DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 16, and 19 – for clarity and to better separate the elements the vehicle comprises, “in an interior space of the main lifting body,” should be “in an interior space of the main lifting body;”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 16, and 19 recite “a main lifting body comprising a substantially airfoil shaped cross-section” which is indefinite because it is unclear what is considered to be substantially airfoil shaped. An airfoil is not defined by one shape per se, and the specification does not specify what Applicant considers to be “substantially” shaped like an airfoil. Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim 13 recites “wherein a sweep angle of the main lifting body is between 5 and 45 degrees” which is indefinite because Applicant’s specification states that the local sweep angle may be zero (Para. [0076]). The disclosure goes on to state that the main lifting body may have an average sweep angle between 5 and 45 degrees, but claim 13 merely recites “a sweep angle”. Examiner recommends amending claim 13 to recite “wherein an average sweep angle of the main lifting body is between 5 and 45 degrees” to align with the disclosure of the specification.
Claim 16 recites “the central thrusters” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that central thrusters are recited in independent claim 1, but independent claim 16 instead recites similar elements as “central ducted rotors”. Claim 18 also recites “the thrusters” which is similarly rejected. Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Georgeson et al. (US 20220194569 A1), hereinafter Georgeson.
Regarding Claim 1
Georgeson teaches a vertical takeoff and landing aerial vehicle configured to transport a payload (aerial vehicles (100)), the vehicle comprising: a main lifting body comprising a substantially airfoil shaped cross-section (wing body (106)), and extending laterally from a first tip to a second tip (wingtips (108, 110), Fig. 18), and having a pressure side and a suction side (bottom and top side of wing body (106), respectively), wherein the main lifting body is configured to store the payload in an interior space of the main lifting body (Examiner notes that the motor (144), for example, can be considered the payload held within the wing body (106), Para. [0060]), and a propulsion assembly coupled to the main lifting body and located at a rear end of the main lifting body (Fig. 18), wherein the propulsion assembly comprises two central thrusters located at the suction side (two inside thrusters (128, 124) on top of wing body (106), Fig. 18) and two lateral thrusters located at the pressure side (two outside thrusters (130, 126) underneath wing body (106), Fig. 18), wherein the lateral thrusters are located closer to the respective tips than the central thrusters (Fig. 18).
Regarding Claim 3
Georgeson teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein at least some of the thrusters are rotors (rotors (124, 126, 128, 130), Fig. 18).
Regarding Claim 4
Georgeson teaches the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the rotors are ducted rotors (ducts (152), Para. [0086], Fig. 18).
Regarding Claim 9
Georgeson teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the main lifting body has a leading edge and a trailing edge (Fig. 18), and wherein an inlet of the thrusters is between the leading edge and the trailing edge of the main lifting body (Fig. 18).
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ermanoski (US 20210339858 A1), in view of Sinha et al. (US 20120286102 A1), hereinafter Sinha.
Regarding Claim 1
Ermanoski teaches a vertical takeoff and landing aerial vehicle configured to transport a payload (Abstract, UAV (100)), the vehicle comprising: a main lifting body comprising a substantially airfoil shaped cross-section (airframe (102) and fuselage (104)), and extending laterally from a first tip to a second tip (Fig. 1 & 2), and having a pressure side and a suction side (bottom and top side of fuselage (104), respectively), wherein the main lifting body is configured to store the payload in an interior space of the main lifting body (Para. [0041]), and a propulsion assembly coupled to the main lifting body and located at a rear end of the main lifting body (props (110), Fig. 1), wherein the propulsion assembly comprises two central thrusters located at the suction side (props (110) on top of fuselage (104), Fig. 1) and two lateral thrusters located at the pressure side (props (110) on bottom of fuselage (104), Fig. 1), but does not teach:
wherein the lateral thrusters are located closer to the respective tips than the central thrusters.
Sinha teaches:
wherein the lateral thrusters are located closer to the respective tips than the central thrusters (Fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the VTOL aerial vehicle of Ermanoski with the features of Sinha with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the thrusters offset from one another as this arrangement, for example, allows for larger thrusters without interference. Additionally, as disclosed by Para. [0049] of Sinha, “The staggered quadrotor configuration also increases pitch inertia and propeller damping to create a more controllable system, while providing a clear center section underneath the wing for unobstructed placement of cameras or other payloads”.
Regarding Claim 2
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the propulsion assembly comprises a ground contact surface configured to operate as landing gear (Ermanoski: Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein at least some of the thrusters are rotors (Ermanoski: props (110)).
Regarding Claim 4
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, teaches the vehicle of claim 3, wherein the rotors are ducted rotors (Ermanoski: Fig. 1 & 2).
Regarding Claim 5
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, teaches the vehicle of claim 3, but is silent on:
wherein a sum of diameters of the central thrusters is at least 50% of a span of the main lifting body.
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, discloses the invention except for the size of the diameters of the central thrusters relative to the main lifting body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different portions of the central thrusters of whatever relative sizes were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402. Para. [0046] of Ermanoski states “Those skilled in the art will recognize that the H2UAV 100 may be implemented in a number of different aircraft styles, using various propulsion methods known in the art, some of which may be advantageous over others depending on the needs and limits of particular use cases” and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that thrusters with larger diameters capture more wind and provide more thrust than those with smaller diameters.
Regarding Claim 8
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but is silent on:
wherein the two lateral thrusters are more efficient at cruise speed than the two central thrusters, and wherein the two central thrusters which are more efficient in hovering flight.
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, discloses the claimed invention except for the relative efficiencies of the rotors during flight. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the two lateral thrusters more efficient at cruise speed and the two central thrusters more efficient in hovering flight, in order to optimize desired flight characteristics, namely lift, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 9
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the main lifting body has a leading edge and a trailing edge (Ermanoski: Fig. 1, 2, & 4), and wherein an inlet of the thrusters is between the leading edge and the trailing edge of the main lifting body (Ermanoski: Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 10
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein a ratio between a span and a mean chord length of the main lifting body is below 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the ratio between a span and a mean chord length of the main lifting body below 4 as claimed, since the optimization of proportions in a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Reese, 290 F.2d 839, 129 USPQ 402 (CCPA 1961). Examiner further notes that Applicant has not provided any particular criticality to this feature.
Regarding Claim 11
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but is silent on:
wherein a maximum thickness of the airfoil shaped cross-section is more than 15 % of an average chord length of the airfoil shaped cross-section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made a maximum thickness of the airfoil shaped cross-section more than 15% of the average chord length of the airfoil shaped cross-section as claimed, since the optimization of proportions in a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Reese, 290 F.2d 839, 129 USPQ 402 (CCPA 1961). Examiner further notes that Applicant has not provided any particular criticality to this feature.
Regarding Claim 13
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but is silent on:
wherein a sweep angle of the main lifting body is between 5 and 45 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made a sweep angle of the main lifting body between 5 and 45 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Examiner further notes that Applicant has not provided any particular criticality to this range of sweep angles.
Regarding Claim 14
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is an unmanned vehicle (Ermanoski: Abstract).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ermanoski (US 20210339858 A1), in view of Sinha et al. (US 20120286102 A1), hereinafter Sinha, as applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, 13, and 14 above, and further in view of Kahou et al. (US 20190389573 A1), hereinafter Kahou.
Regarding Claim 6
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, teaches the vehicle of claim 3, but is silent on:
wherein the lateral thrusters are rotors configured to rotate in a direction that is opposite to a rotational direction of a respective tip vortex formed during flight.
Kahou teaches:
wherein the lateral thrusters are rotors configured to rotate in a direction that is opposite to a rotational direction of a respective tip vortex formed during flight (Para. [0028], Fig. 1 arrows showing direction of rotation of bottom front rotors (32A, 32B)).
Ermanoski does not specify which direction each of the props rotates. Sinha discloses in Para. [0040] that the thrust producing elements rotate in different directions, but it does not specify which rotor rotates in which direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the lateral thrusters rotate opposite to a rotational direction of a respective tip vortex formed during flight as claimed and taught by Kahou with a reasonable expectation of success. Counter-rotating rotors are well-known and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the rotors rotate in a direction as claimed to, for example, have the rotors generate the same thrust direction with opposite pitch angles (Kahou: Para. [0028]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ermanoski (US 20210339858 A1), in view of Sinha et al. (US 20120286102 A1), hereinafter Sinha, as applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, 13, and 14 above, and further in view of Chan (US 20200172238 A1).
Regarding Claim 7
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, teaches the vehicle of claim 3, but does not teach:
wherein a thrust vector of one or more of the thrusters is not parallel with a longitudinal axis of the main lifting body, such that the thrust vector generates a torque about the longitudinal axis of the main lifting body.
Chan teaches:
wherein a thrust vector of one or more of the thrusters is not parallel with a longitudinal axis of the main lifting body, such that the thrust vector generates a torque about the longitudinal axis of the main lifting body (Para. [0064]-[0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aerial vehicle of Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, with the features of Chan with a reasonable expectation of success. Although Ermanoski teaches rotors fixed in position to the main lifting body, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply a tilt to the rotors, as taught by Chan, to create a more maneuverable aerial vehicle. Chan teaches that this tilt can, for example, be used to control the yaw moment of the vehicle (Para. [0065]).
Claims 12, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ermanoski (US 20210339858 A1), in view of Sinha et al. (US 20120286102 A1), hereinafter Sinha, as applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, 13, and 14 above, and further in view of Kisly et al. (US 20210300546 A1), hereinafter Kisly.
Regarding Claim 12
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but is silent on:
wherein the main lifting body comprises an openable lid.
Kisly teaches:
wherein the main lifting body comprises an openable lid (cabin (214) doors, Para. [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aerial vehicle of Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, with the openable lid of Kisly with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means to access the interior of the main lifting body, such as for maintenance or to place or remove the payload.
Regarding Claim 15
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein the payload is at least one passenger.
Kisly teaches:
wherein the payload is at least one passenger (operator (1808)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aerial vehicle of Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, with the teachings of Kisly with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of transporting passengers. Examiner notes that although the primary references teach payloads other than passengers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the aerial vehicles disclosed could also be used to transport passengers, a pilot, a crew, etc.
Regarding Claim 19
Ermanoski teaches a vertical takeoff and landing aerial vehicle configured to transport a payload (Abstract, UAV (100)), the vehicle comprising: a main lifting body comprising a substantially airfoil shaped cross-section (airframe (102) and fuselage (104)), and extending laterally from a first tip to a second tip (Fig. 1 & 2), and having a pressure side and a suction side (bottom and top side of fuselage (104), respectively), wherein the main lifting body is configured to store the payload in an interior space of the main lifting body (Para. [0041]), and a propulsion assembly coupled to the main lifting body and located at a rear end of the main lifting body (props (110), Fig. 1), wherein the propulsion assembly comprises two central thrusters located at the suction side (props (110) on top of fuselage (104), Fig. 1) and two lateral thrusters located at the pressure side (props (110) on bottom of fuselage (104), Fig. 1), but does not teach:
wherein the lateral thrusters are located closer to the respective tips than the central thrusters; and
wherein the payload is at least one passenger.
Sinha teaches:
wherein the lateral thrusters are located closer to the respective tips than the central thrusters (Fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the VTOL aerial vehicle of Ermanoski with the features of Sinha with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the thrusters offset from one another as this arrangement, for example, allows for larger thrusters without interference. Additionally, as disclosed by Para. [0049] of Sinha, “The staggered quadrotor configuration also increases pitch inertia and propeller damping to create a more controllable system, while providing a clear center section underneath the wing for unobstructed placement of cameras or other payloads”.
Furthermore, Kisly teaches:
wherein the payload is at least one passenger (operator (1808)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aerial vehicle of Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, with the teachings of Kisly with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of transporting passengers. Examiner notes that although the primary references teach payloads other than passengers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the aerial vehicles disclosed could also be used to transport passengers, a pilot, a crew, etc.
Regarding Claim 20
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha and Kisly, teaches the vehicle of claim 19, wherein the vehicle comprises a seat in the interior space, wherein the seat is coupled to the main lifting body through a gimbal (Kisly: Para. [0134]).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ermanoski (US 20210339858 A1), in view of Sinha et al. (US 20120286102 A1), hereinafter Sinha, Kahou et al. (US 20190389573 A1), hereinafter Kahou, and Kisly et al. (US 20210300546 A1), hereinafter Kisly.
Regarding Claim 16
Ermanoski teaches a vertical takeoff and landing aerial vehicle configured to transport a payload (Abstract, UAV (100)), the vehicle comprising: a main lifting body comprising a substantially airfoil shaped cross-section (airframe (102) and fuselage (104)), and extending laterally from a first tip to a second tip (Fig. 1 & 2), and having a pressure side and a suction side (bottom and top side of fuselage (104), respectively), wherein the main lifting body is configured to store the payload in an interior space of the main lifting body (Para. [0041]), and a propulsion assembly coupled to the main lifting body and located at a rear end of the main lifting body (props (110), Fig. 1), wherein the propulsion assembly comprises two ducted central rotors located at the suction side (props (110) on top of fuselage (104), Fig. 1) and two lateral ducted rotors located at the pressure side (props (110) on bottom of fuselage (104), Fig. 1), but does not teach:
wherein the main lifting body comprises an openable lid;
wherein the lateral ducted rotors are located closer to the respective tips than the central thrusters; and
wherein the lateral ducted rotors are rotors configured to rotate in a direction that is opposite to a rotational direction of a respective tip vortex formed during flight.
Sinha teaches:
wherein the lateral ducted rotors are located closer to the respective tips than the central thrusters (Fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the VTOL aerial vehicle of Ermanoski with the features of Sinha with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the thrusters offset from one another as this arrangement, for example, allows for larger thrusters without interference. Additionally, as disclosed by Para. [0049] of Sinha, “The staggered quadrotor configuration also increases pitch inertia and propeller damping to create a more controllable system, while providing a clear center section underneath the wing for unobstructed placement of cameras or other payloads”.
Furthermore, Kahou teaches:
wherein the lateral ducted rotors are rotors configured to rotate in a direction that is opposite to a rotational direction of a respective tip vortex formed during flight (Para. [0028], Fig. 1 arrows showing direction of rotation of bottom front rotors (32A, 32B)).
Ermanoski does not specify which direction each of the props rotates. Sinha discloses in Para. [0040] that the thrust producing elements rotate in different directions, but it does not specify which rotor rotates in which direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the lateral thrusters rotate opposite to a rotational direction of a respective tip vortex formed during flight as claimed and taught by Kahou with a reasonable expectation of success. Counter-rotating rotors are well-known and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the rotors rotate in a direction as claimed to, for example, have the rotors generate the same thrust direction with opposite pitch angles (Kahou: Para. [0028]).
Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that all the aerial vehicles of Ermanoski, Sinha, and Kahou have openable lids as this would allow necessary access into the interior of the main lifting body, either for maintenance or removing the payload. However, none of the references explicitly teach such a feature. As such, Kisly is being brought in as a secondary reference to explicitly teach this feature. Kisly teaches:
wherein the main lifting body comprises an openable lid (cabin (214) doors, Para. [0134]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aerial vehicle of Ermanoski, in view of Sinha and Kahou, with the openable lid of Kisly with a reasonable expectation of success and with the motivation of providing a means to access the interior of the main lifting body, such as for maintenance or to place or remove the payload.
Regarding Claim 17
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, Kahou, and Kisly, teaches the vehicle of claim 16, wherein rear portions of the ducted central rotors and/or of the ducted lateral rotors form a ground contact surface configured to operate as landing gear (Ermanoski: Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 18
Ermanoski, in view of Sinha, Kahou, and Kisly, teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the main lifting body has a leading edge and a trailing edge (Ermanoski: Fig. 1, 2, & 4), and wherein an inlet of the thrusters is between the leading edge and the trailing edge of the main lifting body (Ermanoski: Fig. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 20050178879 A1 – “VTOL Tailsitter Flying Wing”
US 20170297699 A1 – “Quad Rotor Tail-sitter Aircraft With Rotor Blown Wing (RBW) Configuration”
US 20180002003 A1 – “Vertical Take-off And Landing (VTOL) Winged Air Vehicle With Complementary Angled Rotors”
US 20180002011 A1 – “Aircraft With Selectively Attachable Passenger Pod Assembly”
US 20180290743 A1 – “Autonomous Flight Vehicle Capable Of Fixed Wing Flight And Rotary Wing Flight”
US 20200317332 A1 – “Tandem Wing Tail-sitting Aircraft With Tilting Body”
US 20210253239 A1 – “Tail Sitter Stop-fold Aircraft”
US 20220169380 A1 – “VTOL Tail Sitting Aircraft With Rotor Blown Nonplanar Wing Configuration”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine June Walter whose telephone number is (571)272-6150. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
