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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 10-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB2490256A, previously presented) in view of Reindle (US 2005/0065662, previously presented) and Thompson (2013/0205538).
Regarding Claim 1, Lawerence teaches a vacuum cleaner (Ref. 1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a vacuum motor (Ref. 24, Fig. 2);
a main body (Ref. 3, 11 & 14) including a casing (Ref. 3, Fig. 1) and a handle (Ref. 14, Fig. 1), wherein the casing houses the vacuum motor (Fig. 2), and wherein the handle projects from the casing (Fig. 1-2, shows the handle (14) protruding from the side of the casing (3) from the port (9));
one or more motion sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 1 teach motion sensors) configured to generate a first sensor signal ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-21]).
a capacitive sensor (Ref. 17&19, Fig. 2, [Pg. 6, Line 1-2] teaches a capacitive sensor) located on the main body (3&14) in proximity to a handle of the vacuum cleaner (Ref. 14, Fig. 1) and configured to generate second sensor signals dependent on whether a user is gripping the handle ([Pg. 8, Lines 15-19] describes the touch sensor is used to indicate if the user is holding the handle); and
a controller ([Pg. 9, Line 5-12] describe a power management system) configured to:
process the generated first and second sensor signals ([Pg. 7, Lines 3-6]) to determine whether the vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-12]); and
in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used, activate the vacuum motor ([Pg. 10, Lines 13-20] describes activating the motor when the touch and motion sensors are sensed being used).
Lawerence teaches one or more motion sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 1 teach motion sensors) configured to generate a first sensor signal ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-21]). However, Lawerence fails to explicitly teach one or more time of flight sensors configured to generate first sensor signals dependent on the proximity of an object to the one or more time of flight sensors. Reindle teaches a vacuum cleaner with a main body, sensors, and controllers and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of vacuums cleaners. Reindle teaches a vacuum cleaner with one or more time of flight sensors (Ref. 96, Fig. 3, [0055]) using lasers ([0056] describes the sensors as infrared sensors that are old and known in the art to use infrared lasers) configured to generate sensor signals dependent on the proximity of an object to the one or more time of flight sensors ([0055-0056] teaches a proximity sensor for detecting the distance from the floor that is sent to a controller to command the vacuum to stop or reverse). Given Lawerence teaches a motion sensor and the time of flight sensor is a proximity sensor to detect if the device is moving towards and away the floor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the motion sensors, as taught by Lawerence, with the time of flight sensors, as taught by Reindle, to achieve the predictable result of detecting movement of the vacuum cleaner and to add further functionality of determining if the device is in proper contact with a surface or if the surface area is hazardous ([0056]).
Lawerence as modified fails to explicitly teach a battery pack, wherein the handle extends between the casing and the battery pack. Thompson teaches a vacuum cleaner with a main body, sensors, and controllers and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Thompson further teaches a vacuum cleaner (Ref. 2, Fig. 1) comprising
a vacuum motor ([0031] describes “… a main body 4 which houses a motor…”);
a main body (Ref. 4, Fig. 1, [0031]) including a casing (Ref. 6, Fig. 1) and a handle (Ref. 8, Fig. 1, [0031]), wherein the casing housing houses the motor vacuum ([0031]), and wherein the handle projects from the casing (Fig. 1, [0031]);
a battery pack (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), wherein the handle extends between the casing and the battery pack (fig. 1);
an air inlet for securing a brush tool, extension tube or wand ([0032]);
a capacitive sensor (20, [0057] describes “As an alternative to a mechanically operable switch, it should be noted that other trigger means are viable in the context of this embodiment, for example touch sensitive switches such as light sensors, capacitive sensors or resistive sensors…”) located on the handle (Fig. 1) and configured to generate second sensor signals dependent on whether a user is gripping the handle ([0057 & Claim 11]). Given the teaching Lawerence teaches a brush tool/nozzle (13&15) is attached to the main body (14), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the main body, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with the main body, as taught by Thompson, to produce the predictable result of holding a vacuum motor and connecting to a brush/nozzle for suctioning debris and to improve portability of the vacuum cleaner.
Regarding Claim 2, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to deactivate the vacuum motor in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is no longer actively being used by the user ([Pg. 9, Lines 20-21] describes powering down the motor).
Regarding Claim 3, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein the controller is configured to process the first and second sensor signals to determine whether the vacuum cleaner is actively being used both when the vacuum motor is activated and when the vacuum motor is deactivated ([Pg. 8, Lines 12- Pg. 9-21] describes the power management system detecting if the vacuum is used or not used at all times).
Regarding Claim 4, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and give the incorporation of the time of flight sensor being a laser in claim 1, Lawerence as modified further teaches wherein the one or more time of flight sensors comprise a radar device and/or a laser device ([0056] describes a time of flight sensors uses infrared lasers, Reindle).
Regarding Claim 5, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, give the incorporation of the time of flight sensor being a laser in claim 1, Lawerence as modified further teaches wherein determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used comprises determining, from the first sensor signals, that the object is within a predetermined threshold distance from at least one of the one or more time of flight sensors ([0055-0056] teaches a proximity sensor for detecting the distance from the floor that is sent to a controller to command the vacuum to stop or reverse, Reindle).
Regarding Claim 10, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein one of the one or more time of flight sensors (21&23) is located on the main body (15, Fig. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 11, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used comprises determining, from the second sensor signals, that the user is gripping the handle of the vacuum cleaner ([Pg. 8, Lines 31-33 - Pg. 9, Lines 1-21]).
Regarding Claim 12, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein the controller is configured to process the sensor signals by performing a pre-processing step ([Pg. 7, Line33-34 - Pg. 8, Lines 1-2] describe a pre-processing step of associating different sensor signals to a time) and a classification step ([Pg. 8, Lines 12-21] describe the controller detects where a signal is a first or second signal).
Regarding Claim 13, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein the pre-processing step comprises extracting features from time portions of the sensor signals ([Pg. 7, Line33-34 - Pg. 8, Lines 1-2] describe a pre-processing step of associating different sensor signals to a time).
Regarding Claim 14, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein the pre-processing step comprises filtering the sensor signals ([Pg. 8, Lines 12-21] describe the controller detects where a signal is a first or second signal).
Regarding Claim 17, as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above, Lawerence teaches a method of operating a vacuum cleaner (Ref. 1, Fig. 1) comprising:
generating first sensor signals by one or more motion sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 1 teach motion sensors, [Pg. 9, Lines 5-21]);
generating second sensor signals by a capacitive sensor (Ref. 17&19, Fig. 2, [Pg. 6, Line 1-2] teaches a capacitive sensor) on a handle (Ref. 14, Fig. 1) of a main body of the vacuum cleaner (Ref. 3&14, Fig. 1), the second sensor signals dependent on whether a user gripping the handle ([Pg. 8, Lines 15-19] describes the touch sensor is use to indicate if the user is holding the handle);
processing the first and second sensor signals to determine whether the vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-12]); and
in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used, activating a vacuum motor of the vacuum cleaner (Ref. 24, Fig. 2, [Pg. 9, Lines 5-21] describes detecting the signals to shut down power to the motor or to continue the power), wherein the main body (3&14) includes a casing (Ref. 3, Fig. 1) and the handle (14), wherein the vacuum motor (24) is housed in the main body (3, Fig. 2), and wherein the handle projects from the casing (Fig. 1-2, shows the handle (14) protruding from the side of the casing (3) from the port (9)).
Lawerence teaches generating first sensor signals by one or more motion sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 1 teach motion sensors, [Pg. 9, Lines 5-21]). However, Lawerence fails to explicitly teach one or more time of flight sensors configured to generate first sensor signals dependent on the proximity of an object to the one or more time of flight sensors. Reindle teaches a vacuum cleaner with a main body, sensors, and controllers and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of vacuums cleaners. Reindle further teaches a vacuum cleaner with one or more time of flight sensors (Ref. 96, Fig. 3, [0055]) using lasers ([0056] describes the sensors as infrared sensors that are old and known in the art to use infrared lasers) configured to generate sensor signals dependent on the proximity of an object to the one or more time of flight sensors ([0055-0056] teaches a proximity sensor for detecting the distance from the floor that is sent to a controller to command the vacuum to stop or reverse). Given Lawerence teaches a motion sensor and the time of flight sensor is a proximity sensor to detect if the device is moving towards and away the floor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the motion sensors, as taught by Lawerence, with the time of flight sensors, as taught by Reindle to achieve the predictable result of detecting movement of the vacuum cleaner and to add further functionality of determining if the device is in proper contact with a surface or if the surface area is hazardous ([0056]).
Lawerence as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the handle extends between the casing and a battery pack. Thompson teaches a vacuum cleaner with a main body, sensors, and controllers and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Thompson further teaches a vacuum cleaner (Ref. 2, Fig. 1) comprising
a vacuum motor ([0031] describes “… a main body 4 which houses a motor…”);
a main body (Ref. 4, Fig. 1, [0031]) including a casing (Ref. 6, Fig. 1) and a handle (Ref. 8, Fig. 1, [0031]), wherein the casing housing houses the motor vacuum ([0031]), and wherein the handle projects from the casing (Fig. 1, [0031]);
a battery pack (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), wherein the handle extends between the casing and the battery pack (fig. 1);
an air inlet for securing a brush tool, extension tube or wand ([0032]);
a capacitive sensor (20, [0057] describes “As an alternative to a mechanically operable switch, it should be noted that other trigger means are viable in the context of this embodiment, for example touch sensitive switches such as light sensors, capacitive sensors or resistive sensors…”) located on the handle (Fig. 1) and configured to generate second sensor signals dependent on whether a user is gripping the handle ([0057 & Claim 11]). Given the teaching Lawerence teaches a brush tool/nozzle (13&15) is attached to the main body (14), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the main body, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with the main body, as taught by Thompson, to produce the predictable result of holding a vacuum motor and connecting to a brush/nozzle for suctioning debris and to improve portability of the vacuum cleaner.
Regarding Claim 18, Lawerence teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a computer program comprising a set of instructions, which, when executed by a computerized device ([Pg. 9, Line 5-12] describe a power management system), cause the computerized device to perform a method of operating a vacuum cleaner (Ref. 1, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
generating first sensor signals by one or more motion sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 1 teach motion sensors, [Pg. 9, Lines 5-21]);
generating second sensor signals by a capacitive sensor (Ref. 17&19, Fig. 2, [Pg. 6, Line 1-2] teaches a capacitive sensor) located on a handle (Ref. 14, Fig. 1) of a main body of the vacuum cleaner (Ref. 3&14, Fig. 1), the second sensor signals dependent on whether a user gripping the handle ([Pg. 8, Lines 15-19] describes the touch sensor is use to indicate if the user is holding the handle;
processing the first and second sensor signals to determine whether the vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-12]); and
in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used, activating a vacuum motor of the vacuum cleaner (Ref. 24, Fig. 2), wherein the main body (3&14) includes a casing (Ref. 3, Fig. 1) and a handle (14), wherein the vacuum motor is housed in the casing (Fig. 2), and wherein the handle projects form the casing (Fig. 1-2, shows the handle (14) protruding from the side of the casing (3) from the port (9))..
Lawerence teaches generating first sensor signals by one or more motion sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 1 teach motion sensors, [Pg. 9, Lines 5-21]). However, Lawerence fails to explicitly teach one or more time of flight sensors configured to generate first sensor signals dependent on the proximity of an object to the one or more time of flight sensors. Reindle teaches a vacuum cleaner with a main body, sensors, and controllers and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of vacuums cleaners. Reindle further teaches a vacuum cleaner with one or more time of flight sensors (Ref. 96, Fig. 3, [0055]) using lasers ([0056] describes the sensors as infrared sensors that are old and known in the art to use infrared lasers) configured to generate sensor signals dependent on the proximity of an object to the one or more time of flight sensors ([0055-0056] teaches a proximity sensor for detecting the distance from the floor that is sent to a controller to command the vacuum to stop or reverse). Given Lawerence teaches a motion sensor and the time of flight sensor is a proximity sensor to detect if the device is moving towards and away the floor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the motion sensors, as taught by Lawerence, with the time of flight sensors, as taught by Reindle, to achieve the predictable result of detecting movement of the vacuum cleaner and to add further functionality of determining if the device is in proper contact with a surface or if the surface area is hazardous ([0056]).
Lawerence as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the handle extends between the casing and a battery pack. Thompson teaches a vacuum cleaner with a main body, sensors, and controllers and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Thompson further teaches a vacuum cleaner (Ref. 2, Fig. 1) comprising
a vacuum motor ([0031] describes “… a main body 4 which houses a motor…”);
a main body (Ref. 4, Fig. 1, [0031]) including a casing (Ref. 6, Fig. 1) and a handle (Ref. 8, Fig. 1, [0031]), wherein the casing housing houses the motor vacuum ([0031]), and wherein the handle projects from the casing (Fig. 1, [0031]);
a battery pack (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), wherein the handle extends between the casing and the battery pack (fig. 1);
an air inlet for securing a brush tool, extension tube or wand ([0032]);
a capacitive sensor (20, [0057] describes “As an alternative to a mechanically operable switch, it should be noted that other trigger means are viable in the context of this embodiment, for example touch sensitive switches such as light sensors, capacitive sensors or resistive sensors…”) located on the handle (Fig. 1) and configured to generate second sensor signals dependent on whether a user is gripping the handle ([0057 & Claim 11]). Given the teaching Lawerence teaches a brush tool/nozzle (13&15) is attached to the main body (14), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the main body, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with the main body, as taught by Thompson, to produce the predictable result of holding a vacuum motor and connecting to a brush/nozzle for suctioning debris and to improve portability of the vacuum cleaner.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawerence as modified as applied to claims 1-5, 10-14, and 17-18 above, and further in view of Erkek (US 2018/0360282, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 9, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches a wand (Ref. 13, Fig. 2 shows a wand but not detachable) wherein the wand comprises one of the one or more time of flight sensors (Fig. 1-2 teach at least the floor nozzle has a time of flight sensor). Lawerence as modified fails to explicitly teach the wand as detachable. Erkek teaches a vacuum cleaner with a floor nozzle and stalk and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of vacuums. Erkek further teaches a detachable wand ([0033] describes the stalk and floor nozzle are removable). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wand, as taught by Lawerence as modified, to be detachable, as taught by Erkek, to allow for the user to clean different spaces more efficiently by allowing different attachments to be connected ([0029]) and for easy and compact storage when not in use.
Claim 15-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawerence as modified as applied to claims 1-5, 10-14, and 17-18 above, and further in view of Broz (2021/0030226, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 15, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the classification step comprises processing the extracted features using machine learning. Broz teaches a vacuum cleaner with a controller to process various input data and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Broz further teaches wherein the classification step comprises processing the extracted features using a machine learning classifier ([0017] describes a controller capable of identifying and sorting different data and storing using machine learning). wherein the classification step comprises processing the extracted features using a machine learning classifier ([0017] describes a controller capable of identifying and sorting different data and storing using machine learning).
Regarding Claim 16, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the machine learning classifier comprises one or more of: an artificial neural network, a random forest and a support- vector machine. Broz teaches a vacuum cleaner with a controller to process various input data and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Broz further teaches wherein the machine learning classifier comprises one or more of: an artificial neural network, a random forest and a support- vector machine ([0017&0032] describes a controller capable of identifying and sorting different data and storing using machine learning including artificial neural networks). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with a classifying system using an artificial neural network, as taught by Broz, to provide more efficient and customized recommendations for actions in response to data from the machine to achieve the predictable result of determining if the device should be on or off ([0030-0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Lawerence (presented above), Reindle (presented above), and Jyouraku (5,155,885, previously presented), the closest prior arts of record, teach some of the limitations of the claim, but alone or in combination fail to teach, suggest, or make obvious the combination of recited features of the claim.
Lawerence, one of the closest prior art, teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or make obvious one or more detachable tools, wherein the predetermined threshold distance is dependent on the type of detachable tool attached to the vacuum cleaner, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the recited elements of the claim.
Reindle, one of the closest prior art, teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or make obvious one or more detachable tools, wherein the predetermined threshold distance is dependent on the type of detachable tool attached to the vacuum cleaner, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the recited elements of the claim.
Jyouraku, one of the closest prior art, teaches one more more detachable nozzles with sensor that can give a sensor signal to detect different nozzle changes and change variable dependent upon the nozzle, but alone or in combination, fail to teach, suggest, or make obvious one or more detachable tools, wherein the predetermined threshold distance is dependent on the type of detachable tool attached to the vacuum cleaner, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the recited elements of the claim.
Examiner notes, while Lawerence already establishes one of more motion sensors located on the work head that generates a first sensor signal, Reindle is used to teach one or more time of flight sensors that signals proximity of an object to the one ore more time of flight sensors, and Jyouraku is used to merely teach detachable tools having the ability to use a sensor to detect what particular detachable tool is being used and change vacuum operating variables based upon the selected tool. This combination fail to teach, suggest, or make obvious one or more detachable tools, wherein the predetermined threshold distance is dependent on the type of detachable tool attached to the vacuum cleaner, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the recited elements of the claim.
Claims 7-8 are allowed due to being dependent upon an allowed claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the drawing objections and 35 USC 112 rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 23 June, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 17, and 18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lawerence in view of Reindle and Thompson. Thompson teaches a vacuum cleaner (Ref. 2, Fig. 1) comprising
a vacuum motor ([0031] describes “… a main body 4 which houses a motor…”);
a main body (Ref. 4, Fig. 1, [0031]) including a casing (Ref. 6, Fig. 1) and a handle (Ref. 8, Fig. 1, [0031]), wherein the casing housing houses the motor vacuum ([0031]), and wherein the handle projects from the casing (Fig. 1, [0031]);
a battery pack (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), wherein the handle extends between the casing and the battery pack (fig. 1);
an air inlet for securing a brush tool, extension tube or wand ([0032]);
a capacitive sensor (20, [0057] describes “As an alternative to a mechanically operable switch, it should be noted that other trigger means are viable in the context of this embodiment, for example touch sensitive switches such as light sensors, capacitive sensors or resistive sensors…”) located on the handle (Fig. 1) and configured to generate second sensor signals dependent on whether a user is gripping the handle ([0057 & Claim 11]). Given the teaching Lawerence teaches a brush tool/nozzle (13&15) is attached to the main body (14), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the main body, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with the main body, as taught by Thompson, to produce the predictable result of holding a vacuum motor and connecting to a brush/nozzle for suctioning debris and to improve portability of the vacuum cleaner.
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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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 Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. 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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights