DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Applicant’s submissions filed on 2/10/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-14, 16 and 18-24 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that the amendments to the claims have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Prager’s adjustment to prevent the UAV from entering a nose-dive by keeping the UAV level during descent produces an opposite aerodynamic effect than the Applicant’s claimed invention which deliberately causes the nose to pitch upward and the wings to stall to achieve a controlled descent at a reduced sink rate (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Prager, in paragraphs 4-5, discloses most winged aircraft have a center of gravity that is positioned forward from a center of pressure for aerodynamic forward flight and a resulting moment caused by the center of pressure and the center of gravity causes the UAV to fall “nose down” when the motors stop working in, and the invention improves on conventional UAVs by providing that the UAV falls more “softly” when there is a system failure and/or the motors stop working, such that there is a softer landing when the UAV ultimately returns to the ground during such a flight failure. Prager further discloses, in paragraph 126, that when the UAV experiences a system failure and/or the motors stop working, the vertical stabilizer may be rotated to have a major surface of the vertical stabilizers facing in the direction of flight to reduce lift and move the center of pressure of the UAV towards, or in alignment with, the center of gravity of the UAV. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a conventional control system would inherently introduce a time lag between the occurrence of a motor failure and the responsive control action, during which the resulting moment would cause the nose of the UAV to lower, therefore, Prager’s modification to keep the UAV level during descent would necessarily include pitching the nose upwards to counteract this tendency. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention induces a deep stall condition that causes the nose of the UAV to pitch upward and wings to stall (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 150 of the Applicant’s specification discloses it is the increased drag at the rear of the UAV that may cause the nose of the aircraft to pitch upward potentially resulting in the wings stalling. Therefore, the deep stall results from, not causes, the UAV pitching upward and wings stalling by increasing the drag at the rear of the UAV. Prager’s rotation of a major surface of the vertical stabilizers to face in the direction of flight clearly increases the drag at the rear of the UAV and would therefore cause the nose of the aircraft to pitch upward potentially results in the wings stalling and causing a deep stall condition. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See rejection below.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Prager teaches away from inducing a stall (Applicant’s Remarks; p. 14), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by Applicant, Prager discloses adjusting the relative positions of the UAV’s centers of pressure and gravity in order to prevent the UAV from falling nose down when a motor fails. Prager does not explicitly disclose preventing nor inducing a stall, therefore, Prager cannot teach away from the proposed combination because Prager’s disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that reducing the angle of attack, e.g., by pitching the UAV’s nose down, is a conventional stall recover technique, therefore, by preventing the UAV from falling nose down, Prager would leave the UAV in a condition to induce a stall. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). See rejection below.
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed deep stall condition that causes the nose of the UAV to pitch upward and the wings to stall is not merely an intended result, but rather a specific aerodynamic condition achieved through the claimed structure and control surface position (Applicant’s Remarks; pp. 14-15), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 150 of the Applicant’s specification discloses it is the increased drag at the rear of the UAV that may cause the nose of the aircraft to pitch upward potentially resulting in the wings stalling. Therefore, the deep stall results from, not causes, the UAV to pitch upward and wings to stall by increasing the drag at the rear of the UAV. Prager’s rotation of a major surface of the vertical stabilizers to face in the direction of flight clearly increases the drag at the rear of the UAV and would therefore cause the nose of the aircraft to pitch upward potentially results in the wings stalling and causing a deep stall condition. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See rejection below.
Drawings
The amended drawings received on 2/10/2026 are acceptable.
Specification
The amendments to the specification received on 2/10/2026 are objected to because paragraphs 70-72 and 132-133 appear to contain replacement text, however, the text of the deleted matter is not shown by strike-through in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.121. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-6, 9, 12-17 and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dormiani et al. (US 2019/0036732) in view of Roberts et al. (US 4,099,687) and Prager et al. (US 2020/0070968), hereinafter Dormiani, Roberts and Prager, respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 20, Dormiani discloses an uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) (Dormiani; paras. 34-35: Herein, the terms “unmanned aerial system” and “UAS” refer to any autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicle that is capable of performing some functions without a physically present human pilot … the terms “drone,” “unmanned aerial vehicle system” (UAVS), or “unmanned aerial vehicle” (UAV) may also be used to refer to a UAS.) comprising: a fuselage (Dormiani; fig. 1A: fuselage 1104); a pair of wings extending outwardly from the fuselage (Dormiani; fig. 1A: stationary wings 1102); a pair of stabilizers arranged in a V-shape configuration (Dormiani; fig. 1A: stabilizers 1108), wherein each stabilizer has a control surface that is adjustable relative to a fixed portion of the stabilizer (Dormiani; para. 39: the stabilizers 1108 may include one or more rudders 1108a for controlling the UAS's yaw); and a computing device configured to: detect a control tier failure at the UAV (Dormiani; para. 124: a CAN controller may determine that the flight module has stopped sending signals, and thereby determine the failure state … In response, one or more CAN controllers may send control signals to flight modules associated with control zones 610, 612, 616, and 618 that instruct the flight modules to compensate for the inoperable propellers and to slowly descend the aerial vehicle for landing).
Dormiani does not explicitly disclose adjusting the control surface of each stabilizer from a first angle, at which the control surface is aligned substantially flat along the fixed portion of the stabilizer, to a second angle, to induce a deep stall condition in the UAV that causes the nose of the UAV to pitch upward and the wings to stall.
Roberts, in the same field of endeavor (aircraft controls), discloses autonomously adjusting control surfaces of a stabilizer (Roberts; col. 5, ll. 58-63) from a first angle, at which the control surface is aligned substantially flat along the fixed portion of the stabilizer (Roberts; figures 5 and 6 show the same aircraft, therefore, spoilers 78 are not distinguishable from the stabilizer in the side view because their surfaces are substantially flat, as conventionally configured for an aircraft spoiler), to a second angle, to induce a deep stall condition in an aircraft that causes the nose of the aircraft to pitch upward and the wings to stall (Roberts; col. 5, ll. 45-51: Spoilers 78 on the stabilizer 68 are actuated to cause the stabilizer to stall. Loss of lift from the stabilizer 68 causes the tail to drop, further raising the airplane's nose. This induces deep stall of the wing 64; and lacking lift from both wing and stabilizer, the airplane 60 translates downward through a near vertical trajectory.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have actuated the rudders of the UAV of Dormiani to raise the aircraft’s nose to induce a deep stall, as disclosed by Roberts, with the motivation of controlling low velocity descent at angles approaching the vertical while simultaneously maintaining the fuselage in a desirable, slightly nose-up attitude from the horizontal (Roberts; col. 5, ll. 36-40) thereby allowing the UAV to use small or undeveloped landing zones (Roberts; col. 1, ll. 56-57).
Dormiani, as modified, does not explicitly disclose adjusting the control surface of each stabilizer from the first angle to the second angle, at which the control surface is substantially perpendicular to the fixed portion of the stabilizer, based on detecting the control tier failure at the UAV.
Prager, in the same field of endeavor (UAV controls), discloses adjusting a control surface of each stabilizer of a plurality of stabilizers from a first angle to a second angle, at which the control surface is substantially perpendicular to a UAV’s direction of flight, based on detecting a control tier failure at a UAV (Prager; para. 126: When the UAV experiences a system failure and/or the motors stop working, the vertical stabilizers 116 may be rotated, from 0 to 90 degrees (or angles in between) to have a major surface of the vertical stabilizers facing in the direction of flight to reduce lift and move the center of pressure of the UAV towards, or in alignment with, the center of gravity of the UAV).
The leading edges of the stabilizers of both Dormiani and Prager are conventionally aligned in the flight direction of the UAV during nominal flying conditions. Additionally, Prager discloses, in paragraph 42, that the stabilizers that are deployed to 90° in response to a failure may be rudders in some embodiments. A rudder is, by definition, a moving section of a rear stabilizer that is attached to the fixed section by hinges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have actuated the rudders, attached to the fixed stabilizers that are aligned with the direction of flight, of the UAV of Dormiani to deploy to 90° with respect to the direction of flight in response to a system and/or motor failure, as disclosed by Prager, with the motivation of reducing lift and moving the center of pressure of the UAV towards, or in alignment with, the center of gravity of the UAV (Prager; para. 126) thereby providing for a soft landing in the event of a system failure and/or the motors stop working (Prager; para. 129).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Dormiani, as modified, discloses the pair of stabilizers that are arranged in the V-shape configuration form a V-tail of the UAV, and wherein each stabilizer extends in a vertical diagonal direction away from a longitudinal axis of the fuselage (Dormiani; fig. 1A: stabilizers 1108).
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 16, Dormiani, as modified, discloses the UAV further comprises: a first boom coupled to a first wing of the pair of wings, wherein the first boom extends in a direction substantially parallel to the fuselage of the UAV and perpendicular to the first wing; and a second boom coupled to a second wing of the pair of wings, wherein second boom extends in the direction substantially parallel to the fuselage of the UAV and perpendicular to the second wing (Dormiani; para. 38: a pair of rotor supports 1110 extend beneath the wings), wherein a first stabilizer of the pair of stabilizers is coupled to an end of the first boom that is positioned relative to a rear of the fuselage and a second stabilizer of the pair of stabilizers is coupled to an end of the second boom that is positioned relative to the rear of the fuselage, and wherein the first stabilizer and the second stabilizer are physically separate (Dormiani; fig. 1A: stabilizers 1108).
Regarding claim 9, Dormiani, as modified, discloses a sensor coupled to the UAV, wherein the computing device is configured to detect the control tier failure of the UAV based on sensor data provided by the sensor (Dormiani; para. 124: a sensor may determine the failure. For instance, an orientation sensor may determine that aerial vehicle 600 is tilting towards the inoperable propellers of control zone 614. In response, one or more CAN controllers may send control signals to flight modules associated with control zones 610, 612, 616, and 618 that instruct the flight modules to compensate for the inoperable propellers and to slowly descend the aerial vehicle for landing).
Regarding claim 12, Dormiani, as modified, discloses each control surface is adjustable across a range of angles comprising the first angle and the second angle (Prager; para. 126: the vertical stabilizers 116 may be rotated, from 0 to 90 degrees (or angles in between)).
Regarding claim 21, Dormiani, as modified, discloses the V-shape configuration of the pair of stabilizers maintains directional stability during the deep stall condition (Dormiani; para. 38: Stabilizers 1108 (or fins) may also be attached to the UAS 1110a to stabilize the UAS's yaw (turn left or right) during flight [e.g., during a deep stall condition].).
Regarding claim 22, Dormiani, as modified, discloses the computing device is configured to dynamically adjust a rate of control surface movement based on real-time feedback from one or more sensors during the adjustment from the first angle to the second angle (Roberts; col. 5, ll. 58-63: Operation of the system can be manual, remote or programmed to set either type aircraft into the required pre-stall attitude and to actuate the stabilizer or engine nacelle pivoting mechanism as the aircraft requires in order to initiate deep stall and then to maintain control in all axes.).
Regarding claim 23, Dormiani, as modified, discloses the computing device is configured to coordinate the adjustment of the control surfaces with a reduction in power to a propulsion system of the UAV (Roberts; col. 5, ll. 41-46: In initiating the desired steep descent, the flying speed of the aircraft is reduced by decreasing engine thrust to an airspeed just above stall conditions. Then the aircraft nose is pulled up in the conventional manner to initiate stall of the wing 64. Spoilers 78 on the stabilizer 68 are actuated to cause the stabilizer to stall.).
Regarding claim 24, Dormiani, as modified, discloses reducing power to a propulsion system of the UAV upon detecting the control tier failure to facilitate entry into the deep stall condition (Roberts; col. 5, ll. 41-45: In initiating the desired steep descent, the flying speed of the aircraft is reduced by decreasing engine thrust to an airspeed just above stall conditions. Then the aircraft nose is pulled up in the conventional manner to initiate stall of the wing 64.).
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dormiani in view of Roberts and Prager as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Tonet Fleig et al. (US 2024/0059409), hereinafter Tonet Fleig.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Dormiani, as modified, discloses a first plurality of hover rotors coupled to the first boom and a second plurality of hover rotors coupled to the second boom (Dormiani; para. 38: a plurality of rotors 1112 are attached rotor supports 1110. Rotors 1110 may be used during a hover mode).
Dormiani, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the computing device is configured to trigger the first plurality of hover rotors and the second plurality of hover rotors to freely rotate in response to detecting the control tier failure at the UAV.
Tonet Fleig, in the same field of endeavor (aircraft control), discloses a computing device is configured to trigger a first hover rotor and a second hover rotor to freely rotate in response to detecting a control tier failure at a UAV (Tonet Fleig; para. 22: the vertical thrust rotors 532 are configured to selectively operate in a locked mode, in which the vertical thrust rotors 532 cannot rotate freely in response to contact of airflow therewith, and an unlocked mode, in which the vertical thrust rotors 532 can rotate freely in response to contact of airflow therewith. The controller 550 is in operable communication with at least the vertical thrust sources 530, and is configured to selectively supply a command to the vertical thrust sources 530 that causes the vertical thrust rotors 532 to operate in the unlocked mode or the locked mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified, in response to a control failure, the CAN controller of Dormiani, as modified, to unlock a plurality of vertical thrust rotors, as disclosed by Toney Fleig, with the motivation of increasing the aerodynamic drag of the aircraft allowing for an increase in descent angle thereby providing for a flight path that allows the aircraft to descend safely at a steeper decline without colliding with mountains or other obstacles (Tonet Fleig; para. 24).
Claim(s) 8, 10-11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dormiani in view of Roberts and Prager as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Gillett et al. (US 2021/0107625), hereinafter Gillette.
Regarding claim 8, Dormiani, as modified, discloses determining an altitude of the UAV (Dormiani; para. 57: UAS 200 may also include a pressure sensor or barometer, which can be used to determine the altitude of the UAS 200. Alternatively, other sensors, such as sonic altimeters or radar altimeters, can be used to provide an indication of altitude) and selecting the second angle (Prager; para. 126: When the UAV experiences a system failure and/or the motors stop working, the vertical stabilizers 116 may be rotated, from 0 to 90 degrees (or angles in between) to have a major surface of the vertical stabilizers facing in the direction of flight).
It is unclear if Dormiani, as modified, explicitly discloses determining a speed of the UAV, and selecting the second angle based on the speed and the altitude of the UAV.
However, Gillette, in the same field of endeavor (aircraft stability control), discloses determining a speed of an aircraft, and selecting a stabilizer angle based on the speed and the altitude of the aircraft (Gillett; para. 16: To achieve the minimum drag position, the horizontal stabilizer control system 200 can take into account at least the airspeed of the rotorcraft 101, a measured pitch attitude of the rotorcraft 101, and angle of attack of the aircraft 101, and altitude of the aircraft 101, and any other suitable information. In some cases, the above-described information can be utilized to query the horizontal stabilizer lookup table 212 to receive predetermined position values for the horizontal stabilizers 150. After receiving the predetermined position values for the horizontal stabilizers 150, the horizontal stabilizer control system 200 can control the horizontal stabilizer actuators 154 to rotate the horizontal stabilizers 150 to the received predetermined position values.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the determination of the rudder angles in the CAN controller of Dormiani, as modified, to account for the altitude and airspeed of the aircraft, as disclosed by Gillette, to yield the predictable result of accurately controlling the descent of the UAV.
Regarding claim 10, Dormiani, as modified, discloses determining the second angle based on a weight of the UAV (Roberts; col. 4, ll. 1-8: The angle 28 of the stabilizer surface 20' and thus the magnitude and direction of force it produces are controllable … So by manipulation of these forces, the operator can in effect close the force polygon 58 and provide vertical and horizontal stability as the plane moves along its downward path 54.; col. 4, ll. 53-53: the weight force 48 acts vertically downward through the center of gravity).
It is unclear if Dormiani, as modified, explicitly discloses determining the second angle based on an altitude and a speed.
However, Gillette discloses determining a stabilizer angle based on an altitude and a speed of an aircraft (Gillett; para. 16: To achieve the minimum drag position, the horizontal stabilizer control system 200 can take into account at least the airspeed of the rotorcraft 101, a measured pitch attitude of the rotorcraft 101, and angle of attack of the aircraft 101, and altitude of the aircraft 101, and any other suitable information. In some cases, the above-described information can be utilized to query the horizontal stabilizer lookup table 212 to receive predetermined position values for the horizontal stabilizers 150. After receiving the predetermined position values for the horizontal stabilizers 150, the horizontal stabilizer control system 200 can control the horizontal stabilizer actuators 154 to rotate the horizontal stabilizers 150 to the received predetermined position values.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the determination of the rudder angles in the CAN controller of Dormiani, as modified, to account for the altitude and airspeed, as disclosed by Gillette, to yield the predictable result of accurately controlling the descent of the UAV.
Regarding claim 11, Dormiani, as modified, discloses determining the second angle based on wind conditions of an environment of the UAV (Gillett; para. 16: To achieve the minimum drag position, the horizontal stabilizer control system 200 can take into account at least the airspeed [i.e., the speed of an aircraft, measured against the speed of the air through which it is moving] of the rotorcraft).
Regarding claim 19, Dormiani, as modified, discloses determining an altitude of the UAV (Dormiani; para. 57: UAS 200 may also include a pressure sensor or barometer, which can be used to determine the altitude of the UAS 200. Alternatively, other sensors, such as sonic altimeters or radar altimeters, can be used to provide an indication of altitude) and selecting the second angle (Prager; para. 126: When the UAV experiences a system failure and/or the motors stop working, the vertical stabilizers 116 may be rotated, from 0 to 90 degrees (or angles in between) to have a major surface of the vertical stabilizers facing in the direction of flight) and selecting the second angle based on the weight of the UAV (Roberts; col. 4, ll. 1-8: The angle 28 of the stabilizer surface 20' and thus the magnitude and direction of force it produces are controllable … So by manipulation of these forces, the operator can in effect close the force polygon 58 and provide vertical and horizontal stability as the plane moves along its downward path 54.; col. 4, ll. 53-53: the weight force 48 acts vertically downward through the center of gravity).
Dormiani, as modified, does not explicitly disclose determining a speed, and a weight of the UAV; and selecting the second angle based on the speed and the altitude of the UAV.
Gillette discloses determining a speed, and a weight of an aircraft; and selecting a stabilizer angle based on the speed, altitude (Gillett; para. 16: To achieve the minimum drag position, the horizontal stabilizer control system 200 can take into account at least the airspeed of the rotorcraft 101, a measured pitch attitude of the rotorcraft 101, and angle of attack of the aircraft 101, and altitude of the aircraft 101, and any other suitable information. In some cases, the above-described information can be utilized to query the horizontal stabilizer lookup table 212 to receive predetermined position values for the horizontal stabilizers 150. After receiving the predetermined position values for the horizontal stabilizers 150, the horizontal stabilizer control system 200 can control the horizontal stabilizer actuators 154 to rotate the horizontal stabilizers 150 to the received predetermined position values.), and the weight of the aircraft (Gillett; para. 29: a horizontal stabilizer position lookup table is constructed specific to a particular rotorcraft and/or a particular configuration or weight distribution of the rotorcraft cargo so that the lookup table is based around a particular center of gravity for the entire loaded rotorcraft).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to have modified the determination of the rudder angles in the CAN controller of Dormiani, as modified, to account for the determined altitude, airspeed, and weight, as disclosed by Gillette, to yield the predictable result of accurately controlling the descent of the UAV.
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 JOSEPH THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-3:00PM ET.
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.
/JOSEPH THOMPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights