DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to applicant’s submissions filled 03/13/2026. This is also a first action on the merits. Claims 1 – 20 are pending. Claims 15 – 20 stand withdrawn.
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is reply to the Application Number 18/911,138 filed on 03/13/2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 15 – 20 have been withdrawn.
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species of fig. 6 in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/13/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 03/09/2025 has been received and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection for its dependent claims 2 - 10. Claim 1 recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor of an aerial vehicle control and interface system cause the aerial vehicle control and interface system to:
generate a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising one or more aerial vehicle graphical flight instrument indicators, each indicator corresponding to an axis of movement of the aerial vehicle and displaying a range of allowable values for the axis of movement;
receive a user interaction corresponding to an instruction to modify navigation of the aerial vehicle to a value above a maximum allowable value or below a minimum allowable value of an axis of movement;
determine a hierarchical order of degradation of one or more additional axes of movement based on the instruction; [mental process/step]
transmit one or more actuator commands to one or more actuators of the aerial vehicle based on the instruction and the determined hierarchical order of degradation; and
generate a status indicator for display at the GUI indicating that the aerial vehicle is operating in a degraded state.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person able to acquire an axes of movement and determine the hierarchical order of degradation of one ore more additional axes (determination can be made on recalling past degradation events). Thus the person is merely looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor of an aerial vehicle control and interface system cause the aerial vehicle control and interface system to: [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module]
generate a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising one or more aerial vehicle graphical flight instrument indicators, each indicator corresponding to an axis of movement of the aerial vehicle and displaying a range of allowable values for the axis of movement; [machine is merely an object on which the method operates (MPEP 2106.05(b))]
receive a user interaction corresponding to an instruction to modify navigation of the aerial vehicle to a value above a maximum allowable value or below a minimum allowable value of an axis of movement; [pre-solution activity (data gathering)]
determine a hierarchical order of degradation of one or more additional axes of movement based on the instruction; [mental process/step]
transmit one or more actuator commands to one or more actuators of the aerial vehicle based on the instruction and the determined hierarchical order of degradation; and [insignificant extra-solution activity (receiving/transmitting data over signal)]
generate a status indicator for display at the GUI indicating that the aerial vehicle is operating in a degraded state. [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process)]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitation of “a graphical user interface (GUI)” the examiner submits that this limitation is merely an object which the method operates upon, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Regarding the additional limitation of “receive…”, “transmit…”, and “generate a status indicator…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps can be a person viewing a user interaction corresponding to an instruction to modify navigation of the aerial vehicle. This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is an insignificant extra solution activity as it is well-understood, routine, conventional activity of transmitting signals. Lastly, the generating of a status indicator based on a determination by the mental process amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitation of “a graphical user interface (GUI)” the examiner submits that this limitation is merely an object which the method operates upon, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Regarding the additional limitation of “receive…”, “transmit…”, and “generate a status indicator…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps can be a person viewing a user interaction corresponding to an instruction to modify navigation of the aerial vehicle. This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is an insignificant extra solution activity as it is well-understood, routine, conventional activity of transmitting signals. Lastly, the generating of a status indicator based on a determination by the mental process amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 2 states: “The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the user interaction comprises maximum deflection of a mechanical controller through which the aerial vehicle is controlled.”, which is merely stating the user action on the mechanical controller. The user action on the mechanical controller is acquired to perform the mental process of determining an hierarchical order of degradation of one or more additional axes of movement. The mechanical controller is a machine is merely an object on which the method operates in which the user input is performed. That user input is then received by the person who performs the mental process. Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 1.
