DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 04/09/2026. Claims 3 and 16 have been canceled, and new claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 17-22 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
The amendment filed 04/09/2026 has been entered and applicant’s arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim objection:
Applicant has argued that the objection to claim 3 is now moot since claim 3 has been canceled. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objection accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant has argued that the claims should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 since the recited step of “obtaining, at a controller comprising one or more processors, airflow reports that are generated by multiple reporting aircraft while the reporting aircraft are in flight” could not be performed in the human mind. The examiner notes that this step was not interpreted as a mental process step, but was instead interpreted as an additional element which amounted to insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant has further argued that the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been overcome by the newly added step of “operating the first aircraft to avoid one or more locations of turbulence as indicated on the map.” The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the rejections accordingly.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection which are necessitated by the filed amendment.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15, 17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson et al. (US 2020/0013299 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jacobson, in view of MacCready, Jr. (the non-patent journal article “Standardization of Gustiness Values from Aircraft”), hereinafter referred to as MacCready.
Regarding claim 1:
Jacobson discloses the following limitations:
“A method comprising: obtaining, at a controller comprising one or more processors, airflow reports that are generated by multiple reporting aircraft while the reporting aircraft are in flight.” (Jacobson ¶ 7 discloses “an air turbulence analysis system that includes an air turbulence control unit that is configured to receive motion signals from one or more motion sensors of a plurality of aircraft within an air space.” Also, Jacobson ¶ 73: “air turbulence control unit 128 and the turbulence modeling control unit 130 may be or include one or more processors that are configured to control operation thereof.”)
“wherein each of the airflow reports includes a geographic location of the respective reporting aircraft that generated the airflow report, a reported turbulence level experienced by the respective reporting aircraft due to atmospheric airflow, and an identifying characteristic of the respective reporting aircraft.” (Jacobson ¶ 9: “the air turbulence control unit is configured to receive position signals from each of the plurality of aircraft. The position signals indicate the current positions of the plurality of the aircraft within the air space. The air turbulence control unit correlates the position signals with the motion signals to determine the locations of the air turbulence within the air space. In at least one embodiment, the motion signals are transmitted by the aircraft through the position signals.” Additionally, Jacobson ¶ 62 discloses that a flight plan database stores data such as the type, size, and weight for each aircraft, and Jacobson ¶ 68 discloses that the motion signals can be sent with ADS-B, which implies that the received motion signals contain a unique identifier of the reporting aircraft. This teaches the claim limitation in light of ¶ 71 of the instant specification, which states that an example of the identifying characteristic could be a “unique identifier for the respective reporting aircraft.”)
“generating normalized turbulence values based on the reported turbulence levels in the airflow reports and at least one of sizes of the reporting aircraft or weights of the reporting aircraft.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102.”)
“wherein generating the normalized turbulence values comprises scaling the reported turbulence levels in the airflow reports by comparing the … sizes, and weights of the multiple reporting aircraft to … a baseline weight, and a baseline size.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “The effects of air turbulence may be less in relation to larger aircraft 102 than smaller aircraft 102, for example. As such, motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102. For example, a large aircraft 102 may experience air turbulence as moderate air turbulence, while a smaller aircraft 102 may experience the air turbulence as severe turbulence.” Normalizing the turbulence data to remove the influence of aircraft characteristics such as size and weight implies that these aircraft characteristics are compared to baseline values.)
“determining effective turbulence levels specific to a first aircraft based on the normalized turbulence values and a first identifying characteristic of the first aircraft, wherein the effective turbulence levels predict an effect of the atmospheric airflow on the first aircraft at the geographic locations of the airflow reports.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102. … normalization of motion signals received from the various aircraft 102 allows for an objective determination of air turbulence, and allows the severity of air turbulence to be categorized for different types of aircraft 102.” Further, Jacobson ¶ 64: “The air turbulence control unit 128 utilizes the current positions of the aircraft 102 within the air space 104 and the motion signals output by the aircraft 102 to determine real time or near real time locations of air turbulence within the air space 104.”)
“generating, via the controller, a map that plots a scheduled route of the first aircraft and graphic indicia representing the effective turbulence levels that are determined, wherein the map is generated to plot the graphic indicia at locations along vertical and horizontal axes of the map that correspond to the geographic locations of the airflow reports.” (Jacobson ¶ 79 and FIG. 2 reproduced below: “The turbulence map 200 may include three-dimensional contours 202 and shapes 204 (such as bounded regions) that indicate the locations and altitudes of air turbulence within the air space 104.” Also, Jacobson ¶ 71: “The air turbulence control unit 128 may compare the current flight plans with the candidate flight plans in relation to the turbulence map generated by the turbulence modeling control unit 130 and output various alternative routes that avoid locations of turbulence.” Note that while the turbulence map of Jacobson is three-dimensional and contains an additional third axis, it also includes vertical and horizontal axes for plotting representations of the turbulence levels as claimed.)
PNG
media_image1.png
763
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“and operating the first aircraft to avoid one or more locations of turbulence as indicated on the map.” (Jacobson ¶ 78: “The turbulence modeling control unit 130 generates the turbulence map 200 based on the locations of the air turbulence, as determined by the air turbulence control unit 128. As such, the aircraft 102 may avoid the areas of air turbulence, such as by flying above the air turbulence.”)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, consistent with the specification, generating normalized turbulence values based on “at least one of sizes of the reporting aircraft or weights of the reporting aircraft” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Even though both the sizes and weights of the reporting aircraft have been addressed here, only one of the two is required for the claim to be rejected.
Jacobson does not specifically disclose “wherein generating the normalized turbulence values comprises scaling the reported turbulence levels in the airflow reports by comparing the speeds… of the multiple reporting aircraft to a baseline speed.” However, MacCready does teach this limitation. (MacCready p. 446 § 7: “each aircraft has a 'standard' airspeed where the σh scale is identical to the turbulence scale. If a variety of aircraft flew at their respective 'standard' airspeeds through an air volume having a given turbulence level e, all the pilot descriptions of the turbulence would match (all σh would be the same).” Also, MacCready p. 447 § 9.6: “The rms value of aircraft vertical accelerations, σg, is proportional to ε1/3. The constant of proportionality is different for different aircraft, aircraft weights, airspeeds, and altitudes (the variation with airspeed is greatest), but it can be computed or measured. Thus a chart can be prepared for each aircraft, showing σg vs. ε1/3 for various speed ranges. Knowledge of ε will then permit the pilot to determine the airspeed to keep σg within desired limits. The chart can be incorporated onto the face of an ε-indicator. An aircraft response scale labeled ‘negligible, light, moderate, heavy, extreme’ is given in terms of aa. A 'standard' speed can be derived for each aircraft at which the description of aircraft response in terms of ag is the same as the turbulence magnitude categories in terms of ε.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Jacobson by generating normalized turbulence values by comparing the reported aircraft speeds to a standard speed value in order to scale the reported turbulence levels as taught by MacCready with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because MacCready p. 447 § 9.1 teaches that “It is operationally desirable to have a measure of turbulence intensity which relates to the atmospheric turbulence itself instead of to its effect on aircraft.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that normalizing turbulence to be independent of reporting aircraft speed would provide an objective measure which would be more applicable to all aircraft, even those traveling at speeds different than the reporting aircraft.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson also teaches “wherein each of the airflow reports includes a speed of the respective reporting aircraft.” (Jacobson ¶ 63 teaches that the air turbulence control unit 128 can analyze motion data including airspeed for the reporting aircraft.)
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson further teaches “wherein each of the normalized turbulence values is generated by inputting the reported turbulence level and at least one of the size, the weight, or the identifying characteristic of the respective reporting aircraft from each of the airflow reports into a normalization algorithm that is configured to output the normalized turbulence values.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “the flight plan database 132 may store normalization data regarding each aircraft 102 within the air space 104. The normalization data may include information about the size, weight, and the like of each aircraft 102. The normalization data may be used to send information to various aircraft 102 that takes the aircraft type, size, weight, and/or the like into consideration. … motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102.”)
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson additionally teaches “wherein generating the normalized turbulence values comprises generating the normalized turbulence values so that all of the normalized turbulence values are within a standard range.” (Jacobson ¶ 62 discloses the generation of normalized air turbulence. Using a normalization process implies that the values are normalized to fall within a standard range such as [0,1].)
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson also teaches “wherein generating the normalized turbulence values comprises scaling up a severity of a first reported turbulence level by a first reporting aircraft of the reporting aircraft in response to the at least one of the size or the weight of the first reporting aircraft being above at least one baseline value.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102. For example, a large aircraft 102 may experience air turbulence as moderate air turbulence, while a smaller aircraft 102 may experience the air turbulence as severe turbulence.” Normalizing the turbulence data to remove the influence of aircraft characteristics such as size and weight implies that these aircraft characteristics are compared to baseline values. Further, Jacobson ¶ 62 discloses that “The effects of air turbulence may be less in relation to larger aircraft 102 than smaller aircraft 102,” which teaches that the turbulence severity should be scaled up for larger aircraft rather than being scaled down.)
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready teaches “The method of claim 6,” and Jacobson also teaches “wherein generating the normalized turbulence values comprises scaling down a severity of a second reported turbulence level by a second reporting aircraft of the reporting aircraft in response to the at least one of the size or the weight of the second reporting aircraft being below the at least one baseline value.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102. For example, a large aircraft 102 may experience air turbulence as moderate air turbulence, while a smaller aircraft 102 may experience the air turbulence as severe turbulence.” Normalizing the turbulence data to remove the influence of aircraft characteristics such as size and weight implies that these aircraft characteristics are compared to baseline values. Also, Jacobson ¶ 62 discloses that “The effects of air turbulence may be less in relation to larger aircraft 102 than smaller aircraft 102,” which teaches that the turbulence severity should be scaled down for smaller aircraft rather than being scaled up.)
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson also teaches the method “further comprising displaying the map that is generated on a display device for observation by an operator associated with the first aircraft.” (Jacobson ¶ 65: “The display 114 may receive the map data and show the real time or near real time generated turbulence map thereon. As such, pilots may view the turbulence map on the display.”)
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson also teaches “wherein the identifying characteristic of the respective reporting aircraft comprises at least one of a unique identifier of the reporting aircraft, a type of the reporting aircraft, the weight of the reporting aircraft, or the size of the reporting aircraft.” (Jacobson ¶¶ 62 and 68 disclose that the motion signals can be sent with ADS-B and associated with stored data specific to each aircraft. This implies that the received motion signals contain “a unique identifier of the reporting aircraft” as an identifying characteristic as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 10, consistent with the specification, “the identifying characteristic of the respective reporting aircraft [comprising] at least one of a unique identifier of the reporting aircraft, a type of the reporting aircraft, the weight of the reporting aircraft, or the size of the reporting aircraft” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “unique identifier of the reporting aircraft” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson also teaches the following limitations:
“wherein the controller is disposed onboard the first aircraft.” (Jacobson ¶ 49: “the monitoring center 107 may be onboard an aircraft 102.” Also, Jacobson ¶ 51: “The monitoring center 107 also includes an air turbulence control unit 128.”)
“and obtaining the airflow reports comprises the controller receiving the airflow reports from an automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) receiver mounted onboard the first aircraft, the ADS-B receiver configured to wirelessly receive the airflow reports.” (Jacobson ¶ 31: “the motion data may be communicated to the air turbulence control unit via position signals, such as ADS-B signals, which are also used to determine current locations of the aircraft.”)
Regarding claim 13:
Jacobson discloses “A turbulence notification system comprising: a controller including one or more processors, the controller configured to” perform a process. (Jacobson ¶ 73: “air turbulence control unit 128 and the turbulence modeling control unit 130 may be or include one or more processors that are configured to control operation thereof.”)
The remaining limitations of claim 13 are taught by the combination of Jacobson and MacCready using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready teaches “The turbulence notification system of claim 13,” and Jacobson also teaches the system “further comprising a display device communicatively connected to the controller, wherein the controller is configured to display the map that is generated on the display device for observation by an operator associated with the first aircraft.” (Jacobson ¶ 42: “A display 114 is also in communication with the communication device 110, such as through one or more wired or wireless connections. The display 114 may be a monitor, such as within a cockpit of the aircraft (102), which shows information thereon.”)
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready teaches “The turbulence notification system of claim 13,” and Jacobson also teaches the system “further comprising a normalization algorithm, wherein the controller is configured to generate the normalized turbulence values by inputting the reported turbulence level and at least one of the size, the weight, or the identifying characteristic of the reporting aircraft from each of the airflow reports into a normalization algorithm that is configured to output the normalized turbulence values so that all of the normalized turbulence values are within a standard range.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “the flight plan database 132 may store normalization data regarding each aircraft 102 within the air space 104. The normalization data may include information about the size, weight, and the like of each aircraft 102. The normalization data may be used to send information to various aircraft 102 that takes the aircraft type, size, weight, and/or the like into consideration. … motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102.” Jacobson ¶ 62 discloses the generation of normalized air turbulence; using a normalization process implies that the values are normalized to fall within a standard range such as [0,1].)
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready teaches “The turbulence notification system of claim 13,” and Jacobson also teaches “wherein the controller is configured to generate the normalized turbulence values by scaling up a severity of a first reported turbulence level by a first reporting aircraft of the reporting aircraft in response to the at least one of the size or the weight of the first reporting aircraft being above at least one baseline value, and scaling down a severity of a second reported turbulence level by a second reporting aircraft of the reporting aircraft in response to the at least one of the size or the weight of the second reporting aircraft being below the at least one baseline value.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102. For example, a large aircraft 102 may experience air turbulence as moderate air turbulence, while a smaller aircraft 102 may experience the air turbulence as severe turbulence.” Normalizing the turbulence data to remove the influence of aircraft characteristics such as size and weight implies that these aircraft characteristics are compared to baseline values. Also, Jacobson ¶ 62 discloses that “The effects of air turbulence may be less in relation to larger aircraft 102 than smaller aircraft 102,” which teaches that the turbulence severity should be scaled up for larger aircraft rather than being scaled down, and that the turbulence severity should be scaled down for smaller aircraft rather than being scaled up.)
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 12 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 21:
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson also teaches “wherein generating the normalized turbulence values further comprises assigning weights to factors based on an amount of deviation of the factors to corresponding baseline values.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102.” Using such a normalization process implies that the aircraft factors are assigned weights based on their deviation from corresponding baseline values.)
Regarding claim 22:
Claim 22 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 21 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson in view of MacCready as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Ramachandra et al. (US 2020/0035109 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ramachandra.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson also teaches “wherein each of the airflow reports includes an altitude of the respective reporting aircraft.” (Jacobson ¶ 86: “the position signals received from the aircraft provide the current position (including geospatial location, altitude, heading, and/or the like) for each aircraft, and the motion signals provide motion data for the aircraft at the current position.”)
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready does not explicitly teach “wherein the map is a profile map that depicts at least one flight path of the first aircraft along the scheduled route and the vertical axis represents altitude, wherein generating the map comprises positioning the graphic indicia at locations along the vertical axis that correspond to the altitudes in the airflow reports.” However, Ramachandra does teach this limitation. (Ramachandra ¶ 31 and FIG. 3 shown below: “the predicted tail wind speeds for the entire predicted flight are presented to the pilot on a vertical situation display (VSD) in the form of a graph 31 of altitude of the aircraft vs. distance of the aircraft into the predicted flight route. The instances 32, 33 of the flight plan information which satisfy the search query criteria of a tail wind being greater than 60 knots for a duration of greater than 30 minutes are highlighted or otherwise visually distinguished from the remainder of the predicted tail wind speeds shown on the graph 31.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
510
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Jacobson and MacCready by plotting the flight route on a map with graphic indicia representing wind along a vertical altitude axis as taught by Ramachandra with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Ramachandra ¶ 33 teaches that with this modification, “the man-machine interface between the pilot and the aircraft display system 10 is improved such that the pilot can more quickly and more easily visually interpret the returned results, thereby allowing for faster and more effective navigational decision making with a correspondingly reduced ‘heads-down’ time for the pilot.”
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 8 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson in view of MacCready as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Hampel (US 2018/0268715 A1).
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Jacobson and MacCready teaches “The method of claim 1,” but does not specifically teach the method “further comprising filtering the airflow reports based on proximity of the geographic locations provided in the airflow reports to the scheduled route of the first aircraft, wherein generating the map comprises plotting the graphic indicia that correspond only to a subset of the airflow reports having geographic locations within a threshold proximity of the scheduled route.” However, Hampel does teach these limitations. (Hampel ¶¶ 73-76: “the visual representation may include a plurality of indicators superimposed on a map according to the respective locations at which the turbulence data was obtained or recorded. … the visual representation may be altered responsive to user selection, for example, to only show the indicators of a specified altitude range, within a specified radius or flight route, or within a specified period of time.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Jacobson and MacCready by filtering the data to only plot indicia corresponding to reports within a threshold proximity of the flight route as taught by Hampel with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that airflow reports that are far from the flight route are not relevant to the user and can distract the user from noticing the reports that are relevant.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 11 above, mutatis mutandis.
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 Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights