Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 6, 2024, and July 15, 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elshafei et al. (US 2016/0023755 A1) (herein after Elshafei) in view of Depenbusch et al (US 11,702,191 B1) (herein after Depenbusch).
Regarding Claim 1, Elshafei discloses, 1. A method of controlling a vehicle (Fig. 1, ¶ 21 method for control of quadrotor air vehicles (QRAV), ¶ 9 QRAV may perform vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL)), the method comprising: identifying an input position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 different positions of the joysticks 401, 402) associated with a human-machine interface (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 joysticks 401, 402); identifying a current speed of the vehicle (Fig. 4, ¶ 61 elevation/ascending speed); determining a dynamic reference position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402) for the human-machine interface based at least in part on the current speed (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 maintain its last forward speed); determining an acceleration command (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 acceleration control) for the vehicle based on a relationship between the input position and the dynamic reference position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402); —
Elshafei fails to disclose, — and providing the acceleration command to a control system configurable to operate one or more actuators associated with the vehicle to influence the current speed of the vehicle in accordance with the acceleration command.
In analogous art, Depenbusch discloses, — and providing the acceleration command (Fig. 7. Col. 16. Ln. 35 a force required to follow a desired acceleration command) to a control system configurable to operate one or more actuators (Fig. 1. Actuators 160) associated with the vehicle to influence the current speed of the vehicle in accordance with the acceleration command (Fig. 7. Col. 16. Ln. 24 – 30 corresponding command models, airspeed, configured to output, for each desired change, a corresponding force required to accomplish the desired change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elshafei by combining the method of controlling the vehicle disclosed by Elshafei with a method of controlling a vehicle comprising: providing the acceleration command to a control system configurable to operate one or more actuators associated with the vehicle to influence the current speed of the vehicle in accordance with the acceleration command; disclosed by Depenbusch for the benefit of controlling a vehicle using a distributed propulsion system to avoid risk of a single failure point and safely takeoff and land vertically in restricted space [Depenbusch: Col. 2, Ln. 57: For example, it may be desired for safety reasons that the aircraft are propelled by a distributed propulsion system, avoiding the risk of a single point of failure, and that they are capable of conventional takeoff and landing on a runway. Moreover, it may be desired that the aircraft can safely vertically takeoff and land from and into relatively restricted spaces].
Regarding Claim 2, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei further discloses, 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic reference position is different from an unactuated position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402) of the human-machine interface.
Regarding Claim 3, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei fails to disclose, 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic reference position varies with respect to the current speed of the vehicle in a continuous manner without discontinuity.
Depenbusch further discloses, 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic reference position varies with respect to the current speed of the vehicle in a continuous manner without discontinuity (Fig. 4. Col. 14. Ln. 27 measure position as a feedback signal, continually adjust for uncertain wind, configure the flight control system to perform this automatically).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elshafei in view of Depenbusch by combining the method of controlling the vehicle disclosed by Elshafei in view of Depenbusch with a method of controlling a vehicle wherein, the dynamic reference position varies with respect to the current speed of the vehicle in a continuous manner without discontinuity; disclosed by Depenbusch for the benefit of controlling a vehicle using a distributed propulsion system to avoid risk of a single failure point and safely takeoff and land vertically in restricted space [Depenbusch: Col. 2, Ln. 57: For example, it may be desired for safety reasons that the aircraft are propelled by a distributed propulsion system, avoiding the risk of a single point of failure, and that they are capable of conventional takeoff and landing on a runway. Moreover, it may be desired that the aircraft can safely vertically takeoff and land from and into relatively restricted spaces]..
Regarding Claim 4, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei further discloses, 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic reference position is nonzero when the current speed is nonzero (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402).
Regarding Claim 5, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei further discloses, 5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the acceleration command comprises determining the acceleration command to reduce the current speed to zero (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 cause the aircraft to come to a hover state) when the input position corresponds to an unactuated reference position (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 A neutral position of the joystick may cause the aircraft to come to a hover state) for the human-machine interface when the current speed is nonzero.
Regarding Claim 6, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei further discloses, 6. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the acceleration command comprises determining the acceleration command to maintain the current speed constant (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 The neutral position of the joystick may cause the aircraft to maintain its last forward speed) when the input position is equal to the dynamic reference position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402).
Regarding Claim 7, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei further discloses, 7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the acceleration command comprises: determining an actuation percentage associated with the input position (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 a forward speed may be proportional to the joystick lever position) based on a relationship between the input position and a range of actuation (Fig. 5, ¶ 74 a range of vehicle speed that can be reached by a full span of the joystick) associated with the human-machine interface; —.
Elshafei fails to disclose, — and determining the acceleration command based on a difference between the actuation percentage associated with the input position and a reference actuation percentage associated with the dynamic reference position.
Depenbusch further discloses, — and determining the acceleration command based on a difference between the actuation percentage associated with the input position and a reference actuation percentage (Fig. 7. Col. 16. Ln. 63 Based on determining a difference between the desired acceleration and the measured acceleration) associated with the dynamic reference position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elshafei in view of Depenbusch by combining the method of controlling the vehicle disclosed by Elshafei in view of Depenbusch with a method of controlling a vehicle comprising: determining the acceleration command based on a difference between the actuation percentage associated with the input position and a reference actuation percentage associated with the dynamic reference position; disclosed by Depenbusch for the benefit of controlling a vehicle using a distributed propulsion system to avoid risk of a single failure point and safely takeoff and land vertically in restricted space [Depenbusch: Col. 2, Ln. 57: For example, it may be desired for safety reasons that the aircraft are propelled by a distributed propulsion system, avoiding the risk of a single point of failure, and that they are capable of conventional takeoff and landing on a runway. Moreover, it may be desired that the aircraft can safely vertically takeoff and land from and into relatively restricted spaces].
Regarding Claim 8, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei fails to disclose, 8. The method of claim 1, wherein a relationship between the dynamic reference position and the current speed is continuous.
Depenbusch further discloses, 8. The method of claim 1, wherein a relationship between the dynamic reference position and the current speed is continuous (Fig. 4. Col. 14. Ln. 27 measure position as a feedback signal, continually adjust for uncertain wind, configure the flight control system to perform this automatically).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elshafei in view of Depenbusch by combining the method of controlling the vehicle disclosed by Elshafei in view of Depenbusch with a method of controlling a vehicle wherein, a relationship between the dynamic reference position and the current speed is continuous; disclosed by Depenbusch for the benefit of controlling a vehicle using a distributed propulsion system to avoid risk of a single failure point and safely takeoff and land vertically in restricted space [Depenbusch: Col. 2, Ln. 57: For example, it may be desired for safety reasons that the aircraft are propelled by a distributed propulsion system, avoiding the risk of a single point of failure, and that they are capable of conventional takeoff and landing on a runway. Moreover, it may be desired that the aircraft can safely vertically takeoff and land from and into relatively restricted spaces].
Regarding Claim 9, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei further discloses, 9. The method of claim 1, further comprising identifying a current forward speed (Fig. 4, ¶ 61 forward speed) of the vehicle, wherein: the current speed of the vehicle comprises a current vertical speed (Fig. 4, ¶ 61 elevation/ascending speed) of the vehicle; determining the dynamic reference position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402) comprises determining the dynamic reference position for the human-machine interface based at least in part on the current vertical speed and the current forward speed (Fig. 4, ¶ 61 one or more elevation/ascending speed, forward speed); determining the acceleration command comprises determining a vertical acceleration command (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 acceleration control) based on the relationship between the input position and the dynamic reference position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402); and the one or more actuators (Fig. 1, four rotors 1, 2, 3, 4) influence the current vertical speed of the vehicle in accordance with the vertical acceleration command (Fig. 4, ¶ 26 enable full actuation and control of the air vehicle).
Regarding Claim 10, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 9, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei further discloses, 10. The method of claim 9, wherein the human-machine interface comprises a pitch lever (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 forward/backward position may be used to control the pitch of the air vehicle) and the vehicle comprises a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft (Fig. 1, ¶ 9 QRAV may perform vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL)).
Regarding Claim 11, Elshafei discloses, 11. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon (Fig. 7, ¶ 94 fetch instructions sequentially from a program memory 703 and execute them) that, when executed by a processing system (Fig. 7, ¶ 94 CPU 702), cause the processing system to: identify an input position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 different positions of the joysticks 401, 402) associated with a human-machine interface (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 joysticks 401, 402); identify a current speed of a vehicle (Fig. 4, ¶ 61 elevation/ascending speed) (Fig. 1, ¶ 21 method for control of quadrotor air vehicles (QRAV), ¶ 9 QRAV may perform vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL)); determine a dynamic reference position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402) for the human-machine interface based at least in part on the current speed (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 maintain its last forward speed); determine an acceleration command (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 acceleration control) for the vehicle based on a relationship between the input position and the dynamic reference position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402); —.
Elshafei fails to disclose, — and provide the acceleration command to a control system configurable to operate one or more actuators associated with the vehicle to influence the current speed of the vehicle in accordance with the acceleration command.
In analogous art, Depenbusch discloses, — and provide the acceleration command (Fig. 7. Col. 16. Ln. 35 a force required to follow a desired acceleration command) to a control system configurable to operate one or more actuators (Fig. 1. Actuators 160) associated with the vehicle to influence the current speed of the vehicle in accordance with the acceleration command (Fig. 7. Col. 16. Ln. 24 – 30 corresponding command models, airspeed, configured to output, for each desired change, a corresponding force required to accomplish the desired change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elshafei by combining the non-transitory computer-readable medium disclosed by Elshafei with a non-transitory computer-readable medium that causes a processing system to: provide the acceleration command to a control system configurable to operate one or more actuators associated with the vehicle to influence the current speed of the vehicle in accordance with the acceleration command; disclosed by Depenbusch for the benefit of controlling a vehicle using a distributed propulsion system to avoid risk of a single failure point and safely takeoff and land vertically in restricted space [Depenbusch: Col. 2, Ln. 57: For example, it may be desired for safety reasons that the aircraft are propelled by a distributed propulsion system, avoiding the risk of a single point of failure, and that they are capable of conventional takeoff and landing on a runway. Moreover, it may be desired that the aircraft can safely vertically takeoff and land from and into relatively restricted spaces].
Regarding Claim 12, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei further discloses, 12. The computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the vehicle comprises a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft (Fig. 1, ¶ 9 QRAV may perform vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL)) and the control system comprises a flight control law (Fig. 1, ¶ 76 configuration files for common flight missions) of a flight control computer (Fig. 1, ¶ 24 a flight computer).
Regarding Claim 13, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei further discloses, 13. The computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the dynamic reference position is different from an unactuated position Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402) of the human-machine interface.
Regarding Claim 14, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei fails to disclose, 14. The computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the dynamic reference position varies with respect to the current speed of the vehicle in a continuous manner without discontinuity.
Depenbusch further discloses, 14. The computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the dynamic reference position varies with respect to the current speed of the vehicle in a continuous manner without discontinuity (Fig. 4. Col. 14. Ln. 27 measure position as a feedback signal, continually adjust for uncertain wind, configure the flight control system to perform this automatically).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elshafei in view of Depenbusch by combining the non-transitory computer-readable medium disclosed by Elshafei in view of Depenbusch with a non-transitory computer-readable medium wherein, the dynamic reference position varies with respect to the current speed of the vehicle in a continuous manner without discontinuity; disclosed by Depenbusch for the benefit of controlling a vehicle using a distributed propulsion system to avoid risk of a single failure point and safely takeoff and land vertically in restricted space [Depenbusch: Col. 2, Ln. 57: For example, it may be desired for safety reasons that the aircraft are propelled by a distributed propulsion system, avoiding the risk of a single point of failure, and that they are capable of conventional takeoff and landing on a runway. Moreover, it may be desired that the aircraft can safely vertically takeoff and land from and into relatively restricted spaces].
Regarding Claim 15, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei further discloses, 15. The computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the dynamic reference position is nonzero when the current speed is nonzero (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402).
Regarding Claim 16, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei further discloses, 16. The computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions are configurable to cause the processing system to determine the acceleration command to reduce the current speed to zero (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 cause the aircraft to come to a hover state) when the input position corresponds to an unactuated reference position (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 A neutral position of the joystick may cause the aircraft to come to a hover state) for the human-machine interface when the current speed is nonzero.
Regarding Claim 17, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei further discloses, 17. The computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions are configurable to cause the processing system to determine the acceleration command to maintain the current speed constant (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 The neutral position of the joystick may cause the aircraft to maintain its last forward speed) when the input position is equal to the dynamic reference position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402).
Regarding Claim 18, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei further discloses, 18. The computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions are configurable to cause the processing system to: determining an actuation percentage associated with the input position (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 a forward speed may be proportional to the joystick lever position) based on a relationship between the input position and a range of actuation (Fig. 5, ¶ 74 a range of vehicle speed that can be reached by a full span of the joystick) associated with the human-machine interface; —
Elshafei fails to disclose, — and determining the acceleration command based on a difference between the actuation percentage associated with the input position and a reference actuation percentage associated with the dynamic reference position.
Depenbusch further discloses, — and determining the acceleration command based on a difference between the actuation percentage (Fig. 7. Col. 16. Ln. 63 Based on determining a difference between the desired acceleration and the measured acceleration) associated with the input position and a reference actuation percentage associated with the dynamic reference position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elshafei in view of Depenbusch by combining the non-transitory computer-readable medium disclosed by Elshafei in view of Depenbusch with a non-transitory computer-readable medium that causes a processing system to: determine the acceleration command based on a difference between the actuation percentage associated with the input position and a reference actuation percentage associated with the dynamic reference position; disclosed by Depenbusch for the benefit of controlling a vehicle using a distributed propulsion system to avoid risk of a single failure point and safely takeoff and land vertically in restricted space [Depenbusch: Col. 2, Ln. 57: For example, it may be desired for safety reasons that the aircraft are propelled by a distributed propulsion system, avoiding the risk of a single point of failure, and that they are capable of conventional takeoff and landing on a runway. Moreover, it may be desired that the aircraft can safely vertically takeoff and land from and into relatively restricted spaces].
Regarding Claim 19, Elshafei in view of Depenbusch disclose the limitations of claim 11, which this claim depends on.
Elshafei further discloses, 19. The computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions are configurable to cause the processing system to identify a current forward speed of the vehicle, wherein: the current speed of the vehicle comprises a current vertical speed (Fig. 4, ¶ 61 elevation/ascending speed) of the vehicle; determining the dynamic reference position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402) comprises determining the dynamic reference position for the human-machine interface based at least in part on the current vertical speed and the current forward speed (Fig. 4, ¶ 61 one or more elevation/ascending speed, forward speed); determining the acceleration command comprises determining a vertical acceleration command (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 acceleration control) based on the relationship between the input position and the dynamic reference position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402); and the one or more actuators influence the current vertical speed of the vehicle in accordance with the vertical acceleration command (Fig. 4, ¶ 26 enable full actuation and control of the air vehicle).
Elshafei discloses, 20. An aircraft system (Fig. 1, ¶ 21 system for control of quadrotor air vehicles (QRAV), ¶ 9 QRAV may perform vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL)) comprising: a flight control component (Fig. 1, four rotors 1, 2, 3, 4) actuatable to influence at least one of a position and an attitude of an aircraft; an actuation system (Fig. 1, brushless DC motors) coupled to the flight control component to actuate the flight control component; a human-machine interface (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 joysticks 401, 402); an onboard system to provide indication of a current speed of the aircraft (Fig. 4, ¶ 61 elevation/ascending speed); a flight control computer (Fig. 1, ¶ 24 a flight computer) coupled to the actuation system, the onboard system and the human-machine interface, wherein the flight control computer is configurable to: identify an input position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 different positions of the joysticks 401, 402) associated with the human-machine interface; determine a dynamic reference position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402) for the human-machine interface based at least in part on the current speed (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 maintain its last forward speed); determine an acceleration command (Fig. 4, ¶ 63 acceleration control) for the aircraft based on a relationship between the input position and the dynamic reference position (Fig. 4, ¶ 64 remap the different functions, to different positions of the joysticks 401, 402); —
Elshafei fails to disclose, — and provide an actuation command to the actuation system to operate the flight control component to influence the current speed of the aircraft in accordance with the acceleration command.
In analogous art, Depenbusch discloses, — and provide an actuation command (Fig. 7. Col. 16. Ln. 35 a force required to follow a desired acceleration command) to the actuation system to operate the flight control component (Fig. 1. Actuators 160) to influence the current speed of the aircraft in accordance with the acceleration command (Fig. 7. Col. 16. Ln. 24 – 30 corresponding command models, airspeed, configured to output, for each desired change, a corresponding force required to accomplish the desired change).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elshafei by combining the aircraft system disclosed by Elshafei with an aircraft system configurable to: provide an actuation command to the actuation system to operate the flight control component to influence the current speed of the aircraft in accordance with the acceleration command; disclosed by Depenbusch for the benefit of controlling a vehicle using a distributed propulsion system to avoid risk of a single failure point and safely takeoff and land vertically in restricted space [Depenbusch: Col. 2, Ln. 57: For example, it may be desired for safety reasons that the aircraft are propelled by a distributed propulsion system, avoiding the risk of a single point of failure, and that they are capable of conventional takeoff and landing on a runway. Moreover, it may be desired that the aircraft can safely vertically takeoff and land from and into relatively restricted spaces].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. MARTINEZ et al (US 2024/0326984 A1) discloses, wherein the human-machine interface comprises a pitch lever (Fig. 5, ¶ 58 first and second manual control apparatuses 23a, 23b as schematically shown in FIG. 5 for inputting control commands in order to be able to control the aircraft 10 to perform flight maneuvers) and the vehicle comprises a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft (Fig. 2, ¶ 52 an electrical propulsion VTOL aircraft).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH O. NYAMOGO whose telephone number is (469)295-9276. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 A to 5:00 P CT.
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, EMAN ALFAKAWI can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/JOSEPH O. NYAMOGO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/FARHANA A HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights