DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 07/10/2025 has been entered.
3. Currently claims 1, 6, 8, 14 and 15 have been amended; claim 5 has been canceled. Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
Considering each of claims 1, 8 and 15 as representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Claim 1:
[obtain] drive data, the drive data includes telematics data; generate first information using a driving history of a driver, the first information including a checklist; determine the skill level of the driver using the driving history; analyze map data to determine one or more suggested routes based on the skill level; present the first information and the one or more suggested routes before driving has started; determine that the driver has started driving based on the drive data; determine [the driver] has stopped driving; generate a report in response to determining that [the driver] has stopped driving, the report [is] generated using the drive data, the report indicates feedback on performance of the driver; present the report.
— Claim 8:
generate first information using a driving history of a driver, the first information including a checklist; determine a skill level of the driver using the driving history; analyze map data to determine one or more suggested routes based on the skill level; present the first information and the one or more suggested routes before [the driver] has started driving; collect drive data, the drive data includes telematics data; determine [the driver] has started driving based on the drive data; determine [the driver] has stopped driving using the drive data; generate a report in response to determining [the driver] has stopped driving, the report generated using the drive data, the report indicates feedback on performance of the driver; and present the report.
— Claim 15:
generate first information using a driving history of a driver, the first information including a checklist; determine a skill level of the driver using the driving history; analyze map data to determine one or more suggested routes based on the skill level; indicate the first information and the one or more suggested routes before driving has started; [obtain] drive data, the drive data includes telematics data; determine that the driver has started driving based on the drive data; determine [the driver] has stopped driving using the drive data; generate a report in response to determining that [the driver] has stopped driving, the report [is] generated using the drive data, the report indicates feedback on performance of the driver; and present the report.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). For instance, the current claims correspond to managing personal behavior, such as teaching, wherein one or more pieces of information related to driving is presented to a user/driver; such as, a first information—which is generated based on the driver’s history—is presented to the user, including one or more suggested routes before the driver starts driving; wherein the suggested route(s) is determined once the user’s skill level is determined using the driving history, so that map data is analyzed to determine the suggested route(s) based on the skill level; and furthermore, a report, which is generated based on collected data during driving, is presented to the driver once the driver has concluded the driving; wherein the report indicates feedback on performance of the driver, etc.
Note also that given the claimed limitations that recite the process of generating, using a driving history of a driver of a vehicle, (i) first information that includes a checklist, (ii) one or more suggested routes; and also, the limitations that recite the process of: determining—using the driving history—a skill level of the driver; determining—based on the drive data—that the driver has started driving; and determining—using the drive data—the driving has stopped, etc., the current claims also overlap with the group mental processes; such as, an evaluation, an observation and/or a judgment process, etc.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two:
The claims recite additional elements, wherein one or more computer-elements comprising: one or more sensors (including at least one of an accelerometer, a gyroscope or a GPS receiver) that detect drive data while a vehicle is being driven, a display, a processor, a memory, etc., are utilized to facilitate the recited functions/steps regarding: initiating a detection of a driving event/data (“activate the one or more sensors of the drive detection system”); collecting data related to the driving event/data (“receive drive data obtained by the one or more sensors, the drive data including telematics data”); generating first information (“generate first information using a driving history of a driver of the vehicle, the first information including a checklist”); determining one or more results based on the collected data (“determine a skill level of the driver using the driving history; analyze map data to determine one or more suggested routes based on the skill level”); displaying information (“generate first instructions to cause a display of a computing device associated with the driver to present the first information and the one or more suggested routes while the drive detection system is activated and before driving has started”); determining the start of driving the vehicle (“determine that the driver of the vehicle has started driving based on the drive data”); generating instructions to operate the computing device (“generate second instruction that impose at least one operational limitation on the computing device while driving in response to determining the driving has started”); determining the end of driving (“determine driving has stopped using the drive data”); generating and displaying a report (“generate a report in response to determining driving has stopped, the report [is] generated using the drive data, the report indicating feedback on performance of the driver while driving in response to determining driving has stopped; and generate third instructions . . . to present the report”), etc.
However, the claimed additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea. Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides an improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also worth noting, per the original disclosure, that the current claimed apparatus/method is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements.
For instance, the disclosure describes the implementation of the invention using “any available computing device”, such as one or more commercially available computing devices in the form of a laptop computer, a notebook computer,
a smartphone, etc., wherein such computing device communicates with (i) one or more online servers via the conventional communication network (e.g., the Internet, cellular network, etc.), and also (ii) a vehicle computer via a wired (e.g. USB) or wireless (e.g. Bluetooth) means; and thereby the computing device executes the pre-license program in order to provide information to one or more users (e.g. see [0022] to [0034]), etc.
It is further worth to note that the implementation of the conventional computer and/or network technology to facilitate safe driving; such as, providing information to a driver/user(s) based on the analysis of user data, including driving parameters gathered using one or more sensors; and/or disabling—or enabling—one or more functions of a computing device(s) of the driver based on the analysis of one or more detected driving parameters, etc., is directed to a well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art (e.g. see US 2010/0157061, US 2010/0210254, US 2003/0096594, US 2007/0035384 etc.).
The observation above confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-14 and 16-20). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computers element/function utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, considering each claim as a whole, none of the current claims is implementing any claim element—or a combination of claim elements—directed to an inventive concept (i.e., the claims lack an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing/conventional technology).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the arguments filed on 07/10/2025). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, regarding the current claim amendment, Applicant asserts that “amended independent claim 1 recites an integration into a practical application. In particular, amended independent claim 1 recites an improvement to the technical field of driving analysis by using information (e.g., first information, drive data) to take certain actions (e.g., generate second instructions that impose at least one operational limitation on the computing device, generate third instructions that remove the at least one operational limitation on the computing device) that are meaningful limitations that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. The claimed elements of amended independent claim 1 recite specific steps to achieve a specific outcome of incentivizing safe driving” (emphasis added).
However, as an initial matter, Applicant appears to misconstrue the operations of the claimed apparatus/method. For instance, unlike Applicant’s assertion above, the claimed apparatus does not rely on the “first information”, which is generated based on the driving history of the driver, to generate the “second instruction”. Instead, the “second instruction” is generated when it is determined—based on the drive data—that the driving has started (e.g., see any of claims 1, 8 and 15). Accordingly, Applicant’s position does not appear to be consistent with the proper construction of the current claims.
Nevertheless, unlike Applicant’s assertions above, neither the current claims nor the original discloser implements any technological improvement. Instead, Applicant is mistaking the existing computer/network technology as the alleged technological improvement, which the current claimed apparatus/method is assumed to be providing. In particular, Applicant appears to be attempting to portray part of the existing computer technology, namely the process of controlling the operation of a computing device based on data detected regarding driving, as a technological improvement. In contrast, the above is already part of the existing computer/network technology. In fact, one or more of the references, which are cited as part of the analysis presented under Step 2B, already confirms the above fact. For instance, Kelly (US 2010/0210254) teaches such a system directed to the existing computer/network technology; and accordingly, based on sensor data analyzed regarding a vehicle that a user is driving, the system disables or enables one or more functions of a computing device (e.g., a mobile phone, a PDA, etc.) that the user is using ([0036], emphasis added),
“. . . embodiments of the mobile communication device described herein may utilize vehicle diagnostic information transmitted via a wireless communications protocol (e.g., Bluetooth™) to a mobile device (PDA, cell phone, laptop . . . When the vehicle diagnostic information (e.g. whether the car is in gear, the speed of the vehicle, etc.) is received by the mobile communication device, the device disables or enables one or more functions of the mobile communications device including, but not limited to, telephone calls, incoming text messages . . . outgoing text messages, outgoing pager messages, outgoing e-mails, audio data and visual data, etc., based on the diagnostic information”
The excerpt above confirms that Applicant is attempting to substantiate the alleged technological improvement while still relying on the existing computer/network technology. Particularly, Kelly already confirms that such process of controlling one or more operations of a computing device (e.g., disabling/enabling the process of displaying information; enabling/disabling the process of sending or receiving information, etc.), based on sensor data detected regarding a vehicle (e.g., sensor data indicating that the vehicle is moving/stationary, etc.), is already part of the existing computer/network technology (also see [0048], [0049], [0057], etc.).
Of course, even systems prior to Kelly also implement such technology that promotes safe driving. For instance, Belcher (US 2007/0035384) teaches such existing technology that promotes safe driving; wherein the system monitors the status of a vehicle that a driver is driving; and wherein, based on sensor data gathered regarding the vehicle’s status (e.g., the vehicle is moving, or the vehicle is parked, etc.), the system enables or disables one or more functions of one or more computing devices (e.g., a mobile phone, a PDA, etc.) that the driver is carrying ([0008]; [0024] to [0026]).
Similarly, Naboulsi (US 2003/0096594) teaches a system that monitors one or more computing devices (e.g., a cellphone, a computer) that a driver keeps while driving; and wherein, based on sensor data detected regarding the vehicle (e.g., sensor data that indicates whether the vehicle is moving or not, etc.), the system disables or enables one or more functions (e.g., receiving incoming calls, sending email, accessing the Internet, etc.) of the computing device (see [0024] to [0029]; [0056]).
Thus, simply using such existing computer/network technology in a particular environment, and/or to facilitate a desired objective, does not necessarily constitute a technological improvement. This is because a technological improvement implies a new/advanced technology beyond the existing computer/network technology. Consequently, Applicant’s conclusory assertion regarding the alleged “meaningful limitations that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application” is not persuasive.
Note also that the benefit that Applicant is asserting regarding the claimed apparatus/method, namely the alleged “specific outcome of incentivizing safe driving”, has nothing to do with a technological improvement. If anything, the above is describing the inherent advantage of the existing technology discussed above; namely, the process of disabling/enabling one or more functions of a computing device (e.g., a mobile phone) of a driver based on detected status of the vehicle that the driver is operating.
Secondly, Applicant has also attempted to compare the current claims with one or more of the patent-eligible claims presented in the USPTO guidance (e.g., the examples presented in the 2019 October update). However, given the context of Applicant’s arguments, Applicant appears to mix-up the claims and the corresponding analysis of two different examples, namely Example 45 and Example 46. Nevertheless, while referring to the above examples, Applicant asserts “claim 1 uses information (e.g., first information, drive data) to take certain actions (e.g., generate second instructions that impose at least one operational limitation on the computing device, generate third instructions that remove the at least one operational limitation on the computing device) to incentivize safe driving. The specification of the instant application recites ‘In some embodiments, the pre-license program may cause certain functions of the student computing device 100b to be inoperable while the student is driving. For example, the pre-license program may prevent incoming/outgoing phone calls and text messages (e.g., SMS messages). As a result, the pre-license program may help reduce the likelihood that the student becomes distracted by the student computing device 100b while driving’ . . . See paragraph [0068] and [0069] of the instant application” (emphasis added).
However, once again Applicant is misconstruing the claimed limitations in order to substantiate the alleged technological improvement. For instance, similar to the point made above, neither the “second instructions” nor the “third instructions” rely on the “first information” to perform any operation. Instead, each of the “second instructions” and “third instructions” rely on the “dive data” (see any of the current claims).
In addition, none of the paragraphs that Applicant has cited from the specification (i.e., [0068] and [0069]) demonstrate any technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. If anything, the paragraphs appear to describe the same operations that the exemplary references above are performing (e.g., see Kelly, etc.). Accordingly, Applicant appears to be confirming, perhaps inadvertently, the Office’s findings that the claimed (and disclosed) apparatus/method is relying on the existing computer/network technology. Consequently, neither the sections that Applicant has cited above nor the specification as a whole negates any of the Office’s findings.
Moreover, none of the patent-eligible claims of the examples identified (e.g., Claim 2 of Example 45 and Claim 3 of Example 46) is analogous to any of Applicant’s current claims. Although Applicant appears to omit, regarding each of Example 45 and Example 46, the critical features that influenced the eligibility of the corresponding exemplary claims, the Office presents below part of the analysis presented in the guidance. For instance, reading Claim 2 of Example 45 (“send control signals to the injection molding apparatus once the polyurethane has reached a target percentage, the control signals instructing the apparatus to open the mold and eject the molded polyurethane from the mold”, emphasis added), the guidance presents the following eligibility findings (see page 24 of the guidance, emphasis added),
“. . . adds a meaningful limitation in that it employs the information provided by the judicial exceptions (the calculated percentage of the extent of cure) to control the operation of the injection molding apparatus. As explained in the specification, because the claimed controller opens the mold and ejects the molded polyurethane at the time when the target percentage of cure is reached, the claimed controller avoids the technical problems associated with undercure and overcure, which would otherwise negatively affect the cured polyurethane’s strength and wear performance . . . The claim as a whole thus improves upon previous controllers used in this technical field of injection molding. Further, using the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action and control the injection molding apparatus in a particular way is an ‘other meaningful limitation’ that integrates the judicial exception into the overall control scheme and accordingly practically applies the exception, such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception”
Thus, it is evident from the excerpt above that the eligibility of Claim 2 is determined not simply because the claim is “using the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action”, but because it also produces a particular physical product (properly cured polyurethane) by physically operating an electromechanical device (e.g., the molding apparatus); and such implementation improves upon previous controllers used in this technical field of injection molding.
In contrast, Applicant’s claimed/disclosed process of controlling the operation of a computing device, based on data detected regarding a vehicle, is already part of the existing computer/network technology (e.g., see discussion presented above, including the exemplary evidence). In fact, the evidence presented above already confirms that Applicant’s claimed (and disclosed) apparatus/method does not provide any technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. Instead, it is simply utilizing the existing technology for its intended purpose. Consequently, Applicant’s attempt to compare the current calms with Claim 2 of Example 45 is not persuasive.
Similarly, reading part (d) of Claim 3 of Example 46 (“automatically operating the sorting gate, by the processor sending a control signal to the sorting gate to route the animal into a holding pen when the analysis results from step (iii) for the animal indicate that the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern, and by the processor sending a control signal to the sorting gate to permit the animal to freely pass through the sorting gate when the analysis results for the animal indicate that the animal is not exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern”, emphasis added), the guidance presents the following eligibility findings (see page 40 of the guidance, emphasis added),
“Step (d) specifies that the processor automatically operates the sorting gate to route the animals in the herd based on the behavior of the animals . . . the BRI of this limitation encompasses three embodiments: a first embodiment in which step (d) routes animals exhibiting aberrant behavioral patterns into a holding pen; a second embodiment in which step (d) permits animals that are exhibiting normal behavior to freely pass through the gate; and a third embodiment in which step (d) requires that both actions take place (some animals are routed to the holding pen, and other animals are permitted to freely pass through the gate). In all of these embodiments, step (d) does not merely link the judicial exception to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it employs the information provided by the judicial exception. . . to operate the gate control mechanism and route the animals, thus avoiding the need for the farmer to visually evaluate the behavior of each animal in the herd on a continual basis. Additionally, the first and third embodiments (which automatically separate animals exhibiting aberrant behavior from the herd by routing them into a holding pen) . . . Thus, under any of the three embodiments, step (d) goes beyond merely automating the abstract ideas and instead actually uses the information obtained via the judicial exception to take corrective action by operating the gate and routing the animals in a particular way”
Thus, the excerpt above demonstrates that Claim 3, based on the analysis results of the behavior data gathered regarding the animals, it physically operates an electromechanical sorting device (e.g., a sorting gate); so that, (a) animals exhibiting specific behavior (e.g., animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern) are routed to a first physical location (i.e., a holding pen); and (b) animals that do not exhibit the specific behavior are routed to a second physical location (i.e., freely pass through the sorting gate). Of course, such implementation renders Claim 3 of Example 46 beyond an abstract idea.
In contrast, as already pointed out above, Applicant’s claimed/disclosed process of controlling the functions of a computing device, based on data detected regarding a vehicle, is already part of the existing computer/network technology (e.g., again see discussion presented above, including the exemplary evidence). Thus, Applicant’s attempt to compare the current calms with Claim 3 of Example 46 is also not persuasive.
Thirdly, while repeating the same limitations, Applicant asserts that “claim 1 recite an integration into a practical application by reciting specific steps (e.g., present first information, utilize drive data to determine driving status, impose at least one operational limitation on the computing device while driving) for accomplishing a desired result (e.g., remove operational limitation on the computing device in response to determining driving has stopped to incentivize safe driving). The claimed elements of amended independent claim 1 interact with and impart with each other, by performing specific steps to achieve a specific outcome, such that the purported abstract idea is integrated into a practical application” (emphasis added).
However, except for simply summarizing the same argument, Applicant fails to demonstrate whether any of the limitations—alone or in combination—integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. Instead, Applicant is still relying on the existing computer/network technology in an attempt to substantiate the alleged integration of the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application. In contrast, per prong-two of Step 2A, a claim is considered to integrate an abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application when it implements an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Particularly, the discussion presented above (also see the exemplary refences) confirms that it is part of the existing computer/network technology to: (a) disable one or more functions (e.g., a function for displaying data, a function for sending/receiving text, etc.) of a computing device (e.g., a mobile phone) when sensor data gathered regarding a vehicle indicates that the vehicle is moving; and also (b) enable/restore one or more functions of the mobile device when sensor data gathered regarding the vehicle indicates that the vehicle is no longer moving, etc.
In addition, regarding the Office’s findings presented under Step 2B, Applicant is asserting that “the ordered combination of recited claimed elements in amended independent claim 1 provide specific steps to achieve a specific outcome of incentivizing safe driving as discussed above. Further, as evidence of the lack of prior art rejections, the claimed elements of amended independent claim 1 are not well-understood, routine, or conventional, particularly when taken in context of the claim as a whole, which provides another factor for reciting more than an abstract idea” (emphasis added).
However, simply asserting the result of the ordered combination of the recited claimed elements (e.g., “provide specific steps to achieve a specific outcome of incentivizing safe driving as discussed above”) does not necessarily demonstrate whether any of the current claims is beyond well-understood, routine, conventional, activity (hereinafter WRCA) in the art. In fact, depending on the type of field (e.g., the educational field, the medical field, etc.), the conventional computer/network technology is already used to perform one or more specific steps/functions in order to achieve one or more desired outcomes (e.g., encouraging safety protocols to a machine operator; providing diagnoses regarding the medical conditions of a patient, etc.). Thus, Applicant’s conclusory assertion above does not necessarily demonstrate whether any of the current claims, when considered as a whole, is beyond WRCA.
In addition, unlike Applicant’s assertion above, the lack of prior art does not necessarily imply that the current claims are beyond WRCA. Instead, the lack prior art rejection is only signifying that current claims are reciting a new abstract idea, which the prior art does not teach. However, a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see MPEP 2106.06 (I) (emphasis added),
Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a §101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating §102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103 . . . patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C.102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C.101.
Thus, the Office concludes that none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, implement an inventive concept that amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Prior Art
5. Considering each of claims 1, 8 and 15 as a whole (including their respective dependent claims), the prior art does not teach or suggest the current claims (regarding the state of the prior art, see the office-action dated 11/20/2024).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715