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 Amendments
The amendment filed October 16th, 2025, and October 22nd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 23-52 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 17th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 23 line 6, “…for the vertical…” should read “…for vertical…”.
In claim 23 lines 7-8, “…for vertical…” should read “…for the vertical…”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 23-24, 26-28, 33-34, 42-43, 46, and 49-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) in view of Groninga et al. (US 2020/0391861).
Regarding claim 23, McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) a vertical take-off and landing aircraft/aerial vehicle (1000) comprising:
a fuselage (1002) (Col. 6 Line 9));
a single pair of wings (1004, 1006) connected to each side of the fuselage (1002) (Col. 6 Line 58-59);
a plurality of booms (1008, 1010, 1012, 1016) mounted to the single pair of wings (1004, 1006) (Col. 6 Lines 59-67)
a plurality of rotors/fixed rotors (1026, 1028, 1030, 1032) for providing lift for vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft (Col. 7 Lines 2-5);
a plurality or proprotors/tilt rotors (1014, 1018, 1022, 1024) tiltable between lift configurations (fig. 13) for providing lift for the vertical take-off and landing of the aircraft and propulsion configurations (fig. 11) for providing forward thrust to the aircraft (Col. 7 Lines 15-17, 35-37, 65-67);
a flight controller/tilt control system (2306) configured to control at least one proprotor to actively alter a tilt of at least one proprotor either autonomously or in response to a pilot command (Col. 7 Lines 15-18; controls are either automated or manually activated).
wherein one rotor of the plurality of rotors and one proprotor of the plurality of proprotors are mounted to each boom (clearly seen in figure 10); and
wherein each boom comprises a front end and a rear end, wherein each boom supports the one proprotor at its front end and the one rotor at its rear end (clearly seen in figure 14),
but it is silent about the vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
a flight controller configured to individually control at least one proprotor to actively alter tilt of the at least one proprotor, either autonomously or in response to a pilot command, to generate yawing moments during hover.
Groninga et al. ‘861 teaches (figures 1-3) a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft comprising two tiltable ducted fans (22) pivotable in the hover mode to provide yaw control by differential left and right ducted fan tilt (Para 0022; to create differential left and right ducted fan tilt the tiltable ducted fans must be individually tilted/controlled).
Therefore, 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 McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Groninga et al. ‘861 to configure the vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
a flight controller configured to individually control at least one proprotor to actively alter tilt of the at least one proprotor, either autonomously or in response to a pilot command, to generate yawing moments during hover.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable to provide yaw control (Para 0022).
Regarding claim 24, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft wherein the plurality of proprotors comprises an outermost proprotor (clearly seen in figure 10), wherein the flight controller/tilt control system (2306) is configured to actively alter a tilt of the outermost proprotor to generate the yawing moments (as modified by Groninga et al. ‘861).
Regarding claim 26, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft further comprising two rear stabilizers/tail (1020) mounted to a rear of the fuselage (clearly seen in figure 10) (Col. 7 Line 25).
Regarding claim 27, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft wherein each rotor is mounted in a fixed position on a corresponding boom (clearly seen in figure 10) (Col. 7 Lines 2-4; rotors are fixed).
Regarding claim 28, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft wherein the plurality of rotors are rearward of each wing and the plurality of proprotors are forward of each wing (clearly seen in figure 10).
Regarding claim 33, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft wherein a first proprotor of the plurality of proprotors is canted relative to a second proprotor of the plurality of proprotors such that a rotational axis of the first proprotor is non-parallel with a rotational axis of the second proprotor (clearly shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft wherein a proprotor cant angle between a rotational axis of the first proprotor and a vertical axis of the aircraft is between 0 degrees and 30 degrees (clearly seen in the figure above; cant angle is less than 30 degrees).
Regarding claim 42, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft of claim 23 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein each rotor comprises more than two blades.
McDonald ‘737 further teaches tilt rotors (1014, 1018, 1022, 1024) wherein each tilt rotor comprises five blades (clearly seen in figure 10).
Therefore, 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 McDonald ‘737 to configure the aircraft wherein each rotor comprises more than two blades.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would increase lift.
Regarding claim 43, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft wherein each proprotor comprises five blades (clearly seen in figure 10).
Regarding claim 46, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft wherein the flight controller/tilt control system (2306) is further configured to actively alter a tilt of the at least one proprotor to generate yawing moments during take-off or landing (control system actively alter the tilt during all phases of the flight; tilting proprotors changes thrust vectors and generate yawing moments).
Regarding claim 49, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft wherein each boom of the plurality of booms is configured such that a first minimum distance in a direction along a length of the respective boom between a blade tip of one proprotor and a leading edge of the single pair of wings is greater than a second minimum distance in the direction along the length of the respective boom between a blade tip of one rotor and a trailing edge of the singe pair of wings (clearly seen in figures 12 and 14) .
Regarding claim 50, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft further comprising:
at least one battery configured to power the plurality of rotors and the plurality of proprotors, the at least one battery comprising a first battery located in the fuselage (1002) (Col. 6 Lines 33-36).
Regarding claim 51, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft further comprising:
at least one battery (1202, 1204) configured to power the plurality of rotors and the plurality of proprotors, the at least one battery comprising a first battery located in the single pair of wings (1004, 1006) (Col. 8 Lines 3-6)
Regarding claim 52, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft wherein the single pair of wings has a forward swept trailing edge (clearly seen in figure 11).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) and Groninga et al. (US 2020/0391861) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Karim (US 2014/0061368).
Regarding claim 25, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft of claim 23 but it is silent about the aircraft further comprising a door for passenger entry and exit, wherein the door is beneath and forward of the single pair of wings.
Karim ‘368 teaches (figure 1) an aircraft comprising at least one passenger access door (54) wherein the door is beneath and forward of the pair of wings (clearly seen in figure 1) (Para 0080, 0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Karim ‘368 to configure the aircraft further comprising a door for passenger entry and exit, wherein the door is beneath and forward of the single pair of wings.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enable passenger access.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) and Groninga et al. (US 2020/0391861) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Platt (US 3,059,876).
Regarding claim 29, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft of claim 23 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein a first proprotor is forward of a second proprotor that is adjacent to the first proprotor.
Platt ‘876 teaches (figures 1-3) four-engine (16s, 20s) airplane with wing (10) freely pivoted at 12 on fuselage (14) about an axis 13, wherein each of two engines (16s) arranged to drive propellers (24) on either side of fuselage (14) is forward of and adjacent to respective two additional engines (20) arranged to drive propellers (26) on either side of fuselage (14) (clearly seen in figure 1) (Col. 2 Lines 22-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Platt ‘876 to configure the aircraft wherein a first proprotor is forward of a second proprotor that is adjacent to the first proprotor.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would improve thrust performance in ground effect and reduce interference and turbulences.
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) and Groninga et al. (US 2020/0391861) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Kroo (US 2013/0020429).
Regarding claims 30-32, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft of claim 23 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein a first rotor of the plurality of rotors is canted relative to a second rotor of the plurality of rotors such that a rotational axis of the first rotor is non-parallel with a rotational axis of the second rotor,
wherein a rotor cant angle between a rotational axis of the first rotor and a vertical axis of the aircraft is between 0 degrees and 30 degrees, and
wherein the rotor cant angle is about 12 degrees.
Kroo ‘429 teaches (figures 1-3) two canted vertical rotor assemblies (101) wherein rotor assemblies are each mounted to cant outward, inward, forward, or back, for a proper combination of rotor thrust to result in a net force in the horizontal plane as well as needed vertical lift wherein with four rotors per side, the rotors are oriented, from front to back, 10 degrees out, 10 degrees in, 10 degrees in, and 10 degrees out (0027, 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Kroo ‘429 to configure the aircraft wherein a first rotor of the plurality of rotors is canted relative to a second rotor of the plurality of rotors such that a rotational axis of the first rotor is non-parallel with a rotational axis of the second rotor,
wherein a rotor cant angel between a rotational axis of the first rotor and a vertical axis of the aircraft is between 0 degrees and 30 degrees, and
wherein the rotor cant angle is about 12 degrees (10 degrees is close to/about 12 degrees).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) and Groninga et al. (US 2020/0391861) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Kroo (US 2013/0020429).
Regarding claim 35, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft of claim 34 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the proprotor cant angle is about 12 degrees.
Kroo ‘429 teaches (figures 1-3) two canted vertical rotor assemblies (101) wherein rotor assemblies are each mounted to cant outward, inward, forward, or back, for a proper combination of rotor thrust to result in a net force in the horizontal plane as well as needed vertical lift wherein with four rotors per side, the rotors are oriented, from front to back, 10 degrees out, 10 degrees in, 10 degrees in, and 10 degrees out (0027, 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Kroo ‘429 to configure the aircraft wherein the proprotor cant angle is about 12 degrees (10 degrees is close to/about 12 degrees).
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Claim(s) 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) and Groninga et al. (US 2020/0391861) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Tao et al. (US 2021/0253234).
Regarding claim 36, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft of claim 23 but is silent about the aircraft wherein a range of tilt of the proprotors is greater than ninety degrees.
Tao et al. ‘234 teaches (figures 1-4) a vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
wing (20), a plurality of rotors/fixed-tilt rotors (16s) and a plurality of proprotors/tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) wherein the one or more tilt adjustable rotors (10s) are configured to tilt more than or less than 90 degrees (Para 0018, 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Tao et al. ‘234 to configure the aircraft wherein a range of tilt of the proprotors is greater than ninety degrees.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Regarding claim 37, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft wherein the plurality of proprotors comprises an outermost proprotor but is silent about the aircraft wherein a range of tilt of the outermost proprotor is about 100 degrees.
Tao et al. ‘234 teaches (figures 1-4) a vertical take-off and landing aircraft comprising:
wing (20), a plurality of rotors/fixed-tilt rotors (16s) and a plurality of proprotors/tilt-adjustable rotors (10s) wherein the one or more tilt adjustable rotors (10s) are configured to tilt more than 90 degrees (Para 0018, 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Tao et al. ‘234 to configure the aircraft wherein a range of tilt of the plurality of proprotors is greater than ninety degrees.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
The Examiner further takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to configure the aircraft wherein a range of tilt of the outermost proprotor is about 100 degrees.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would produce reverse thrust.
Claim(s) 38-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) and Groninga et al. (US 2020/0391861) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Reichert et al. (US 2018/0057155).
Regarding claims 38-41, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft wherein the plurality of rotors comprises an outermost rotor and the innermost rotor (clearly seen in figure 10) but it is silent about the aircraft wherein a rotational axis of the outermost rotor is tilted rearward or forward relative to a vertical axis of the aircraft,
wherein the rotational axis of the outermost rotor is tilted rearward or forward relative to a rotational axis of an adjacent rotor of the plurality of rotors,
wherein a rotational axis of the innermost rotor is tilted rearward or forward relative to a vertical axis of the aircraft, and
wherein the rotational axis of the innermost rotor is tilted rearward or forward relative to a rotational axis of an adjacent rotor of the plurality of rotors.
Reichert et al. ‘155 teaches (figure 2A) a rotor orientation of a mulitcopter wherein rotors are mounted such that rotors are tilted forward and/or backward (Para 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Reichert et al. ‘155 to configure the aircraft wherein a rotational axis of the outermost rotor is tilted rearward or forward relative to a vertical axis of the aircraft,
wherein the rotational axis of the outermost rotor is tilted rearward or forward relative to a rotational axis of an adjacent rotor of the plurality of rotors,
wherein a rotational axis of the innermost rotor is tilted rearward or forward relative to a vertical axis of the aircraft, and
wherein the rotational axis of the innermost rotor is tilted rearward or forward relative to a rotational axis of an adjacent rotor of the plurality of rotors.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) and Groninga et al. (US 2020/0391861) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Wang (US 2013/0026305).
Regarding claim 44, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft of claim 23 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein attack angles of blades of the proprotors are collectively adjustable during flight.
Wang ‘305 (figure 1) teaches actuators (200) varying the angle of attack of all relative blades (27). i.e. the so called “collective pitch” (Para 0199).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Wang ‘305 the aircraft wherein attack angles of blades of the proprotors are collectively adjustable during flight.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would vary the thrust of the propellers.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) and Groninga et al. (US 2020/0391861) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Karim (US 2014/0061368).
Regarding claim 45, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft of claim 23 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein each wing has control surfaces.
Karim ‘368 teaches (figure 1) an aircraft comprising a wing (10) attached to each side of the fuselage (4) wherein each wing comprises at least one aileron/control surface (Para 0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Karim ‘368 the aircraft wherein each wing has control surfaces.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) and Groninga et al. (US 2020/0391861) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Tighe et al. (US 2018/0105267).
Regarding claim 47, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft of claim 23 but it is silent about the aircraft wherein the plurality of booms comprises a total of six booms.
Tighe et al. ‘267 teaches (figures 2A-2E) multicopter aircraft (200) comprising wings (204) and three booms (206s) on both side of the fuselage i.e., six booms in total, wherein each boom comprises a pair of lift fans (208s) (clearly seen in figure 2A) (Para 0020, 0025).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Tighe et al. ‘267 the aircraft wherein the plurality of booms comprises a total of six booms.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would enhance flight aerodynamics.
Claim(s) 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 11,465,737) and Groninga et al. (US 2020/0391861) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Platt (US 3,059,876).
Regarding claim 48, modified McDonald ‘737 teaches (figures 10-14) the aircraft wherein:
a first rotor of the plurality of rotors and a first proprotor of the plurality of proprotors are mounted to a first boom of the plurality of booms on a first side of the fuselage (1002) (clearly shown in the figure below);
a second rotor of the plurality of rotors and a second proprotor of the plurality of proprotors are mounted to a second boom of the plurality of booms on the first side of the fuselage (clearly shown in the figure below);
wherein:
the first boom is between the second boom and the fuselage (1002) (clearly seen in the figure below);
the first rotor is rearward of the second rotor (clearly seen in the figure below);
PNG
media_image2.png
652
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
but it is silent about the aircraft wherein a first proprotor is forward of a second proprotor.
Platt ‘876 teaches (figures 1-3) four-engine (16s, 20s) airplane with wing (10) freely pivoted at 12 on fuselage (14) about an axis 13, wherein each of two engines (16s) arranged to drive propellers (24) on either side of fuselage (14) is forward of and adjacent to respective two additional engines (20) arranged to drive propellers (26) on either side of fuselage (14) (clearly seen in figure 1) (Col. 2 Lines 22-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified McDonald ‘737 to incorporate the teachings of Platt ‘876 to configure the aircraft wherein a first proprotor is forward of a second proprotor.
One of ordinary skill in art would recognize that doing so would improve thrust performance in ground effect and reduce interference and turbulences.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed October 22nd 2025, with respect to the amended claim(s) 23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as explained in the rejection above.
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 ASHESH DANGOL whose telephone number is (303)297-4455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0730-0530 MT.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at (571) 272-1467. 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.
/ASHESH DANGOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3642