bleed air supply system, upstream of the bleed air supply system, or downstream of the bleed air supply system, and wherein the two analog sensors are at two different locations within the bleed air supply system” but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity and recitation of general environment where the abstract idea is being implemented. The claims additionally recite “performing maintenance on the bleed air supply system based in the warning,” but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, is merely an insignificant post-solution activity. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “monitoring a bleed air supply system of an aircraft, the bleed air supply system comprising at least two analog sensors for monitoring the-a state of the bleed air supply system based on the-sensor data, “each of the two analog sensors comprising a pressure sensor or a temperature sensor”, “simultaneously acquired sensor data from two respective analog sensors, of the at least two analog sensors, relating to the state of the bleed air supply system over a predefined minimum period of time,” “state sensors, on the bleed air supply system or on the aircraft,” “at least one pressure control valve, the activation state of which, preferably the binary blocking state of which characterizes different operating states,” “an analog sensor for monitoring the state of the bleed air supply system or the environment or a non-binary operating state value of the aircraft”, “a flow rate through the bleed air supply system, as recorded by an analog sensor provided for this purpose, and/or an air temperature recorded by an analog sensor provided for this purpose in the bleed air supply system or in the engine,” and “simultaneously acquiring the sensor data from the two analog sensors of the bleed air supply system at a plurality of time points over a predefined minimum period of time, wherein the two analog sensors comprise two pressure sensors at two different locations of the bleed air supply system, or comprise two temperature sensors at two different locations of the bleed air supply system, wherein each of the two analog sensors are respectively arranged in the bleed air supply system, upstream of the bleed air supply system, or downstream of the bleed air supply system” wherein each of the two analog sensors are respectively arranged in the bleed air supply system, upstream of the bleed air supply system, or downstream of the bleed air supply system, and wherein the two analog sensors are at two different locations within the bleed air supply system” but said limitations are merely directed to data collection activity and recitation of general environment where the abstract idea is being implemented that are well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims additionally recite “performing maintenance on the bleed air supply system based in the warning,” but said limitation, is directed to applying the abstract idea in a broad manner recited at high level of generality without “particular end use”, which therefore would not be considered significantly more to transform the claimed invention to patent-eligible application (see Univ of Utah Research Found. vs Ambry Genetics Corp, F774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241 (2014), Id., at 1245) and Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972), Id., at 674). As such. The claims do not recite additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 13, 17-18are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter et al., US-PGPUB 2019/0039739 (hereinafter Winter) in views of Diaz et al., US-PGPUB 2018/0174383 (hereinafter Diaz), Mouterde, US-PGPUB 2016/0012651 (hereinafter Mouterde) and Chokappa et al., US-PGPUB 2022/0138701 (hereinafter Chokappa)
Regarding Claims 1 and 9. Winter discloses monitoring a bleed air supply system of an aircraft (Abstract), the bleed air supply system comprising at least two analog sensors for monitoring a state of the bleed air supply system based on the-sensor data, each of the two analog sensors comprising a pressure sensor a temperature sensor (Paragraphs [0022], air-quality sensor devices; [0033]-[0034]; [0091], various sensors, including to measure pressure, temperature; Note that using pressure and temperatures to detect bleed in air supply system is known, as Applicant admits in the original disclosure in the Background), comprising:
simultaneously acquired sensor data from two respective analog sensors, of the at least two analog sensors, relating to the state of the bleed air supply system over a predefined minimum period of time (Paragraphs [0022]; [0024], simultaneous; [0033]-[0034]; [0091]);
based upon a deviation of the sensor values from the predefined values beyond a predefined amount being detected, outputting a warning (Paragraph [0025], when exceeding predetermined limiting values; [0091], detecting bleed air; Paragraph [0004]-[0005], faults).
Winter does not disclose determining at least one characteristic map point cloud from simultaneously acquired sensor data from two respective analog sensors, comparing the characteristic map point cloud with a corresponding predefined characteristic curve for a relationship between the simultaneously acquired sensor data that is represented by the characteristic map point cloud, wherein comparing the characteristic map point cloud with the corresponding predefined characteristic curve comprises detecting a deviation of the characteristic map point cloud from the predefined characteristic curve,
classifying the detected deviation by comparing the detected deviation to a plurality of characteristic deviation associated with different signs of wear or faults, and identifying a cause of the fault based on the classification.
Diaz discloses analyzing the variations of an indicator of the behavior to detect potential problem in aircraft, which synchronized sensor data (Paragraph [0004]), comparing the cloud of points measured with the previously stored curve and appropriately providing alert based on threshold (Paragraph [0004], synchronized signals delivered by sensors placed on various parts of the aircraft, and converted to data to be analyzed later; Paragraph [0013], analyzing such data; Paragraph [0015], analyze indicators being measured during mission of the aircraft; Paragraphs [0029]-[0037], comparing stored curve and he cloud of points measured; Fig. 1, Paragraph [0044], analyzing the behavior of mechanism 1, 1’; Paragraphs [0013]-[0015]; abstract)
Mouterde discloses monitoring and detecting the presence of a fault in aircraft (Fig. 2), includes creating a characteristic map point cloud comprising plurality of pairs of data values, each of the pairs of data values comprising a pair of the acquired sensor data from two analog sensors for a respective one of the time points in the predefined minimum period of time (Paragraphs [0007]-[0008], sensors for fault detection; Paragraphs [0160]-[0163]; Figs. 3-5; rest of the Paragraphs [0147]-[0168], alarm threshold)
Chokappa discloses generating a digital model, which includes acquiring point cloud data, and comparing the digital model with existing models and classifying, and classifying defects into various categories (Fig. 2; Paragraphs [0020]-[0030], Abstract; [0006]-[0007]; [0018], bleed air ducts; Fig. 4)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Diaz, Mouterde and Chokappa in Winters and determine at least one characteristic map point cloud from simultaneously acquired sensor data from two respective analog sensors, comparing the characteristic map point cloud with a corresponding predefined characteristic curve for a relationship between the simultaneously acquired sensor data that is represented by the characteristic map point cloud, wherein comparing the characteristic map point cloud with the corresponding predefined characteristic curve comprises detecting a deviation of the characteristic map point cloud from the predefined characteristic curve,
classifying the detected deviation by comparing the detected deviation to a plurality of characteristic deviation associated with different signs of wear or faults, and identifying a cause of the fault based on the classification, so as to reliably monitor the bleed air supply system of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 2. Winters discloses an operating state of the bleed air supply system is predefined by a control unit of the bleed air supply system or the aircraft and/or is determined by state sensors on the bleed air supply system or on the aircraft (Figs. 1-8; Paragraphs [0010]-[0017]; Paragraphs [0043]-[0083])
Winter does not disclose determining the operating-state-dependent characteristics maps.
Diaz discloses analyzing the variations of an indicator of the behavior to detect potential problem in aircraft, which includes the cloud of points of physical operating parameters measured using the sensors (Paragraphs [0029]-[0037]; Paragraphs [0045])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Diaz in Winter and determine operating-state-dependent characteristic maps, wherein the-an operating state of the bleed air supply system is predefined by a control unit of the bleed air supply system or the aircraft and/or is determined by state sensors on the bleed air supply system or on the aircraft, so as to reliably monitor the bleed air supply system of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 3. Winter discloses the bleed air supply system comprises at least one pressure control valve, the activation state of which, preferably the binary blocking state of which, characterizes different operating states (Fig. 1; Paragraph [0045]; Fig. 7’ Paragraph [0050]).
Regarding Claim 4. Winters discloses an analog sensor for monitoring the state of the bleed air supply system or the environment or a non-binary operating state value of the aircraft (Paragraphs [0051]-[0082])
Winter does not disclose determining the parameter-dependent characteristics maps.
Diaz discloses analyzing the variations of an indicator of the behavior to detect potential problem in aircraft, which includes the cloud of points of physical operating parameters measured using the sensors (Paragraphs [0029]-[0037]; Paragraphs [0045])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Diaz in Winter and determine parameter-dependent characteristic maps representing an analog sensor for monitoring the state of the bleed air supply system or the environment or a non-binary operating state value of the aircraft, so as to reliably monitor the bleed air supply system of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 5. Winters discloses a flow rate through the bleed air supply system, as recorded by an analog sensor provided for this purpose, and/or an air temperature recorded by an analog sensor provided for this purpose in the bleed air supply system or in the engine (Paragraphs [0033]; [0090]-[0091])
Winter does not disclose the parameters for parameter-dependent characteristics maps.
Diaz discloses analyzing the variations of an indicator of the behavior to detect potential problem in aircraft, which includes the cloud of points of physical operating parameters measured using the sensors (Paragraphs [0029]-[0037]; Paragraphs [0045])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Diaz in Winter and have the parameters for parameter-dependent characteristic maps comprise a flow rate through the bleed air supply system, as recorded by an analog sensor provided for this purpose, and/or an air temperature recorded by an analog sensor provided for this purpose in the bleed air supply system or in the engine, so as to reliably monitor the bleed air supply system of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 6. Diaz discloses determining at least wide characteristic map point clouds are determined over discrete, non-overlapping time periods, and carrying out a trend analysis is carried out using appropriately recorded characteristic map point clouds for different time periods (Paragraphs [0073]-[0076], variations over time)
Regarding Claim 7. Diaz discloses detected deviations of the characteristic map point cloud from the predefined characteristic curve are classified (Paragraph [0024]-[0025], plurality of curves corresponding to potential problems)
Regarding Claim 8. Winter discloses at least one analog pressure sensor whose sensor data are acquired (Paragraph [0091).
Winter does not disclose at least one analog pressure sensor whose sensor data are taken into account when determining the characteristic map point cloud
Diaz discloses analyzing the variations of an indicator of the behavior to detect potential problem in aircraft, which includes the cloud of points of physical operating parameters measured using the sensors (Paragraphs [0029]-[0037]; Paragraphs [0045])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Diaz in Winter and have at least one analog pressure sensor whose sensor data are taken into account when determining the characteristic map point cloud, so as to reliably monitor the bleeding air condition of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 13. Winters discloses outputting the warning comprises causing a warning to be displayed in an aircraft cockpit or sent to a maintenance company (Paragraph [0025])
Regarding Claim 17. Winters discloses the predefined minimum period of time is during a flight of the aircraft. (Paragraph [0037], during flight)
Regarding Claim 18. Winters discloses performing maintenance on the bleed air supply system based on the warning (Paragraph [0023])
7. Claims 10-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard, US Pat No. 9,555,903 (hereinafter Howard) (cited by the Applicant) in view of Diaz et al., US-PGPUB 2018/0174383, Mouterde, US-PGPUB 2016/0012651 and Chokappa et al., US-PGPUB 2022/0138701.
Regarding Claim 10 Howard discloses detecting a fault in a bleed air supply system of an aircraft (Abstract), the bleed air supply system comprising:
two analog sensors, which are configured to sense physical properties of a component of the bleed air supply system or physical properties in an environment of the bleed air supply system, and to output sensor data providing quantitative measurement variables of the bleed air supply system (Fig. 1; Col. 1, lines 51-67, various sensors; Fig. 3, 102), comprising: simultaneously acquiring the sensor data from the two analog sensors of the bleed air supply system at a plurality of time points over a predefined minimum period of time, wherein the two analog sensors comprise two pressure sensors at two different locations of the bleed air supply system, or comprise two temperature sensors at two different locations of the bleed air supply system, wherein each of the two analog sensors are respectively arranged in the bleed air supply system, upstream of the bleed air supply system, or downstream of the bleed air supply system (Col. 4, lines 28-44, Figs. 1 and 2, temperature sensors 24’s, pressure sensors 28’s),
comparing pressure and temperature measured characteristic values (Col. 3, lines 59-67; Col. 4, lines 1-44) to references, where the reference represents a fault-free operation of the bleed air supply system, the reference having been obtained from a model or historical data of a structurally identical air bleed supply system (Col. 5, lines 12-54, the comparison exceeding the threshold of the reference value, where said reference value would be the fault-free), and outputting a warning based upon a deviation of the sensor values from the predefined values beyond a predefined tolerance range being detected (Col. 7, lines 1-14),
Howard does not disclose creating a characteristic map point cloud comprising plurality of pairs of data values representing coordinates for points on a graph, each of the pairs of data values comprising a pair of the simultaneously acquired sensor data from two analog sensors for a respective one of the time points in the predefined minimum period of time, comparing the characteristic map point cloud with a corresponding predefined characteristic curve wherein comparing the characteristic map point cloud with the corresponding predefined characteristic curve comprises detecting a deviation of the characteristic map point cloud from the predefined characteristic curve, classifying the detected deviation by comparing the detected deviation to a plurality of characteristic deviation associated with different signs of wear or faults, and identifying a cause of the fault based on the classification, the predefined characteristic curve defining a target relationship between the simultaneously acquired sensor data that is represented by the characteristic map point cloud, and the deviation being detected in the comparison of the characteristic map point cloud with the corresponding predefined characteristic curve.
Diaz discloses analyzing the variations of an indicator of the behavior to detect potential problem in aircraft, which includes comparing the cloud of points measured with the previously stored curve and appropriately providing alert based on threshold (Paragraph [0004], signals delivered by sensors placed on various parts of the aircraft, and converted to data to be analyzed later; Paragraph [0013], analyzing such data; Paragraph [0015], analyze indicators being measured during mission of the aircraft; Paragraphs [0029]-[0037], Fig. 1, Paragraph [0044], analyzing the behavior of mechanism 1, 1’; Paragraphs [0013]-[0015]; abstract; Paragraph [0022])
Mouterde discloses monitoring and detecting the presence of a fault in aircraft (Fig. 2), includes creating a characteristic map point cloud comprising plurality of pairs of data values representing coordinates for points on a graph, each of the pairs of data values comprising a pair of the acquired sensor data from two analog sensors for a respective one of the time points in the predefined minimum period of time (Paragraphs [0007]-[0008], sensors for fault detection; Paragraphs [0160]-[0163]; Figs. 3-5; rest of the Paragraphs [0147]-[0163])
Chokappa discloses generating a digital model, which includes acquiring point cloud data, and comparing the digital model with existing models and classifying, and classifying defects into various categories (Fig. 2; Paragraphs [0020]-[0030], Abstract; [0006]-[0007]; [0018], bleed air ducts; Fig. 4)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Diaz, Chokappa and Mouterde in Howard and create a characteristic map point cloud comprising plurality of pairs of data values representing coordinates for points on a graph, each of the pairs of data values comprising a pair of the simultaneously acquired sensor data from two analog sensors for a respective one of the time points in the predefined minimum period of time, compare the characteristic map point cloud with a corresponding predefined characteristic curve wherein comparing the characteristic map point cloud with the corresponding predefined characteristic curve comprises detecting a deviation of the characteristic map point cloud from the predefined characteristic curve, classify the detected deviation by comparing the detected deviation to a plurality of characteristic deviation associated with different signs of wear or faults, and identifying a cause of the fault based on the classification, the predefined characteristic curve defining a target relationship between the simultaneously acquired sensor data that is represented by the characteristic map point cloud, and the deviation being detected in the comparison of the characteristic map point cloud with the corresponding predefined characteristic curve, so as to reliably monitor the bleed air supply system of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 11. Howard discloses the sensor data corresponds to measurement variables that have a direct influence on the bleed air supply system (Col. 3, lines 59-67; Col. 4, lines 1-44)
Regarding Claim 12. Howard discloses the sensor data comprises a measurement of pressures prevailing in an engine in regions of one or more bleed points of the bleed air supply system (Col. 3, lines 59-67; Col. 4, lines 1-44)
Regarding Claim 14. Diaz discloses comparing the characteristic map point cloud with the corresponding predefined characteristic curve further comprises detecting a deviation of the characteristic map point cloud from the corresponding predefined characteristic curve, and classifying the detected deviation by comparing the detected deviation to a plurality of characteristic deviations associated with different signs of wear or faults; and identifying a cause of the fault based on the classification (Paragraph [0024]-[0025], variations of the indicators and plurality of curves corresponding to potential problems)
Regarding Claim 15. Howard discloses fixing the fault or problem associated with bleed air system during maintenance. Although Howard does not explicitly disclose shutting down the bleed air supply system based on the warning, it would have been obvious to recognize that maintenance involves shutting down as claimed to fix the problem.
Regarding Claim 16. Howard discloses the two analog sensors are at two different locations within the bleed air supply system (Col. 4, lines 28-44, Figs. 1 and 2, temperature sensors 24’s, pressure sensors 28’s),
Regarding Claim 17. Howard discloses the predefined minimum period of time is during a flight of the aircraft. (Col. 3, lines 59-67, Col. 4, lines 1-27, during flight)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
In regard to the 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, based on the updated rejection as discussed above. Note that the dependent claim 15 does not have the 101 rejection.
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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857