DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on September 2, 2025. Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10, and 12-18 are pending and are examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to original claims 1, 6, 8, 10, and 12-17 have been fully considered.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received September 2, 2025 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose a display device that effectively allows one image related to flight attendant information to be displayed on a first display facing a first direction and a second image related to passenger information to be displayed on a second display facing a second direction using a single controller, and where the first direction places the first display within a first field of view of a cabin attendant viewing the first display and the second direction places the second display within a second field of view of the passengers viewing the second display. This language corresponds to the newly amended language of claims 1 and 8.
Applicant also argues that Inoue’s Fig. 2 fails to disclose that the first and second display are facing toward a center plane. However, the term “center plane” is not defined by the claim – it is not described as being in any particular direction - the x-direction, the y-direction, the z-direction. A “center” could be in any position, below, above, left, or right of the displays. Even the term “between” is not clear – a plane could be considered “between” the displays where it is a horizontal plane directly below the two displays. If Applicant would like to be more specific about what it means to “face toward a center plane”, Applicant should do so.
Ultimately, these have been considered but they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below. See the rejection below for how the art on record in view of a newly added reference reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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, 5, 7-8, 10, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0009635 (“Chavarria”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0310735 (“Dean”).
With respect to claim 1, Chavarria discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including
A display device for an aircraft cabin (see Abstract, Figs. 1, 4, items 106, 108, 126-130, 426-430, ¶¶6, 15, describing a display device for an aircraft cabin), comprising:
a first display directed to a first direction (see Abstract, Figs. 1, 4, items 108, 130, 430, ¶¶4-5, 17-18, 24-25, 28, 33, 39, showing an describing a first display directed to a first direction),
a second display directed to a second direction different from the first direction (see citations with respect to element above and Figs. 1, 4, items 106, 126, 426, showing and describing a second display directed to a second direction different from the first direction),
mounting means for mounting the first display and the second display to a wall of the aircraft cabin (see Figs. 1, 4, items 106, 108, 126-130, 426-430, ¶¶4, 43, 56-58, showing and describing that the first and second display are mounted on or within a wall of the aircraft cabin, i.e., necessarily include mounting means for mounting them to a wall of the aircraft cabin), and
a controller configured to control a first image displayed on the first display and a second image displayed on the second display (see ¶¶5, 22, 27, 28, 33, describing a controller to control the images displayed on the first and second displays),
wherein the first direction and the second direction form an angle (Ƴ) greater than about 90° (see Figs. 1, 4, ¶5, showing and describing that the first direction and the second direction (normal vectors from the display faces) form an angle that may be greater than about 90° - the phrase “greater than about 90°” is broad and is interpreted to encompass that shown in Figs. 1, 4, which could be considered 90° or greater and also could be considered 270°),
…, wherein the first image is a synthesized image containing at least some of the cabin attendant information (see Figs. 1, 4, items 108, 130, 430, 454, ¶¶5, 18, 24-25, describing that the aisle-facing display screen may display informational indicia to persons/staff in the aisle, including graphical information for the cabin attendant, e.g., information about the seat, passenger requests, safety information, seat numbering, service requests, do not disturb indicators, information for passenger assistance, or the like for staff to view, i.e., the first image may be a synthesized image containing at least some of the cabin attendant information),
…, wherein the second image is a synthesized image containing at least some of the passenger information (see ¶¶5, 28, 33, describing that the controller or onboard computing device to display media may allow a display to assume control of a portion of the visual space, e.g., during an inflight movie, to relay information for a passenger – e.g., crew instructions, announcements, etc., and that a centralized system may provide such information to passengers, i.e., the second image be a synthesized image containing at least some of the passenger information), and
wherein the first direction places the first display within a first field of view of a cabin attendant viewing the first display and the second direction places the second display within a second field of view of the passengers viewing the second display (see Figs. 1, 4, items 106, 108, 126-130, 426-430, ¶¶5, 17-18, 24-25, 28, 39, describing that the first direction places the first display in the view of the aisle to be viewed by staff, which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood to include, e.g., a cabin attendant, viewing the first display and the second direction places the second display within a second field of view of the passengers viewing the second display).
Chavarria does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to receive cabin attendant information from a cabin management system and a cabin video monitoring system …, wherein the controller is configured to receive passenger information from an aircraft information and service system, or passenger information and service system, or from both.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dean discloses that it was known for a controller to receive cabin attendant information from a cabin management system and cabin monitoring system and synthesizing images with such information and to receive passenger information from an aircraft/passenger information and service system and synthesizing images with such information:
wherein the controller is configured to receive cabin attendant information from a cabin management system and a cabin video monitoring system, … (see Figs. 3-6B, items 100, 200, 400, ¶¶35-41, 47-51, 53, 95-101, 114-126, showing and describing that it was known to use a controller, e.g., CMS/MDU, ZDU, or cabin HEU, to receive information for cabin attendants from a cabin management system, e.g., CMS, and a camera surveillance system, i.e., cabin video monitoring system),
wherein the controller is configured to receive passenger information from an aircraft information and service system, or passenger information and service system, or from both, (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that such controllers were known to receive information for passengers, i.e., passenger information, e.g., connecting gate and aircraft cabin information, PA announcements, fasten seat belt information, no smoking signals, advertising, etc., from an aircraft or passenger information and service system, e.g., from the MDUs and ZDUs, i.e., from an aircraft information and service system or passenger information and service system, or both).
As detailed above, Chavarria discloses an aircraft display system including a controller for such displays and images displayed therefrom (see citations above). It also discloses the communication of items like flight attendant call requests through these systems from a passenger to a display intended for viewing by a flight attendant or in-flight announcements from the crew to the display intended for viewing by the passengers (see citations above). Chavarria does not detail potential control systems/hierarchies for such displays. However, at the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with in-aircraft displays and control systems for communication of information to and from such displays and have understood that, as evidenced by Dean, such systems may include a controller to receive information from a cabin management and cabin video monitoring system and to receive passenger information from an aircraft information and service system or passenger information and service system. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, including such controller/cabin management functionality to communicate such information would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a controller to receive information from a cabin management and cabin video monitoring system and to receive passenger information from an aircraft information and service system or passenger information and service system in the aircraft display system of Chavarria as taught by Dean.
With respect to claim 2, Chavarria discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Chavarria in view of Dean discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Chavarria/Dean additionally discloses:
wherein the first direction and the second direction are substantially opposite in a projection towards the wall (see Chavarria, Figs. 1, 4, showing that the first direction and second direction are substantially opposite in a projection toward the wall – the term “substantially opposite” is a broad term that is interpreted to encompass the display of images in different/opposing directions as shown in Figs. 1, 4).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 2.
With respect to claim 5, Chavarria discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Chavarria in view of Dean discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Chavarria/Dean additionally discloses:
further comprising:
a sensor, wherein the sensor is connected to the controller and configured to provide a video signal, audio signal, or both to the controller, and
wherein the sensor includes a camera, or a microphone, or both (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Dean Figs. 8, 12, items 3113, 3105, 3109B, ¶¶50, 58, 62, 68, describing that it was known for such display systems to include microphones, cameras or both, and that these sensors may be connected to and provide video or audio to the controller).
As detailed above, Chavarria discloses an aircraft display system including a controller (see citations with respect to element above). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with in-aircraft displays and the elements included therein and have understood that, as evidenced by Dean, such systems may include microphones and/or cameras, e.g., for surveillance, and may communicate such data to the controller. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, including such elements/functionality in the display system of Chavarria would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include microphones and/or cameras with the ability to communicate sensor data to the controller in the aircraft display system of Chavarria/Dean as taught by Dean.
With respect to claim 7, Chavarria discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Chavarria in view of Dean discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Chavarria/Dean additionally discloses:
wherein the first display and the second display are facing away from a center plane (see Chavarria, Figs. 1, 4, showing that the first and second display may face away from a center plane between the two and ¶23, describing that the angle of the displays may be adjusted up to 90 degrees in any direction to minimize glare and provide proper viewing angle, i.e., including to face away from a center plane).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, Chavarria discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Chavarria in view of Dean discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Chavarria/Dean additionally discloses:
A display device for an aircraft cabin (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above), comprising:
a first display directed to a first direction (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
a second display directed to a second direction different from the first direction (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
mounting means for mounting the first display and the second display to a wall of the aircraft cabin (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above), and
a controller configured to control a first image displayed on the first display and a second image displayed on the second display (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
wherein the first direction and the second direction form an angle (Ƴ) greater than about 90° (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above),
wherein the first display and the second display are facing toward a center plane (see Chavarria Figs. 1, 4, ¶23, showing and describing that the angle of the displays may be adjusted 0 to 5, 10, or up to 90 degrees in any direction to minimize glare and provide proper viewing angle, i.e., including to face toward a center plane).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 8.
With respect to claim 10, Chavarria discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Chavarria in view of Dean discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Chavarria/Dean additionally discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to change the first image automatically depending on a flight phase (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, showing and describing that the controller may change the first image automatically to indicate umbering, service requests, do not disturb indications, safety information, etc. during takeoff or landing to relay crew instructions, i.e., to change the image automatically depending on flight phase).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 10.
With respect to claim 12, Chavarria discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Chavarria in view of Dean discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Chavarria/Dean additionally discloses:
further comprising:
an attendant control panel connected to the controller, wherein the controller is configured to change the first image displayed on the first display in response to a manual input of the attendant control panel (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, which describes that the controller may be attached to a flight attendant control panel, e.g., Dean’s CMS, to change the display images to include in-flight announcements, crew instructions, gate announcements, etc., i.e., in response to a manual input of the attendant control panel).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 12.
With respect to claim 13, Chavarria discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Chavarria in view of Dean discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Chavarria/Dean additionally discloses:
wherein the display device is arranged on a ceiling (see Dean Fig. 14, showing the display device may be arranged on a ceiling).
As detailed above, Chavarria discloses a display system that may be mounted in an aircraft (see citations with respect to claim 1 above) but mounts its displays in privacy walls. At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the common locations for seats/aisles/displays in an aircraft and have understood that, as evidenced by Dean, some aircrafts may not have such privacy walls or may not want them for space reasons and may be better served by overhead displays. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to allow for the displays of Chavarria to be arranged on the ceiling within the aircraft, as taught by Dean, in order to obtain this advantage. Moreover, to such a person, doing so would have represented nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include mounting of such devices on the ceiling in the aircraft display system of Chavarria as taught by Dean.
With respect to claim 14, Chavarria discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Chavarria in view of Dean discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Chavarria/Dean additionally discloses:
wherein the display device is arranged on a monument of the aircraft cabin or on a crossing point between two monuments, wherein the display device is arranged between a galley section or a lavatory section and seats for passengers (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, including Chavarria Figs. 1 and 4, showing that the display device may be arranged on a monument of the aircraft cabin or on a crossing point between two monuments; see also Dean Figs. 3, 6A, and 6B, ¶¶40-41, 82, showing and describing that the display device may be arranged between the galley or lavatory and seats for passengers).
As detailed above, Chavarria discloses a display system that may be mounted in an aircraft (see citations with respect to claim 1 above) but does not show a view of the entire aircraft and where these seats/displays such as those shown in Figs. 1 and 4 would be located. At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the common locations for seats/aisles/displays in an aircraft and have understood that, as evidenced by Dean, such locations may include the mounting of such devices throughout the plane, including at entrances to the cabin and between the galley or lavatory and passenger seats, to allow for viewing by all passengers and crew. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to include the displays of Chavarria in such locations within the aircraft, as taught by Dean, in order to obtain this advantage. Moreover, to such a person, doing so would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include mounting of such devices throughout the plane, including at entrances to the cabin and between the galley or lavatory and passenger seats in the aircraft display system of Chavarria as taught by Dean.
With respect to claim 15, Chavarria discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Chavarria in view of Dean discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Chavarria/Dean additionally discloses:
wherein the display device is arranged between an overhead storage compartment on one side and a galley section or a lavatory section on the other side (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Dean Figs. 3, 6A, and 6B, ¶¶40-41, 82, describing that the display device/MDU may be arranged between passenger seats and the front and rear lavatories, i.e., between an overhead storage compartment and a galley or lavatory section - as can be seen in Fig. 14, the overhead storage compartments are located above the passenger seats).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and 14 also apply to claim 15.
With respect to claim 16, Chavarria discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Chavarria in view of Dean discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Chavarria/Dean additionally discloses:
wherein the display device is arranged at an entrance of the aircraft cabin (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Dean Figs. 3, 6A, and 6B, ¶¶40-41, 75, 82, describing that the display device/MDU may be arranged in an entrance area of the aircraft cabin).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and 14 also apply to claim 16.
With respect to claim 17, Chavarria discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Chavarria in view of Dean discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Chavarria/Dean additionally discloses:
wherein the display device is arranged in an FWD section, an AFT section, or a MID section (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Dean Figs. 3, 6A, and 6B, ¶¶40-41, describing that the displays may be arranged in FWD, AFT, or MID sections).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and 14 also apply to claim 17.
With respect to claim 18, Chavarria discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Chavarria in view of Dean discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Chavarria/Dean additionally discloses:
A method for assembling an aircraft cabin comprising:
providing the display device according to claim 1; and
mounting the display device to a wall of the aircraft cabin (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavarria in view of Dean and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0332737 (“Wu”).
With respect to claim 6, Chavarria discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Chavarria in view of Dean discloses each and every element of independent claim 1.
Chavarria/Dean does not explicitly disclose wherein the first display and the second display form respective first and second tilt angles (a, B) with a center plane, wherein the first and second tilt angles are each between 0° and 50°, and wherein the first tilt angle (a) is larger than the second tilt angle (B) by at least 5°, and wherein upper edges of the first and second displays lie on a common horizontal plane.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wu discloses that it was known for the first and second displays to form first and second tilt angles with a center plane where one tilt angle is larger than the other, i.e.:
wherein the first display and the second display form respective first and second tilt angles (a, B) with a center plane, wherein the first and second tilt angles are each between 0° and 50°, and
wherein the first tilt angle (a) is larger than the second tilt angle (B) by at least 5°, and
wherein respective upper edges of the first and second displays lie on a common horizontal plane (see Fig. 5, ¶¶66, 69, showing and describing that it was known for back-to-back displays to be mounted such that each display forms a different tilt angle with a center plane, e.g., between 0 and 50°, and such that one of the tilt angles is larger than the second by at least 5°).
As detailed above, the system of Chavarria includes displays mounted in an aircraft and that such displays may be adjusted to provide an appropriate viewpoint (see citations with respect to claim 1 above). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with aircraft passenger display systems and have understood that, as evidenced by Wu, such systems may beneficially be adjusted at different angles. For example, this would provide a benefit where one display faces a seated passenger, but the other faces a standing attendant or passenger returning to their seat from the lavatory – each would have been understood to have different angles of view. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to include such mounting arrangements where each display is mounted at a different angle, as taught by Wu, in the display system of Chavarria/Dean in order to obtain this advantage. Moreover, to such a person, doing so would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include displays mounted at differing tilt angles from a center plane wherein one tilt angle is larger than the second in the display system of Chavarria/Dean as taught by Wu.
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 LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights