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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
3. Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 16-20 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs (US 20210358310 A1), in view of Büddefeld (US 20240212512 A1), and in further view of Herriot (US 9417070 B1).
8. Regarding Claim 1, Sachs teaches a device comprising: a processor configured to (Sachs: [0036]):
Obtain ground risk data that indicates ground risk levels associated with portions of terrain under an airspace (Sachs: [0042] and [0049]);
Generate airspace risk levels associated with portions of the airspace… (Sachs: [0056], [0057], and [0060]);
And provide an output to a second device, the output associated with a flight plan of an aircraft, wherein the flight plan indicates a flight path that traverses one or more of the portions of the airspace (Sachs: [0038], [0087], and [0088]).
Sachs does not explicitly teach the airspace risk levels are based on risk ground levels, wherein the generation of the airspace risk levels comprises: create a voxel-based data structure representing the airspace as a grid of voxel elements; and compute initial airspace risk levels for a first layer of voxel elements based on the ground risk levels of corresponding terrain portions below each voxel element. However, Sachs teaches in [0056] and [0057] that the air risk value calculation may receive inputs that include obstacles and terrain.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to generate airspace risk levels based on the ground risk levels as similarly shown in Sachs' [0056] and [0057] use of using obstacles and terrain as an input for the air risk values. This provides the benefit of accurately determining risk of an airspace due to obstacles or terrain reducing the navigation accuracy of the aircraft on the flight path.
Additionally, Büddefeld teaches to generate airspace risk levels associated with portions of the airspace, the airspace risk levels based on the ground risk levels (Büddefeld: [0060]),
Wherein the generation of the airspace risk levels comprises: create a voxel-based data structure representing the airspace as a grid of voxel elements (Büddefeld: [0032]);
And compute initial airspace risk levels for a first layer of voxel elements based on the ground risk levels of corresponding terrain portions below each voxel element (Büddefeld: [0035] and [0060]).
Sachs and Büddefeld are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachs to incorporate the teachings of Büddefeld for the airspace risk levels to be based on the ground risk levels because it provides the benefit of determining the potential impact of an aircraft flying over an area to avoid areas where a ground impact would be costly. This provides the additional benefit of increasing the safety of the people on the ground below the aircraft.
Sachs and Büddefeld fail to explicitly teach to iteratively propagate risk levels from the first layer to subsequent layers of voxel elements using a propagation algorithm, wherein each voxel element in a subsequent layer derives its risk level based on previously-computed risk levels of voxel elements in layers below the subsequent layer, wherein the propagation algorithm comprises: for each voxel element in the subsequent layer, select multiple voxel elements from the layers below based on an aircraft parameter; and determine the risk level of the voxel element in the subsequent layer based on a representative risk value of the selected multiple voxel elements.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Herriot teaches to iteratively propagate risk levels from the first layer to subsequent layers of voxel elements using a propagation algorithm, wherein each voxel element in a subsequent layer derives its risk level based on previously-computed risk levels of voxel elements in layers below the subsequent layer, wherein the propagation algorithm comprises (Herriot: [Column 3, Lines 46-49] and [Column 5, Lines 4-15] Note that grid tiles being propagated in the x, y, and z directions is equivalent to propagating risk level in a subsequent layer based on previously-computed risk values.):
For each voxel element in the subsequent layer, select multiple voxel elements from the layers below based on an aircraft parameter; and determine the risk level of the voxel element in the subsequent layer based on a representative risk value of the selected multiple voxel elements (Herriot: [Column 5, Lines 15-33] Note that the grid tile values being summed based on the closer grid tiles (to the flight object) being incremented at a greater value is equivalent to selecting multiple voxel elements and determining the risk level of the voxel element based on the representative risk value. Also, note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the aircraft parameter is equivalent to the flight object (e.g., flight path).)
Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachs and Büddefeld to incorporate the teachings of Herriot to propagate risk levels from the first layer to subsequent layers of voxel elements using a propagation algorithm by selecting multiple voxel elements and determining a risk value based on the selected voxel elements because it provides the benefit of determining a risk of other objects in the airspace. Sachs and Büddefeld teach to determine airspace values based on ground values below the airspace. Herriot improves on this by using multiple grid values using a summation to propagate the values throughout the 4D airspace. This provides the additional benefit of avoiding stationary and moving obstacles along the flight path.
9. Regarding Claim 2, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Büddefeld teaches to compute the initial airspace risk levels for the first layer, the processor is configured to select, for each voxel element in the first layer, one or more terrain portions below the voxel element based on spatial correspondence between the voxel element and the terrain portions (Büddefeld: [0052] and [0060]).
10. Regarding Claim 3, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 2, and further, Büddefeld teaches to select the one or more terrain portions based on the aircraft parameter of the aircraft (Büddefeld: [0035] and [0060]).
11. Regarding Claim 6, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches the aircraft parameter corresponds to a glide profile of the aircraft (Sachs: [0061] and [0063] Note that the aircraft parameter corresponding to a glide profile is equivalent to determining the air risk values of the voxels the aircraft may pass based on the ascent/descent rate.).
12. Regarding Claim 8, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches the ground risk levels are based on at least one of population density, weapon system locations, restricted terrain, scheduled events, detected ground traffic, or predicted ground traffic (Sachs: [0041], [0042], and [0050]).
13. Regarding Claim 9, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches to generate the output indicating the airspace risk levels, and wherein the aircraft includes the second device (Sachs: [0038] and [0088]).
14. Regarding Claim 10, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches to generate the flight plan based on the airspace risk levels (Sachs: [0021] and [0031]).
15. Regarding Claim 11, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 10, and further, Sachs teaches to generate the flight plan based on a buffer zone, detected weather conditions, predicted weather conditions, airspace restrictions, detected airspace traffic, predicted airspace traffic, or a combination thereof (Sachs: [0022] and [0032]).
16. Regarding Claim 12, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches the output indicates the flight plan, and wherein the second device includes the aircraft, a display device, or both (Sachs: [0038], [0087], and [0088]).
17. Regarding Claim 13, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches the output includes a flight control signal, and the second device includes a flight control device of the aircraft (Sachs: [0031]).
18. Regarding Claim 14, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches the processor is integrated in the aircraft or a ground device (Sachs: [0036]).
19. Regarding Claim 15, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 1, and further, Sachs teaches the aircraft includes an unmanned aerial vehicle (Sachs: [0017] and [0043]).
20. Regarding Claim 16, Sachs teaches a method comprising: obtaining, at a first device, ground risk data that indicates ground risk levels associated with portions of terrain under an airspace (Sachs: [0042] and [0049]);
Generating, at the first device, airspace risk levels associated with portions of the airspace… (Sachs: [0056], [0057], and [0060]);
And providing an output from the first device to a second device, the output associated with a flight plan of an aircraft, wherein the flight plan indicates a flight path that traverses one or more of the portions of the airspace (Sachs: [0038], [0087], and [0088]).
Sachs does not explicitly teach the airspace risk levels are based on risk ground levels, wherein the generating of the airspace risk levels comprises: creating a voxel-based data structure representing the airspace as a grid of voxel elements; and computing initial airspace risk levels for a first layer of voxel elements based on the ground risk levels of corresponding terrain portions below each voxel element. However, Sachs teaches in [0056] and [0057] that the air risk value calculation may receive inputs that include obstacles and terrain.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to generate airspace risk levels based on the ground risk levels as similarly shown in Sachs' [0056] and [0057] use of using obstacles and terrain as an input for the air risk values. This provides the benefit of accurately determining risk of an airspace due to obstacles or terrain reducing the navigation accuracy of the aircraft on the flight path.
Additionally, Büddefeld teaches generating, at the first device, airspace risk levels associated with portions of the airspace, the airspace risk levels based on the ground risk levels (Büddefeld: [0060]),
Wherein the generating of the airspace risk levels comprises: creating a voxel-based data structure representing the airspace as a grid of voxel elements (Büddefeld: [0032]);
And computing initial airspace risk levels for a first layer of voxel elements based on the ground risk levels of corresponding terrain portions below each voxel element (Büddefeld: [0035] and [0060]).
Sachs and Büddefeld are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachs to incorporate the teachings of Büddefeld for the airspace risk levels to be based on the ground risk levels because it provides the benefit of determining the potential impact of an aircraft flying over an area to avoid areas where a ground impact would be costly. This provides the additional benefit of increasing the safety of the people on the ground below the aircraft.
Sachs and Büddefeld fail to explicitly teach to iteratively propagate risk levels from the first layer to subsequent layers of voxel elements using a propagation algorithm, wherein each voxel element in a subsequent layer derives its risk level based on previously-computed risk levels of voxel elements in layers below the subsequent layer, wherein the propagation algorithm comprises: for each voxel element in the subsequent layer, selecting multiple voxel elements from the layers below based on an aircraft parameter; and determining the risk level of the voxel element in the subsequent layer based on a representative risk value of the selected multiple voxel elements.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Herriot teaches to iteratively propagate risk levels from the first layer to subsequent layers of voxel elements using a propagation algorithm, wherein each voxel element in a subsequent layer derives its risk level based on previously-computed risk levels of voxel elements in layers below the subsequent layer, wherein the propagation algorithm comprises (Herriot: [Column 3, Lines 46-49] and [Column 5, Lines 4-15] Note that grid tiles being propagated in the x, y, and z directions is equivalent to propagating risk level in a subsequent layer based on previously-computed risk values.):
For each voxel element in the subsequent layer, selecting multiple voxel elements from the layers below based on an aircraft parameter; and determining the risk level of the voxel element in the subsequent layer based on a representative risk value of the selected multiple voxel elements (Herriot: [Column 5, Lines 15-33] Note that the grid tile values being summed based on the closer grid tiles (to the flight object) being incremented at a greater value is equivalent to selecting multiple voxel elements and determining the risk level of the voxel element based on the representative risk value. Also, note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the aircraft parameter is equivalent to the flight object (e.g., flight path).)
Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachs and Büddefeld to incorporate the teachings of Herriot to propagate risk levels from the first layer to subsequent layers of voxel elements using a propagation algorithm by selecting multiple voxel elements and determining a risk value based on the selected voxel elements because it provides the benefit of determining a risk of other objects in the airspace. Sachs and Büddefeld teach to determine airspace values based on ground values below the airspace. Herriot improves on this by using multiple grid values using a summation to propagate the values throughout the 4D airspace. This provides the additional benefit of avoiding stationary and moving obstacles along the flight path.
21. Regarding Claim 17, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 16, and further, Büddefeld teaches said computing the initial airspace risk levels for the first layer includes selecting, for each voxel element in the first layer, one or more terrain portions below the voxel element based on spatial correspondence between the voxel element and the terrain portions (Büddefeld: [0035] and [0060]).
22. Regarding Claim 18, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 17, and further, Büddefeld teaches the one or more terrain portions are selected based on the aircraft parameter (Büddefeld: [0051] and [0052]).
23. Regarding Claim 20, Sachs teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (Sachs: [0036]):
Obtain ground risk data that indicates ground risk levels associated with portions of terrain under an airspace (Sachs: [0042] and [0049]);
Generate airspace risk levels associated with portions of the airspace… (Sachs: [0056], [0057], and [0060]);
And provide an output to a device, the output associated with a flight plan of an aircraft, wherein the flight plan indicates a flight path that traverses one or more of the portions of the airspace (Sachs: [0038], [0087], and [0088]).
Sachs does not explicitly teach the airspace risk levels are based on risk ground levels, wherein the generation of the airspace risk levels comprises: create a voxel-based data structure representing the airspace as a grid of voxel elements; and compute initial airspace risk levels for a first layer of voxel elements based on the ground risk levels of corresponding terrain portions below each voxel element. However, Sachs teaches in [0056] and [0057] that the air risk value calculation may receive inputs that include obstacles and terrain.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to generate airspace risk levels based on the ground risk levels as similarly shown in Sachs' [0056] and [0057] use of using obstacles and terrain as an input for the air risk values. This provides the benefit of accurately determining risk of an airspace due to obstacles or terrain reducing the navigation accuracy of the aircraft on the flight path.
Additionally, Büddefeld teaches to generate airspace risk levels associated with portions of the airspace, the airspace risk levels based on the ground risk levels (Büddefeld: [0060]),
Wherein the generation of the airspace risk levels comprises: create a voxel-based data structure representing the airspace as a grid of voxel elements (Büddefeld: [0032]);
And compute initial airspace risk levels for a first layer of voxel elements based on the ground risk levels of corresponding terrain portions below each voxel element (Büddefeld: [0035] and [0060]).
Sachs and Büddefeld are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachs to incorporate the teachings of Büddefeld for the airspace risk levels to be based on the ground risk levels because it provides the benefit of determining the potential impact of an aircraft flying over an area to avoid areas where a ground impact would be costly. This provides the additional benefit of increasing the safety of the people on the ground below the aircraft.
Sachs and Büddefeld fail to explicitly teach to iteratively propagate risk levels from the first layer to subsequent layers of voxel elements using a propagation algorithm, wherein each voxel element in a subsequent layer derives its risk level based on previously-computed risk levels of voxel elements in layers below the subsequent layer, wherein the propagation algorithm comprises: for each voxel element in the subsequent layer, select multiple voxel elements from the layers below based on an aircraft parameter; and determine the risk level of the voxel element in the subsequent layer based on a representative risk value of the selected multiple voxel elements.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Herriot teaches to iteratively propagate risk levels from the first layer to subsequent layers of voxel elements using a propagation algorithm, wherein each voxel element in a subsequent layer derives its risk level based on previously-computed risk levels of voxel elements in layers below the subsequent layer, wherein the propagation algorithm comprises (Herriot: [Column 3, Lines 46-49] and [Column 5, Lines 4-15] Note that grid tiles being propagated in the x, y, and z directions is equivalent to propagating risk level in a subsequent layer based on previously-computed risk values.):
For each voxel element in the subsequent layer, select multiple voxel elements from the layers below based on an aircraft parameter; and determine the risk level of the voxel element in the subsequent layer based on a representative risk value of the selected multiple voxel elements (Herriot: [Column 5, Lines 15-33] Note that the grid tile values being summed based on the closer grid tiles (to the flight object) being incremented at a greater value is equivalent to selecting multiple voxel elements and determining the risk level of the voxel element based on the representative risk value. Also, note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the aircraft parameter is equivalent to the flight object (e.g., flight path).)
Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachs and Büddefeld to incorporate the teachings of Herriot to propagate risk levels from the first layer to subsequent layers of voxel elements using a propagation algorithm by selecting multiple voxel elements and determining a risk value based on the selected voxel elements because it provides the benefit of determining a risk of other objects in the airspace. Sachs and Büddefeld teach to determine airspace values based on ground values below the airspace. Herriot improves on this by using multiple grid values using a summation to propagate the values throughout the 4D airspace. This provides the additional benefit of avoiding stationary and moving obstacles along the flight path.
24. Claims 4-5, 7, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sachs (US 20210358310 A1), in view of Büddefeld (US 20240212512 A1), in view of Herriot (US 9417070 B1), and in further view of Cleaver (US 20210225179 A1).
25. Regarding Claim 4, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 1.
Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot fail to explicitly teach the aircraft parameter comprises a glide profile of the aircraft, and wherein said select of the multiple voxel elements comprises select voxel elements that are within a glide range that is based on the glide profile.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cleaver teaches the aircraft parameter comprises a glide profile of the aircraft, and wherein said select of the multiple voxel elements comprises select voxel elements that are within a glide range that is based on the glide profile (Cleaver: [0077] and [0079]).
Sachs, Büddefeld, Herriot, and Cleaver are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot to incorporate the teachings of Cleaver to select multiple voxel elements that are within a glide range based on a glide profile because it provides the benefit of determining an aircraft path while considering that damage that could be caused to humans or structures on the ground based on potential aircraft failures.
26. Regarding Claim 5, Sachs, Büddefeld, Herriot, and Cleaver remains as applied above in Claim 4, and further, Herriot teaches to select the one or more second portions based on an aircraft parameter of the aircraft (Herriot: [Column 5, Lines 15-33] Note that the representative risk value is based on the maximum risk value of the selected multiple voxel is equivalent to the summation associated with each grid tile incremented with a greater magnitude as the tiles are closer the flight object.).
27. Regarding Claim 7, Sachs, Büddefeld, Herriot, and Cleaver remains as applied above in Claim 4, and further, Cleaver teaches to determine the risk level comprises propagate a highest ground risk level upward and outward through the subsequent layers at an angle corresponding to the aircraft parameter (Cleaver: [0091] Note that Fig. 9 teaches the risk levels are propagated upward and outward from the highest ground risk areas 905 and 906 (road and railway).).
28. Regarding Claim 19, Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot remains as applied above in Claim 19.
Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot fail to explicitly teach the aircraft parameter comprises a glide profile of the aircraft, and wherein said select of the multiple voxel elements comprises select voxel elements that are within a glide range that is based on the glide profile.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cleaver teaches the aircraft parameter comprises a glide profile of the aircraft, and wherein said select of the multiple voxel elements comprises select voxel elements that are within a glide range that is based on the glide profile (Cleaver: [0077] and [0079]).
Sachs, Büddefeld, Herriot, and Cleaver are considered to be analogous to the claim invention because they are in the same field of aircraft navigation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sachs, Büddefeld, and Herriot to incorporate the teachings of Cleaver to select multiple voxel elements that are within a glide range based on a glide profile because it provides the benefit of determining an aircraft path while considering that damage that could be caused to humans or structures on the ground based on potential aircraft failures.
Response to Arguments
29. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Herriot (US 9417070 B1) has been applied to teach the amended subject matter of selecting multiple voxel element from the layers below based on an aircraft parameter and determining the risk level based on a representative risk value of the selected multiple voxel elements in the rejection above as cited in at least Column 5, Lines 15-33. Herriot teaches for the grid tile values being summed based on the closer grid tiles (to the flight object) being incremented at a greater value.
30. Sachs (US 20210358310 A1), in view of Büddefeld (US 20240212512 A1), in view of Herriot (US 9417070 B1), and in further view of Cleaver (US 20210225179 A1) teaches all aspects of the invention. The rejection is modified according to the newly amended language but still maintained with the current prior art of record.
31. Claims 1-20 remain rejected under their respective grounds and rational as cited above, and as stated in the prior office action which is incorporated herein. Also, although not specifically argued, all remaining claims remain rejected under their respective grounds, rationales, and applicable prior art for these reasons cited above, and those mentioned in the prior office action which is incorporated herein.
Conclusion
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T SILVA whose telephone number is (571)272-6506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues: 7AM - 4:30PM ET; Wed-Thurs: 7AM-6PM ET; Fri: OFF.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 571-272-1206. 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.
/MICHAEL T SILVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3663