Please see below for the 35 USC §101 rejection of claims 11 – 14.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 11 is directed to an aerial vehicle control interface (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claim 11 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection for its dependent claims 12 - 14. Claim 11 recites:
An aerial vehicle control and interface system comprising:
a universal vehicle control interface for an aerial vehicle, the universal vehicle control interface configured to:
display a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising one or more aerial vehicle graphical flight instrument indicators, each indicator corresponding to an axis of movement of the aerial vehicle and displaying a range of allowable values for the axis of movement; and
receive a user interaction corresponding to an instruction to modify navigation of the aerial vehicle to a value above a maximum allowable value or below a minimum allowable value of an axis of movement; and
a universal avionics control router configured to:
determine a hierarchical order of degradation of one or more additional axes of movement based on the instruction; [mental process/step]
transmit one or more actuator commands to one or more actuators of the aerial vehicle based on the instruction and the determined hierarchical order of degradation; and
generate a status indicator for display at the GUI indicating that the aerial vehicle is operating in a degraded state.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person able to acquire an axes of movement and determine the hierarchical order of degradation of one or more additional axes (determination can be made on recalling past degradation events). Thus the person is merely looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
An aerial vehicle control and interface system comprising: [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module]
a universal vehicle control interface for an aerial vehicle, the universal vehicle control interface configured to: display a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising one or more aerial vehicle graphical flight instrument indicators, each indicator corresponding to an axis of movement of the aerial vehicle and displaying a range of allowable values for the axis of movement; and [machine is merely an object on which the method operates (MPEP 2106.05(b))]
receive a user interaction corresponding to an instruction to modify navigation of the aerial vehicle to a value above a maximum allowable value or below a minimum allowable value of an axis of movement; and [pre-solution activity (data gathering)]
a universal avionics control router configured to: [machine is merely an object on which the method operates (MPEP 2106.05(b))]
determine a hierarchical order of degradation of one or more additional axes of movement based on the instruction; [mental process/step]
transmit one or more actuator commands to one or more actuators of the aerial vehicle based on the instruction and the determined hierarchical order of degradation; and [insignificant extra-solution activity (receiving/transmitting data over signal)]
generate a status indicator for display at the GUI indicating that the aerial vehicle is operating in a degraded state. [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process)]
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitation of “an aerial vehicle control and interface system”, is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitation of “a universal vehicle control interface” and “a universal avionics control router” the examiner submits that this limitation is merely an object which the method operates upon, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Regarding the additional limitation of “receive…”, “transmit…”, and “generate a status indicator…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps can be a person viewing a user interaction corresponding to an instruction to modify navigation of the aerial vehicle. This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is an insignificant extra solution activity as it is well-understood, routine, conventional activity of transmitting signals. Lastly, the generating of a status indicator based on a determination by the mental process amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation of “an aerial vehicle control and interface system”, is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitation of “a universal vehicle control interface” and “a universal avionics control router” the examiner submits that this limitation is merely an object which the method operates upon, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Regarding the additional limitation of “receive…”, “transmit…”, and “generate a status indicator…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps can be a person viewing a user interaction corresponding to an instruction to modify navigation of the aerial vehicle. This step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is an insignificant extra solution activity as it is well-understood, routine, conventional activity of transmitting signals. Lastly, the generating of a status indicator based on a determination by the mental process amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 12 – 14 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 12 states: “The aerial vehicle control and interface system of claim 11, wherein the user interaction comprises maximum deflection of a mechanical controller through which the aerial vehicle is controlled.”, which is merely stating the user action on the mechanical controller. The user action on the mechanical controller is acquired to perform the mental process of determining an hierarchical order of degradation of one or more additional axes of movement. The mechanical controller is a machine is merely an object on which the method operates in which the user input is performed. That user input is then received by the person who performs the mental process. Therefore, dependent claims 12 – 14 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of 11.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 14 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 – 8 and 10 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigman et al. (US 11803197 B2), further in view of Webler et al. (US 20120004792 A1) and Zimmerman et al. (US 20240153400 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weigman teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor of an aerial vehicle control and interface system cause the aerial vehicle control and interface system to: (Weigman: Col. 8, lines 38 – 47: “Referring now to FIG. 2A, an exemplary embodiment of a system 200 for controlling a flight boundary of an aircraft, such as in some embodiments aircraft 100 of FIG. 1, is illustrated. In some embodiments, system 200 includes a controller such as flight controller 124 communicatively connected to aircraft. Flight controller 124 may include any computing device as described in this disclosure, including without limitation a microcontroller, microprocessor, digital signal processor (DSP) and/or system on a chip (SoC) as described in this disclosure.”; Col. 8, lines 17 – 21: “An ADC may then digitize analog signal produces a digital signal that can then be transmitted other systems within aircraft 100, for instance without limitation a computing system, a pilot display, and a memory component.”)
… receive a user interaction corresponding to an instruction to modify navigation of the aerial vehicle to a value above a maximum allowable value or below a minimum allowable value of an axis of movement; (Weigman: Col. 11, line 59 – Col. 12, line 1: “Still referring to FIG. 2A, as used in this disclosure, an “aircraft movement limit” is associated with some limit to the movement of an aircraft (e.g., where a pilot's instructions will be obeyed only to the degree permitted by the aircraft movement limit or its value, if any). In an embodiment, aircraft movement limit may be associated with without limitation, a manned aircraft. For example, and without limitation, aircraft movement limit may be a position limit associated with the aircraft, including (but not limited to) an attitude limit, an altitude limit, a latitude limit, and a longitude limit”; Col. 13, lines 33 – 38: “Still referring to FIG. 2A, in some embodiments, aircraft movement limit 204 may override pilot instruction 208 as implemented via control signal 220. In some embodiments, the eventual decision on deciding and implementing flight boundary 212 and/or aircraft movement limit 204 typically rests with flight controller 124 through generation of control signal 220.”; Col. 12, lines 7 – 13: “In some other cases, aircraft movement limit may a velocity limit. Some examples include, without limitation, a forward velocity limit, a lateral velocity limit, a rotational velocity limit (e.g., about a yaw or vertical axis), a vertical velocity limit, or a limit associated with a desired direction of movement (e.g., indicated by an input device such as a joystick)”,
Supplemental Note: the pilot is able to control the aircraft travel outside the flight boundary which the system is able to detect and potentially override)
determine a hierarchical order of degradation of one or more additional axes of movement based on the instruction; (Weigman: Col. 14, lines 25 – 34: “Degradation of motors, batteries, sensory equipment, etc. (or weather-introduced imprecision or error rates in sensory acquisition/communication) could have a similar effect. Each of these effects and/or flight data elements may be input to machine-learning models, and each corresponding adjustment to flight boundary may be output by a machine-learning model, for instance as trained using training examples correlating such effects and/or flight data elements to boundaries that bound likely resulting paths and/or result in safe and/or effective flight maneuvers.”; Col. 16, lines 41 – 46: “Flight component datum 252 and/or (plurality of) flight data 216 may include, without limitation, data or information on any flight component degradation, number of flight components, number of energy sources, battery packs, or batteries onboard aircraft, type of aircraft, and the like, among others.”; Col. 26, lines 2 – 9: “Training data may include data from past flights including, without limitation, behavior of aircraft that may have encountered and/or evinced various flight data patterns on past real flights. Such encounters may include, without limitation, failure and/or degradation of aircraft components in-flight, weather conditions (e.g. extreme rain, turbulence and/or lightning), and the like, among others.”,
Supplemental Note: the learning model is able to identify degradation in the airplane components based the training data)
transmit one or more actuator commands to one or more actuators of the aerial vehicle based on the instruction and the determined hierarchical order of degradation; and (Weigman: Col. 7, lines 3 – 25: “In an embodiment, and still referring to FIG. 1, flight controller 124 may be configured to perform a corrective action as a function of a failure event. As used in this disclosure a “corrective action” is an action conducted by the plurality of flight components to correct and/or alter a movement of an aircraft. For example, and without limitation, a corrective action may include an action to reduce a yaw torque generated by a failure event. Additionally or alternatively, corrective action may include any corrective action as described in U.S. Nonprovisional application Ser. No. 17/222,539, filed on Apr. 5, 2021, and entitled “AIRCRAFT FOR SELF-NEUTRALIZING FLIGHT,” the entirety of which is incorporated herein by reference. As used in this disclosure a “failure event” is a failure of a lift component of the plurality of lift components. For example, and without limitation, a failure event may denote a rotation degradation of a rotor, a reduced torque of a rotor, and the like thereof. Additionally or alternatively, failure event may include any failure event as described in U.S. Nonprovisional application Ser. No. 17/113,647, filed on Dec. 7, 2020, and entitled “IN-FLIGHT STABILIZATION OF AN AIRCAFT,” the entirety of which is incorporated herein by reference.”).
In sum, Weigman teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor of an aerial vehicle control and interface system cause the aerial vehicle control and interface system to: receive a user interaction corresponding to an instruction to modify navigation of the aerial vehicle to a value above a maximum allowable value or below a minimum allowable value of an axis of movement; determine a hierarchical order of degradation of one or more additional axes of movement based on the instruction; transmit one or more actuator commands to one or more actuators of the aerial vehicle based on the instruction and the determined hierarchical order of degradation. Weigman however does not teach generate a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising one or more aerial vehicle graphical flight instrument indicators, each indicator corresponding to an axis of movement of the aerial vehicle and displaying a range of allowable values for the axis of movement.
Webler teaches generate a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising one or more aerial vehicle
graphical flight instrument indicators, each indicator corresponding to an axis of movement of the aerial vehicle and displaying a range of allowable values for the axis of movement; (Webler: Abstract: “A method for displaying information to a pilot or operator of a manned or unmanned aerial vehicle to facilitate safe operation of the aerial vehicle includes the steps of providing a display screen, displaying a three dimensional Cartesian coordinate system having a horizontal axis, a vertical axis and a depth axis on the display screen, displaying a model of an aerial vehicle on the screen in a manner that represents the position and velocity of the aerial vehicle relative to the coordinate system, displaying the horizontal axis and the vertical axis in a selected manner to indicate a potentially unsafe condition and providing an altitude display near the vertical axis. The display screen provides warnings to indicate unsafe conditions of altitude and pitch angle and includes objects that represent the ground. The ground objects move on the screen to indicate the speed and direction of the aerial vehicle.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Weigman with the teachings of Webler with a reasonable expectation of success. Webler teaches the ability of a displaying relevant information about an aircraft. Weigman similarly teaches pilot control which allows the pilot to monitor and control operation of the aircraft (Weigman: Col. 12, lines 44 – 60). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement the display of Webler with the aircraft of Weigman as part of the pilot control system to allow for greater monitoring capabilities. For example, Webler teaches the ability of displaying the horizontal and vertical axis and potentially unsafe conditions. Combining this with the aircraft of Weigman will give the pilot additional information about unsafe conditions and further improving the safety of the aircraft. Weigman in view of Webler however still do not teach to generate a status indicator for display at the GUI indicating that the aerial vehicle is operating in a degraded state.
Zimmerman teaches generate a status indicator for display at the GUI indicating that the aerial vehicle is operating in a degraded state (Zimmerman: Paragraph 0048: “The first GUI 302, illustrated in FIG. 3A, details fuel level and failure indicators of various systems of the simulated aircraft.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Weigman with the teachings of Zimmerman with a reasonable expectation of success. Zimmerman teaches the ability of operating a virtual aircraft in which the display can show the conditions of the aircraft components. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this display which shows these various conditions with the aircraft of Weigman as to increase the safety of the vehicle. For example, the system of Zimmerman when combined with Weigman will now be able to show any components of the aircraft which are failing. Thus increasing the safety of the pilot as they can plan their maneuvers accordingly with the failure status and it can also increase the life of the aircraft as the failures can be pointed out by the display, thus the aircraft service workers will know what to fix.
Regarding claim 2, Weigman, as modified, teaches wherein the user interaction comprises maximum deflection (Weigman: Col. 11, line 59 – Col. 12, line 5: “an “aircraft movement limit” is associated with some limit to the movement of an aircraft (e.g., where a pilot's instructions will be obeyed only to the degree permitted by the aircraft movement limit or its value, if any). In an embodiment, aircraft movement limit may be associated with without limitation, a manned aircraft. For example, and without limitation, aircraft movement limit may be a position limit associated with the aircraft, including (but not limited to) an attitude limit, an altitude limit, a latitude limit, and a longitude limit. In some cases, position limit may be relative to some boundary (e.g., the aircraft's position should remain over a body of water or some smaller area within that body of water).”,
Supplemental Note: controlling the aerial vehicle from the joystick has maneuverability limits)
of a mechanical controller through which the aerial vehicle is controlled. (Weigman: Col. 12, lines 44 – 52: “Still referring to FIG. 2A, as used in this disclosure, a “pilot control” is a mechanism or means which allows a pilot to monitor and control operation of aircraft such as its flight components (for example, and without limitation, pusher component, lift component and other components such as propulsion components). For example, and without limitation, pilot control 120 may include a collective, inceptor, foot brake, steering and/or control wheel, joystick, control stick, pedals, throttle levers, and the like.”)
Regarding claim 3, Weigman, as modified, teaches wherein the instructions further cause the aerial vehicle control and interface system to:
receive a second user interaction comprising a re-centering of the mechanical controller for at least a threshold period of time; (Weigman: Col. 28, lines 23 – 26: “a joystick with a twistable knob at the tip of joystick (both of which may be spring centered) and a (e.g., up-down) thumbwheel which may also be spring centered.”; Col. 41, lines 20 – 27: “Suppose the two aircrafts get relatively close to each other and then the pilot lets go of his/her joystick so that the joystick goes into a centered and/or neutral position. Normally, releasing the joystick like this may cause an aircraft to come to a gradual stop and then hover in-place. However, at close distances, the non-negligible value of the modeled repulsive force would (at least in this example) cause first aircraft to come to a stop and then “bounce back” away”)
determine updated allowable values for each axis of movement; (Weigman: Col. 14, lines 16 – 25: “For example, and without limitation, flight boundary 212 may need adjustment if the precision of navigation of aircraft needs to be taken into consideration based on updated flight data 216. This may be compensated for by allowing a flight boundary that now accounts for a greater navigational error rate. For example, and without limitation, if it is windy or turbulent, aircraft may be blown off course, buffeted around, etc., which may mean it can't stay within a tolerance of an intended route which would be possible in calmer weather.”)
transmit one or more updated actuator commands to the one or more actuators of the aerial vehicle based on the updated allowable values; and (Weigman: Col. 28, line 63 – Col. 29, line 7: “aircraft movement limit may have an initial or default value which may be loaded or otherwise set when aircraft is started. For example, the process of method A may be used to update aircraft movement limit throughout flight (e.g., depending upon the instructions from flight instructor or other supervisor, or controller such as flight controller 124 of FIG. 2A, new values for aircraft movement limit may be automatically determined based on current state information, etc.). Stated differently, the process of method A may be continuously performed during a flight to allow aircraft movement limit to be continuously or periodically updated, as needed or desired.”).
In sum, Weigman teaches wherein the instructions further cause the aerial vehicle control and interface system to: receive a second user interaction comprising a re-centering of the mechanical controller for at least a threshold period of time; determine updated allowable values for each axis of movement; transmit one or more updated actuator commands to the one or more actuators of the aerial vehicle based on the updated allowable values. Weigman however does not teach to generate a second status indicator for display at the GUI indicating that the aerial vehicle has returned to a normal operating state.
Zimmerman teaches generate a second status indicator for display at the GUI indicating that the aerial vehicle has returned to a normal operating state (Zimmerman: Paragraph 0048: “The first GUI 302, illustrated in FIG. 3A, details fuel level and failure indicators of various systems of the simulated aircraft.”; Paragraph 0038: “For example, the one or more aircraft parameters include pitch, yaw, and roll data, airspeed data, altitude data, center of gravity data, wing status data, fuel tank and fuel level data, engine status data (e.g., engine failure status, engine power status, etc.)”,
Supplemental Note: if no failures are found, the status returns back to normal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Weigman with the teachings of Zimmerman with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 4, Weigman, as modified, teaches wherein maximum and minimum values for each axis of movement cannot be exceeded when the aerial vehicle is in the normal operating state (Weigman: Col. 11, line 59 – Col. 12, line 1: “Still referring to FIG. 2A, as used in this disclosure, an “aircraft movement limit” is associated with some limit to the movement of an aircraft (e.g., where a pilot's instructions will be obeyed only to the degree permitted by the aircraft movement limit or its value, if any). In an embodiment, aircraft movement limit may be associated with without limitation, a manned aircraft. For example, and without limitation, aircraft movement limit may be a position limit associated with the aircraft, including (but not limited to) an attitude limit, an altitude limit, a latitude limit, and a longitude limit”; Col. 28, line 63 – Col. 29, line 7: “aircraft movement limit may have an initial or default value which may be loaded or otherwise set when aircraft is started. For example, the process of method A may be used to update aircraft movement limit throughout flight (e.g., depending upon the instructions from flight instructor or other supervisor, or controller such as flight controller 124 of FIG. 2A, new values for aircraft movement limit may be automatically determined based on current state information, etc.). Stated differently, the process of method A may be continuously performed during a flight to allow aircraft movement limit to be continuously or periodically updated, as needed or desired.”,
Supplemental Note: the aircraft movement limits are interpreted as a minimum and maximum limits).
Regarding claim 5, Weigman, as modified, teaches wherein the instruction to modify navigation of the aerial vehicle is a speed modification, a lateral orientation modification, a heading modification, or a vertical position modification (Weigman: Col. 15, lines 26 – 37: “As used in this disclosure, “control signal” is a control command or decision directed to aircraft and/or its components. For example, and without limitation, control signal may instruct and/or control operation of one or more flight components 108 such as, and without limitation, lift component(s) 112 and pusher component(s) 116 to modify aircraft speed, velocity, yaw, pitch, roll, altitude, attitude, lift, thrust, mode of flight, energy consumption rate, and the like, among others. Control signal 220 may also be used to decide whether to accept or reject a pilot instruction 208, for example, in view of determined flight boundary 212 and/or aircraft movement limit(s) 204.”).
Regarding claim 6, Weigman, as modified, teaches wherein the range of allowable values for the axes of movement are dynamically adjusted during operation of the aerial vehicle (Weigman: Col. 11, line 59 – Col. 12, line 1: “Still referring to FIG. 2A, as used in this disclosure, an “aircraft movement limit” is associated with some limit to the movement of an aircraft (e.g., where a pilot's instructions will be obeyed only to the degree permitted by the aircraft movement limit or its value, if any). In an embodiment, aircraft movement limit may be associated with without limitation, a manned aircraft. For example, and without limitation, aircraft movement limit may be a position limit associated with the aircraft, including (but not limited to) an attitude limit, an altitude limit, a latitude limit, and a longitude limit”; Col. 28, line 63 – Col. 29, line 7: “aircraft movement limit may have an initial or default value which may be loaded or otherwise set when aircraft is started. For example, the process of method A may be used to update aircraft movement limit throughout flight (e.g., depending upon the instructions from flight instructor or other supervisor, or controller such as flight controller 124 of FIG. 2A, new values for aircraft movement limit may be automatically determined based on current state information, etc.). Stated differently, the process of method A may be continuously performed during a flight to allow aircraft movement limit to be continuously or periodically updated, as needed or desired.”).
Regarding claim 7, Weigman, as modified, does not teach wherein the status indicator that the aerial vehicle is operating in the degraded state is one of a visual cue or an aural cue that a particular aircraft parameter is being degraded.
Zimmerman teaches wherein the status indicator that the aerial vehicle is operating in the degraded state is one of a visual cue or an aural cue that a particular aircraft parameter is being degraded (Zimmerman: Paragraph 0048: “The first GUI 302, illustrated in FIG. 3A, details fuel level and failure indicators of various systems of the simulated aircraft.”; Paragraph 0038: “For example, the one or more aircraft parameters include pitch, yaw, and roll data, airspeed data, altitude data, center of gravity data, wing status data, fuel tank and fuel level data, engine status data (e.g., engine failure status, engine power status, etc.)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Weigman with the teachings of Zimmerman with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 8, Weigman, as modified, teaches wherein the instructions further cause the aerial vehicle control and interface system to:
determine, based on the user interaction corresponding to the instruction to modify navigation of the aerial vehicle, that an operator is maneuvering the aerial vehicle to avoid an in-flight incident (Weigman: Col. 41, lines 16 – 36: “In one example, and without limitation suppose that pilot of first aircraft (e.g., MC1) may be pushing his/her joystick forwards so that first aircraft flies towards second aircraft (e.g., MC2) (without limitation, the two aircrafts are facing each other in this example). Suppose the two aircrafts get relatively close to each other and then the pilot lets go of his/her joystick so that the joystick goes into a centered and/or neutral position. Normally, releasing the joystick like this may cause an aircraft to come to a gradual stop and then hover in-place. However, at close distances, the non-negligible value of the modeled repulsive force would (at least in this example) cause first aircraft to come to a stop and then “bounce back” away from second aircraft as a way of modeling a repulsive force between the two aircrafts since they are too close to each other. This may, for example, signal or otherwise remind pilot to stay away from the other aircraft and/or that the other aircraft is off limits. In some embodiments, as the value of the modeled repulsive force increases (e.g., because the two aircrafts are closer to each other) the amount of displacement or “bounce back” may be greater.”).
Regarding claim 10, Weigman, as modified, does not teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the aerial vehicle and control system to: during operation of the aerial vehicle at an engine power below a threshold power value, detect a failure of the engine of the aerial vehicle for at least a threshold period of time, and wherein the status indicator that the aerial vehicle is operating in the degraded state comprises an engine power indicator.
Zimmerman teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the aerial vehicle and control system to:
during operation of the aerial vehicle at an engine power below a threshold power value, detect a failure of the engine of the aerial vehicle for at least a threshold period of time, and (Zimmerman: Paragraph 0039: “The one or more aircraft parameters are configured to be changed naturally by the simulation (e.g., altitude numbers increase as simulation of aircraft take-off occurs, fuel tank level decreases as flight progresses, etc.), but also, the aircraft parameters are configured to be altered by the simulation of the event. That is, if the event being simulated is an engine failure due to a ballistic impact on the engine, the one or more aircraft parameters will be altered by the apparatus 102 to reflect that ballistic impact on the engine and subsequent engine failure. Thereby, the instruments, the user input device 210, and the display 212 of the physical flight simulator 104 will be altered to reflect the changed one or more aircraft parameters.”)
wherein the status indicator that the aerial vehicle is operating in the degraded state comprises an engine power indicator (Zimmerman: Paragraph 0048: “The first GUI 302, illustrated in FIG. 3A, details fuel level and failure indicators of various systems of the simulated aircraft… The third GUI 306, illustrated in FIG. 3C, details parts of an aircraft, including some of the wings and fuselage as well as indicators indicating a status of the engines, fuel tank(s) and various other aspects of the aircraft. Each of these indicators is updated based on received one or more parameters received by the apparatus, or based on the simulating application that is simulating the aircraft, its flight, user input and/or the event.”; Paragraph 0038: “For example, the one or more aircraft parameters include pitch, yaw, and roll data, airspeed data, altitude data, center of gravity data, wing status data, fuel tank and fuel level data, engine status data (e.g., engine failure status, engine power status, etc.)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Weigman with the teachings of Zimmerman with a reasonable expectation of success. As stated for claim 1, Zimmerman teaches the ability of operating a virtual aircraft in which the display can show the conditions of the aircraft components. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this display which shows these various conditions with the aircraft of Weigman as to increase the safety of the vehicle. For example, the system of Zimmerman when combined with Weigman will now be able to show any components of the aircraft which are failing. Thus increasing the safety of the pilot as they can plan their maneuvers accordingly with the failure status and it can also increase the life of the aircraft as the failures can be pointed out by the display, thus the aircraft service workers will know what to fix.
Regarding claim 11, Weigman teaches an aerial vehicle control and interface system comprising:
a universal vehicle control interface for an aerial vehicle, the universal vehicle control interface configured to: (Weigman: Col. 8, lines 38 – 47; Col. 8, lines 17 – 21)
… receive a user interaction corresponding to an instruction to modify navigation of the aerial vehicle to a value above a maximum allowable value or below a minimum allowable value of an axis of movement; and (Weigman: Col. 11, line 59 – Col. 12, line 1; Col. 13, lines 33 – 38; Col. 12, lines 7 – 13,
Supplemental Note: the pilot is able to control the aircraft travel outside the flight boundary which the system is able to detect and potentially override)
a universal avionics control router configured to: (Weigman: Col. 62, lines 34 – 43)
determine a hierarchical order of degradation of one or more additional axes of movement based on the instruction; (Weigman: Col. 14, lines 25 – 34; Col. 16, lines 41 – 46; Col. 26, lines 2 – 9)
transmit one or more actuator commands to one or more actuators of the aerial vehicle based on the instruction and the determined hierarchical order of degradation; and (Weigman: Col. 7, lines 3 – 25).
In sum, Weigman teaches an aerial vehicle control and interface system comprising: a universal vehicle control interface for an aerial vehicle, the universal vehicle control interface configured to: receive a user interaction corresponding to an instruction to modify navigation of the aerial vehicle to a value above a maximum allowable value or below a minimum allowable value of an axis of movement; and a universal avionics control router configured to: determine a hierarchical order of degradation of one or more additional axes of movement based on the instruction; transmit one or more actuator commands to one or more actuators of the aerial vehicle based on the instruction and the determined hierarchical order of degradation. Weigman however does not teach display a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising one or more aerial vehicle graphical flight instrument indicators, each indicator corresponding to an axis of movement of the aerial vehicle and displaying a range of allowable values for the axis of movement.
Webler teaches display a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising one or more aerial vehicle graphical flight instrument indicators, each indicator corresponding to an axis of movement of the aerial vehicle and displaying a range of allowable values for the axis of movement; and (Webler: Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Weigman with the teachings of Webler with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses. Weigman in view of Webler however still do not teach generate a status indicator for display at the GUI indicating that the aerial vehicle is operating in a degraded state.
Zimmerman teaches generate a status indicator for display at the GUI indicating that the aerial vehicle is operating in a degraded state (Zimmerman: Paragraph 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Weigman with the teachings of Zimmerman with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 12, Weigman, as modified, teaches wherein the user interaction comprises maximum deflection (Weigman: Col. 11, line 59 – Col. 12, line 5)
of a mechanical controller through which the aerial vehicle is controlled (Weigman: Col. 12, lines 44 – 52).
Regarding claim 13, Weigman, as modified, teaches wherein:
the universal vehicle control interface is further configured to:
receive a second user interaction comprising a re-centering of a mechanical controller for at least a threshold period of time; and (Weigman: Col. 28, lines 23 – 26; Col. 41, lines 20 – 27)
the universal avionics control router is further configured to: (Weigman: Col. 62, lines 34 – 43)
determine updated allowable values for each axis of movement; (Weigman: Col. 14, lines 16 – 25)
transmit one or more updated actuator commands to the one or more actuators of the aerial vehicle based on the updated allowable values; and (Weigman: Col. 28, line 63 – Col. 29, line 7).
In sum, Weigman teaches wherein: the universal vehicle control interface is further configured to: receive a second user interaction comprising a re-centering of a mechanical controller for at least a threshold period of time; and the universal avionics control router is further configured to: determine updated allowable values for each axis of movement; transmit one or more updated actuator commands to the one or more actuators of the aerial vehicle based on the updated allowable values. Weigman however does not teach to generate a second status indicator for display at the GUI indicating that the aerial vehicle has returned to a normal operating state.
Zimmerman teaches generate a second status indicator for display at the GUI indicating that the aerial vehicle has returned to a normal operating state (Zimmerman: Paragraph 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Weigman with the teachings of Zimmerman with a reasonable expectation of success. Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 as both claim the same function and therefore rejected under the same pretenses.
Regarding claim 14, Weigman, as modified, teaches wherein maximum and minimum values for each axis of movement cannot be exceeded when the aerial vehicle is in a normal operating state (Weigman: Col. 11, line 59 – Col. 12, line 1; Col. 28, line 63 – Col. 29, line 7).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weigman et al. (US 11803197 B2), Webler et al. (US 20120004792 A1) and Zimmerman et al. (US 20240153400 A1), further in view of Einthoven et al. (US 20050004721 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Weigman, as modified, teaches wherein the user interaction is a mechanical controller movement (Weigman: Col. 12, lines 7 – 13: “In some other cases, aircraft movement limit may a velocity limit. Some examples include, without limitation, a forward velocity limit, a lateral velocity limit, a rotational velocity limit (e.g., about a yaw or vertical axis), a vertical velocity limit, or a limit associated with a desired direction of movement (e.g., indicated by an input device such as a joystick)”).
In sum, Weigman teaches wherein the user interaction is a mechanical controller movement. Weigman however does not teach at an acceleration exceeding a threshold acceleration.
Einthoven teaches at an acceleration exceeding a threshold acceleration (Einthoven: Abstract: “This invention relates to the concept of managing the rate of change of energy in a helicopter or other aeronautical vehicle. The invention uses energy management calculations to determine the maximum longitudinal and lateral inputs that can be made while still enabling the vehicle to maintain a desired vertical state.”; Paragraph 0015: “The present invention provides a method for calculating maximum acceleration and decelerations (referred to as energy limits) that can be achieved on the longitudinal and lateral axes while maintaining a constant vertical state and not exceeding any vehicle limits related to the vertical axis. The energy limits on the longitudinal and lateral axes can be represented as minimum and maximum pitch and bank attitude limits.”; Paragraph 0085: “FIG. 9 demonstrates a potential method 160 for using the present invention to assist a vehicle operator when the vehicle is in a condition where the vertical state cannot be maintained without exceeding the minimum or maximum vertical inceptor limits. Such conditions can occur when there is a sudden change in the desired vertical state (for example, the need to climb over an obstacle), or a sudden change in one of the vertical limits (such as an engine failure). This invention can be used to guide the vehicle operator with corrective action to return the vehicle to a condition where the vertical state can be maintained without violating the minimum and maximum vertical inceptor limits. FIG. 9 shows a potential solution for a traditional helicopter.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have been modified the invention disclosed by Weigman with the teachings of Einthoven with a reasonable expectation of success. Weigman teaches the ability of limiting the different maneuverability parameters of an aircraft so they stay within a boundary. Einthoven also teaches the ability of determining the maximum and minimum limits of an aircraft maneuverability with further being able to determine when the vehicle operation is exceeding a minimum or maximum limit. Einthoven teaches the ability to push past the limits in case of conditions of sudden change and the invention is used to guide the vehicle operator with the corrective actions to return to normal conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to implement this function of Einthoven with the aircraft of Weigman as it increases the safety of the pilot by allowing them to operate the aircraft past the limits and then to return to normal conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIVAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/SHIVAM SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights