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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 16 March 2026. The Applicant has amended claims 1-7, 10, 15-16 and 20. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 16 March 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Objections:
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed 16 March 2026 have overcome the claim objections previously set forth.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed 16 March 2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 16 March 2026, with regard to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “…claims do not recite features constituting a “mental process” …” (Remarks, pages 10-11), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 20 recites “…estimate an amount of wear…” and “…determine an expected useful lifetime remaining…” which could be performed by a person in the mind with acquired data. With acquired data, a person could compare the data to historical vehicle usage data and determine, based on the comparison, an amount of wear of related vehicle components, and further determine expected useful lifetime remaining. Therefore, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “…the features recited in the pending claims improve the technical field of vehicle systems…provide improvements to at least the technical field of vehicle systems …are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field” (Remarks, pages 11-12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
“A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application” (MPEP 2106.04(d)). Claim 20 recites “estimate…”, “determine…”, which can be implemented by a human and therefore the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The additional limitation of acquire… amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional limitation of display… amounts to mere post-solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology” (MPEP 2106.05(a) II.), Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 15 recite similar language as claim 20 and the rejections are maintained for similar reasons above.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 16 March 2026, with regard to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered. Applicant’s argument is moot because the argument is directed toward new limitations that have not been previously considered. As such, Applicant’s amendment has necessitated a new ground of rejection set forth in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 20 is directed to a vehicle system (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 20 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 20 recites:
A vehicle system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
acquire data associated with use of a golf vehicle collected during an event undergone by the golf vehicle;
estimate an amount of wear caused to one or more components of the golf vehicle by the event based on a comparison of the data to historical vehicle usage data;
determine an expected useful lifetime remaining for one or more components of the golf vehicle based on the amount of wear caused to the one or more components by the event, the one or more components including at least one of a chassis, a body, a suspension, a motor, or a brake system of the golf vehicle; and
display a notification prompting a user to replace the one or more components based on the expected useful lifetime remaining being below a threshold.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “estimate an amount of wear…”, “determine an expected useful lifetime remaining...” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (e.g. a driver) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
acquire data associated with use of a golf vehicle collected during an event undergone by the golf vehicle;
estimate an amount of wear caused to one or more components of the golf vehicle by the event based on a comparison of the data to historical vehicle usage data;
determine an expected useful lifetime remaining for one or more components of the golf vehicle based on the amount of wear caused to the one or more components by the event, the one or more components including at least one of a chassis, a body, a suspension, a motor, or a brake system of the golf vehicle; and
display a notification prompting a user to replace the one or more components based on the expected useful lifetime remaining being below a threshold.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquire data…” and “display a notification...” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying a result derived from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “a non-transitory computer-readable medium…one or more processors…” merely describes how to generally implement the abstract idea on a generic or general purpose computer. The non-transitory computer-readable medium and one or more processors are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the determining step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 20 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a non-transitory computer-readable medium and one or more processors to perform the determining... amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “acquire data...” and “display a notification...” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “acquire data...” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the non-transitory computer-readable medium and one or more processors are anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “display…” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 1.
Claim 1, an apparatus claim, includes limitations analogous to claim 20, but adds a chassis, a body, tractive element, a brake system, a suspension system, a motor, a battery, one or more sensor. These generically recited vehicle components do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to applying the abstract idea to a vehicle.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 15.
Claim 15, an apparatus claim, includes limitations analogous to claim 20 (“estimate an aggregate wear…based on the event data” is a mental process), but adds an inertial measurement unit. The generically recited inertial measurement unit does not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, it is a conventional sensor on a vehicle and merely gathering data for the “estimate…” step.
Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 15.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 7-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (US20080224842) in view of Jiang (US20200043258) and further in view of Tseng (US20170365109), Nguyen (US20230211766) and Ohazulike (US20190084548).
As to claim 1, Takano teaches a vehicle system comprising:
a golf vehicle including:
a chassis (Takano Fig. 1, golf cart);
a body (Takano Fig. 1, golf cart);
tractive elements (Takano Fig. 1, golf cart, para 0016: accelerator pedal input into the MCU and the MCU drives a motor…);
a brake system configured to brake one or more of the tractive elements (Takano Fig. 1, golf cart with brake pedal, para 0015-0016: brake pedal…) ;
a suspension system (Takano Fig. 1, golf cart);
a motor configured to drive one or more of the tractive elements (Takano Fig. 1, golf cart);
a battery coupled to the motor (Takano para 0014: electric golf car); and
one or more sensors configured to acquire data associated with use of the golf vehicle (Takano para 0020: incline sensor, also see Fig. 1); and
at least one processing circuit having at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (Takano para 0015: MCU):
acquire the data collected during an event undergone by the golf vehicle (Takano para 0014-0015: detecting speed of a vehicle and obtaining actual deceleration…; also see para 0009-0010, Fig. 2); and
display a notification prompting a user based on the expected useful lifetime remaining being below a replacement threshold (Takano para 0021-0023: …determines that the brake has worn to a set level…MCU displays that the brake is worn…if it determines the brake has sufficiently worn…; para 0003: certain features, aspects and advantages of the present invention relate to a method for detecting if a brake of an electric golf car has worn to a degree warranting replacement or not).
Takano does not teach the one or more sensors including at least an inertial measurement unit, estimate an amount of wear caused to one or more components of the golf vehicle by the event based on a comparison of the data to historical vehicle usage data; determine an expected useful lifetime remaining for one or more components of the vehicle based on the amount of wear caused to the one or more components by the event, the one or more components including at least one of the chassis, the body, the suspension, the motor, or the brake system; display a notification prompting a user to replace the one or more components.
Jiang is directed to an apparatus and method that detect a condition of a vehicle component. Jiang teaches an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Jiang para 0047-0048).
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 Takano so as to include the one or more sensors including at least an inertial measurement unit in view of Jiang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the IMU of Jiang can be used in Takano to gather vehicle movement parameters, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takano and Jiang because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Tseng is directed to determining a life cycle profile for a vehicle component based on the at least one cluster… includes state of health information associated with the vehicle component. Tseng teaches processing the component data to estimate the remaining useful life for one or more vehicle components…(Tseng para 0014)providing sensors for all vehicle components that wear over time can be cost-prohibitive… the prognostics information may be displayed at a level easily understandable to the vehicle owner … the prognostic system may receive data on how a particular brand of brake pads wear over time … The near end of life phase may refer to the period of time immediately before the brake pads deteriorate to a point where they should be replaced relatively soon… (Tseng para 0008-0010, Fig. 4) ... When a particular component installed in a real vehicle is estimated to be at or near the near end of life phase, the estimation computer 100 transmits a message to the vehicle owner recommending that the component be evaluated or replaced (Tseng para 0014, also see para 0027; Fig. 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 modified Takano so as to include displaying a notification prompting a user to replace the one or more components in view of Tseng et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that notifying the owner that one of the components is at or near the near end of life phase of Tseng can be used in Takano, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takano and Tseng because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Nguyen is directed to a vehicle includes a system and a method of monitoring a condition of a brake fluid. Nguyen teaches …for estimating a brake pad wear…dynamic parameters of the vehicle are obtained. The dynamic parameters includes vehicle grade or inclination, pitch, roll, yaw of the vehicle, lateral/longitudinal acceleration, and brake torque... a model that simulates normal brake pad wear over time given various usage scenarios…historical data of brake pad wear for a given usage time for the brake pad… and estimates an amount of brake wear based on a comparison of the measurements to either the simulation data or the historical data or both (Nguyen para 0032, para 0037, Fig. 6).
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 Takano so as to include estimating an amount of wear caused to one or more components of the golf vehicle by the event based on a comparison of the data to historical vehicle usage data in view of Nguyen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takano and Nguyen because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Ohazulike is directed to a method and an apparatus for determining brake wear at a vehicle. Ohazulike teaches determining a remaining lifetime and/or an expected brake replacement time based on the accumulated brake wear parameter and the length of the accumulation duration… (Ohazulike 0013) …an accumulated brake wear value, a brake wear value for the last brake operation, an average brake wear value per travel distance and/or per driving time, an expected estimated remaining lifetime of brake pad(s), an expected replacement timing for brake pad replacement, etc. This has the additional benefit that real-time information about a brake wear behavior, e.g. based on current road conditions, slope conditions, traffic conditions, load conditions of the vehicle (e.g. with multiple passengers and/or a loaded trunk), driver behavior, etc. and predictions on lifetime and expected replacement timing, can be conveniently and accurately provided to the driver, dynamically and/or in real-time (Ohazulike 0147-0148).
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 Takano so as to include determining an expected useful lifetime remaining for one or more components of the vehicle based on the amount of wear caused to the one or more components by the event, the one or more components including at least one of the chassis, the body, the suspension, the motor, or the brake system in view of Ohazulike et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takano and Ohazulike because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 2, Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1.
Takano further teaches wherein the data includes one or more of acceleration data associated with the golf vehicle, vibration data associated with the golf vehicle, operational data associated with the golf vehicle, visual data associated with the one or more components, global positioning system data, braking data associated with the vehicle, motor temperature, motor speed, motor current, motor torque, battery temperature, or battery output efficiency (Takano para 0007-0009: …monitors a state of the golf car by detecting an accelerator position, a vehicle speed… detecting a speed of the vehicle and obtaining an actual rate of deceleration; para 0014: …obtaining a deceleration of the vehicle…).
As to claim 3, Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike teaches the vehicle system of Claim 2.
Takano further teaches wherein the one or more components include at least one component of the brake system, and wherein, to determine the expected useful lifetime remaining for the at least one component of the brake system (Takano para 0009: … a brake wear detecting method for an electric golf car…detecting a speed of the vehicle and obtaining an actual rate of deceleration…), the instructions cause the at least one processor to:
track the acceleration data during one or more braking events to determine an amount of deceleration (Takano para 0009: … detecting a load on a brake pedal…detecting a speed of the vehicle and obtaining an actual rate of deceleration…);
estimate an amount of wear caused to the at least one component of the brake system by the one or more braking events based on the acceleration data, which includes accounting for a slope of the ground upon which the golf vehicle is traveling on (Takano para 0009: …detecting a speed of the vehicle and obtaining an actual rate of deceleration. If the accelerator opening is Zero or about Zero, then a comparison is made between the obtained deceleration threshold value and the obtained actual rate of deceleration and, if the actual deceleration is lower than the deceleration threshold value, para 0014: brake wear can be predicted when the actual deceleration is lower than the deceleration threshold…, para 0020-0021: the deceleration threshold value depending on a slope of a road…, i.e., accounting for slope; para 0035: In some embodiments, a determination may be conducted only on a flat road. Thus, a system such as an incline sensor that would be used to take into account sloping ground is not necessary, i.e., when slope, or other factors, not contributing); and
determine the expected useful lifetime remaining for the at least one component of the brake system based on the estimated amount of wear caused by the one or more braking events (Takano para 0021-0023:…if the actual deceleration is lower than the deceleration threshold value, and thus determines that the brake has worn to a set level…MCU displays that the brake is worn…if it determines the brake has sufficiently worn…; para 0003: certain features, aspects and advantages of the present invention relate to a method for detecting if a brake of an electric golf car has worn to a degree warranting replacement or not).
Yet, Takano does not explicitly disclose an amount of regenerative braking applied using the motor.
However, Takano does teach …the actual deceleration of the vehicle preferably is obtained by a computation from the speed of the vehicle…the actual deceleration is a value indicating how much a speed of the vehicle decreases after a lapse of a certain period …a comparison is made between the deceleration threshold value and the actual deceleration… the detecting method can be used for detection of brake wear… (Takano, para 0031-0034, claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the brake wear detection by comparing actual deceleration and threshold deceleration should be implemented under the condition of same amount of regenerative braking for the actual deceleration and the threshold deceleration or, as in the method of Takano, the amount of regenerative braking is zero, so as to directly relate the brake wear to the deceleration caused by friction braking which contributes to brake wear for the benefit of accurately estimating the level of brake wear.
As to claim 7, Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1.
Takano modified by Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike does not explicitly teaches wherein the data includes real-time usage data and historical usage data, and wherein to determine the expected useful lifetime of the one or more components, the instructions cause the at least one processor to:
determine a predicted aggregate wear amount for the one or more components caused by a plurality of usage events;
compare the predicted aggregate wear amount with an initial expected lifetime wear amount of the one or more components; and
determine the expected useful lifetime of the one or more components based on the comparison between the predicted aggregate wear amount and the initial expected lifetime wear amount.
Ohazulike is directed to determining brake wear at a vehicle. Ohazulike teaches overall brake wear parameters of multiple time periods can be accumulated, e.g. since a time of last brake pad replacement, so as to estimate a total brake wear of brake pad(s) of the brake(s) of the vehicle. Accordingly, the accumulated total brake wear of brake pad(s) of the brake(s) of the vehicle can be determined in step S116, and this exemplarily allows to estimate a remaining expected lifetime of the brake packs of the brake(s) of the vehicle and/or an estimated expected next replacement time, at which the brake pad(s) of the brakes) of the vehicle may be expected to be needed to be replaced… predictions on lifetime and expected replacement timing, can be conveniently and accurately provided to the driver… an average brake pad degradation value can be computed, and a remaining lifetime of the brake pads can be estimated based on the average brake pad degradation value, e.g. for estimating an expected replacement timing (Ohazulike para 0144-0148, para 0174, para 0179-0187).
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 Takano so as to include wherein the data includes real-time usage data and historical usage data, and wherein to determine the expected useful lifetime of the one or more components, the instructions cause the at least one processor to: determine a predicted aggregate wear amount for the one or more components caused by a plurality of usage events; compare the predicted aggregate wear amount with an initial expected wear lifetime of the one or more components; and determine the expected useful lifetime of the one or more components based on the comparison between the predicted aggregate wear amount and the initial expected wear lifetime in view of Ohazulike et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method of Ohazulike can be used in Takano, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takano and Ohazulike because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 8, Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1.
Tseng further teaches wherein the notification prompting the user to replace the one or more components includes a recommended replacement time for replacing the one or more components based on the expected useful lifetime (Tseng para 0014: the estimation computer 100 transmits a message to the vehicle owner recommending that the component be evaluated or replaced).
Ohazulike further teaches a recommended replacement time for replacing the one or more components based on the expected useful lifetime (Ohazulike para 0013: determining a remaining lifetime and/or an expected brake replacement time based on the accumulated brake wear parameter and the length of the accumulation duration).
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 Takano so as to include a recommended replacement time for replacing the one or more components based on the expected useful lifetime in view of Ohazulike et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method of Ohazulike can be used in Takano, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takano and Ohazulike because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 9, Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1.
Tseng teaches wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: determine an amount of available replacement components corresponding to the one or more components to be replaced; and in response to the amount of available replacement components being less than an expected number of needed replacement components, display a second notification prompting a second user to purchase additional replacement components (Tseng para 0012: The data may be further used for inventory management (i.e., service centers can stock appropriate replacement parts based on the life cycle models so vehicle owners do not need to wait for parts to ship)…).
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 Takano so as to include wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to: determine an amount of available replacement components corresponding to the one or more components to be replaced; and in response to the amount of available replacement components being less than an expected number of needed replacement components, display a second notification prompting a second user to purchase additional replacement components in view of Tseng et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takano and Tseng because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 10, Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1.
Takano further teaches wherein the data is associated with a plurality of vehicles, determining the expected useful lifetime of the one or more components of the golf vehicle includes determining expected useful lifetimes of a plurality of components of the plurality of vehicles, and the notification prompts the user to replace the plurality of components of the plurality of vehicles (Takano para 0035-0036: … service technicians, who maintain large numbers of golf cars… the threshold value is set to such a value, thereby service technicians for the golf cars can know the appropriate timing for desired brake maintenance, and the service technicians can give more timely maintenance).
As to claim 11, Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1.
Tseng further teaches wherein the at least one processing circuit is remote from the golf vehicle (Tseng para 0051-0057).
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 Takano so as to include wherein the at least one processing circuit is remote from the golf vehicle in view of Tseng et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takano and Tseng because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 12, Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1.
Takano further teaches wherein the at least one processing circuit is onboard the golf vehicle (Takano para 0015-0018, Fig. 1).
As to claim 13, Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1.
Takano modified by Jiang and Tseng discloses the claimed invention (Takano: Fig. 1: MCU; Jiang para 0047-0048: IMU) except for wherein the inertial measurement unit is integrated into a motor controller of the motor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the IMU into the controller, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 20, Claim 20 an apparatus claim (vehicle system) includes limitations analogous to claim 1, an apparatus claim (vehicle system). For the reasons give above with respect to claim 1, claim 20 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in combination with Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Namuduri (US20090099719).
As to claim 4, Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike teaches the vehicle system of Claim 2.
Takano further teaches wherein the at least one component include one or more components of the suspension system (Takano Fig. 1, golf cart).
Tseng further teaches sensors can be used to measure wear on particular components and alert the vehicle operator when a particular component is due for maintenance (Tseng para 0001).
Takano modified by Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike does not teach determining the expected useful lifetime remaining for the at least one component of the suspension, the instructions cause the at least one processor to: track the vibration data during one or more driving events; estimate an amount of wear caused by the one or more driving events based on the vibration data; and determine the expected useful lifetime remaining for the at least one component of the suspension system based on the estimated amount of wear caused by the one or more driving events.
Namuduri is directed to a vehicle suspension wear prediction and indication method includes processing data inputs from a suspension system and converting the data inputs into a cumulative wear estimate. Namuduri teaches …The rough road measurement is paired to a measurement of vehicle speed to estimate the magnitude factor of road conditions acting upon suspension system. Frequency response…known as a Bode plot. The Bode plot describes behaviors well known to those familiar with the study of vibrations and suspensions… the Bode plot illustrates a relationship for a given component between the frequency of an input force and the magnitude of the resulting output force…different components of suspension system 20 exhibit different natural frequencies, so an understanding of the forces acting on and internal to suspension system 20 enables accurate prediction of suspension wear… (Namuduri para 0017, Fig. 4)… In order to predict the level of wear on suspension system 20 and its components, and thereby predict and indicate an end to their lifecycles, it is preferable to model the fatigue experienced by the components by summing the impact indicated by individual data input values. In this way, variable stress inputs and a measure of duration may be utilized to estimate wear upon suspension system…the rough road measurement may be paired with vehicle speed in order to robustly and accurately determine the magnitude of forces acting upon suspension system… As the life span of a component reaches a certain stage, output device 200 is instructed to provide an indication of wear based upon the wear estimate, e.g. by displaying a warning to the vehicle operator (Namuduri para 0015- 0019, para 0025, Fig. 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 modified Takano so as to include determining the expected useful lifetime remaining for the one or more components of the suspension, the instructions cause the at least one processor to: track the vibration data during one or more driving events; estimate an amount of wear caused by the one or more driving events based on the vibration data; and determine the expected useful lifetime remaining for the one or more components of the suspension system based on the estimated amount of wear caused by the one or more driving events in view of Namuduri et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method for estimating extent of wear of a suspension system of Namuduri can be used in Takano, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takano and Namuduri because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heller (US20160132050).
As to claim 5, Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike teaches the vehicle system of Claim 2.
Takano further teaches wherein the at least one component include one or more components of the motor or a driveline of the golf vehicle (Takano Fig. 1 and related text).
Takano modified by Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike does not teach wherein, to determine the expected useful lifetime remaining for the at least one component of the motor or the driveline of the golf vehicle, the instructions cause the at least one processor to:
track one or more of the motor current, the motor torque, the motor speed, the motor temperature, or a temperature of a driveline component;
determine a level of motor or driveline component degradation based on the one or more of the motor current, the motor torque, the motor speed, the motor temperature, or the temperature of the driveline component; and
determine the expected useful lifetime remaining for the at least one component of the motor or the driveline of the golf vehicle based on the determined level of motor or driveline component degradation.
Heller is directed to assembly for estimating the service life of an electric motor. Heller teaches …the sensing of a temperature of a monitored motor 32 (FIG. 2) using an A/D converter 26. What is significant for calculating the remaining service life is principally the temperature profile (Temp.) of the bearings of this motor. The change in motor rotation speed n over time can, however, also play a part (Heller para 0027, claim 1, Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
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 Takano so as to include wherein, to determine the expected useful lifetime remaining for the one or more components of the motor or the driveline of the vehicle, the instructions cause the at least one processor to: track one or more of the motor current, the motor torque, the motor speed, the motor temperature, or a temperature of a driveline component; determine a level of motor or driveline component degradation based on the one or more of the motor current, the motor torque, the motor speed, the motor temperature, or the temperature of the driveline component; and determine the expected useful lifetime remaining for the one or more components of the motor or the driveline of the vehicle based on the determined level of motor or driveline component degradation in view of Heller et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method for estimating remaining service life of Heller can be used in Takano, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takano and Heller because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martin (US20220148341).
As to claim 6, Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike teaches the vehicle system of Claim 2.
Takano further teaches wherein the at least one component included one or more components of the battery (Takano Fig. 1 and related text).
Takano modified by Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike does not teach wherein, to determine the expected useful lifetime remaining for the at least one component of the battery, the instructions cause the at least one processor to:
track one or more of a battery capacity or the battery output efficiency of the battery;
determine a level of battery degradation based on the one or more of the battery capacity or the battery output efficiency; and
determine the expected useful lifetime remaining for the at least one component of the battery based on the determined level of battery degradation.
Martin is directed to prediction of battery failure. Martin teaches …the vehicle battery 207 is unable to provide the required amount of current or voltage to the starter motor because the vehicle battery 207 is at a state of discharge wherein it is physically impossible to provide the required amount of current or voltage to the starter motor…if the battery will not support a sufficient recharge, the failure is identified as an end of life, and the battery must be replaced. If the battery is in a state of health that does not support recharging the vehicle battery 207 back to such a level of charge, the vehicle notifies the user that the vehicle battery 207 is dead and must be replaced before the vehicle can be started again (Martin para 0034).
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 Takano so as to include wherein, to determine the expected useful lifetime remaining for the one or more components of the battery, the instructions cause the at least one processor to: track one or more of the battery capacity or the battery output efficiency of the battery; determine a level of battery degradation based on the one or more of the battery capacity or the battery output efficiency; and determine the expected useful lifetime remaining for the one or more components of the battery based on the determined level of battery degradation in view of Martin et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method for estimating the end of life of a battery of Martin can be used in Takano, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takano and Martin because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kipnis (US 20220413515).
As to claim 14, Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike teaches the vehicle system of Claim 1.
Jiang further teaches a global positioning system (Jiang para 0038).
Takano in view of Jiang, Tseng, Nguyen and Ohazulike does not teach wherein the inertial measurement unit includes at least one of a first inertial measurement unit integrated into a motor controller of the motor or a second inertial measurement unit integrated in the global positioning system.
Kipnis is directed to a system for distributing control over a done and an active-payload carried by the drone to loosely coupled drone controller and payload controller. Kipnis teaches …an additional and separate Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) or Inertial Navigation System (INS) or other sensors, such as GPS northing system or any accurate relative navigation system that are integrated in the payload controller…when there are two independent IMUs, one in the drone controller and one in the payload controller (Kipnis para 0147).
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 Takano so as to include wherein the inertial measurement unit includes at least one of a first inertial measurement unit integrated into a motor controller of the motor or a second inertial measurement unit integrated in the global positioning system in view of Kipnis et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the method of Kipnis can be used in Takano, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takano and Kipnis because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohazulike in view of Jiang and further in view of Nguyen.
As to claim 15, Ohazulike teaches a vehicle system comprising:
at least one processing circuit having at least one processor and at least one memory, the at least one memory storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (Ohazulike, para 0167, claim 14):
acquire event data associated with one or more events involving the vehicle (Ohazulike, para 0117-0120: retrieving sensor data… sensor data indicative of a longitudinal acceleration
(e.g. a longitudinal g-force sensor. Furthermore, longitudinal acceleration or deceleration or change of vehicle speed may be determined based on the sensor data indicative of a vehicle speed, Fig. 1, Fig. 5, claim 14);
estimate an aggregate wear amount caused to one or more components of the vehicle by the one or more events (Ohazulike, para 0142-0148: the individual brake wear contributions are combined for determining an overall brake wear during the time period {t,,t,+1}, for example the contributions determined in steps S109 and S114 or S112 may be added (e.g. step S115) or aggregated by an aggregation rule… overall brake wear parameters of multiple time periods can be accumulated, e.g. since a time of last brake pad replacement, so as to estimate a total brake wear of brake pad(s) of the brake(s) of the vehicle… allows to estimate a remaining expected lifetime of the brake packs) of the brake(s) of the vehicle and/or an estimated expected next replacement time, at which the brake pad(s) of the brakes) of the vehicle may be expected to be needed to be replaced…an accumulated brake wear value…; Fig. 1, Fig. 5, claim 14); and
display a notification prompting a user to replace the one or more components based on the aggregate wear amount (Ohazulike, para 0147: an accumulated brake wear value, a brake wear value for the last brake operation, an average brake wear value per travel distance and/or per driving time, an expected estimated remaining lifetime of brake pad( s ), an expected replacement timing for brake pad replacement…, also see Fig. 5 and related text).
Ohazulike does not teach an inertial measurement unit; acquire event data associated with one or more events involving the vehicle from the inertial measurement unit… estimate an aggregate wear amount…based on a comparison of the event data to historical vehicle usage data.
Jiang is directed to an apparatus and method that detect a condition of a vehicle component. Jiang teaches an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Jiang para 0047-0048).
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 Takano so as to include acquiring event data associated with one or more events involving the vehicle from the inertial measurement unit in view of Jiang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the IMU of Jiang can be used in Takano to gather vehicle movement parameters, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takano and Jiang because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
Nguyen is directed to a vehicle includes a system and a method of monitoring a condition of a brake fluid. Nguyen teaches …for estimating a brake pad wear…dynamic parameters of the vehicle are obtained. The dynamic parameters includes vehicle grade or inclination, pitch, roll, yaw of the vehicle, lateral/longitudinal acceleration, and brake torque... a model that simulates normal brake pad wear over time given various usage scenarios…historical data of brake pad wear for a given usage time for the brake pad… and estimates an amount of brake wear based on a comparison of the measurements to either the simulation data or the historical data or both (Nguyen para 0032, para 0037, Fig. 6).
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 Takano so as to include estimate an aggregate wear amount…based on a comparison of the event data to historical vehicle usage data in view of Nguyen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Takano and Nguyen because this is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
As to claim 16, Ohazulike in view of Jiang and Nguyen teaches the vehicle system of Claim 15.
Ohazulike further teaches wherein the instructions further cause the at least one processor to:
compare the aggregate wear amount caused to the one or more components by the one or more events with an expected lifetime wear amount of the one or more components (Ohazulike, para 0142-148: the accumulated total brake wear of brake pad(s) of the brake(s) of the vehicle can be determined in step S116, and this exemplarily allows to estimate a remaining expected lifetime of the brake packs) of the brake(s) of the vehicle and/or an estimated expected next replacement time, at which the brake pad(s) of the brakes of the vehicle may be expected to be needed to be replaced, , also see para 0154-0155, para 0172-0187); and
determine an expected useful lifetime remaining for the one or more components based on the comparison between the aggregate wear amount and the expected lifetime wear amount (Ohazulike, para 0142-148: the accumulated total brake wear of brake pad(s) of the brake(s) of the vehicle can be determined in step S116, and this exemplarily allows to estimate a remaining expected lifetime of the brake packs) of the brake(s) of the vehicle and/or an estimated expected next replacement time, at which the brake pad(s) of the brakes of the vehicle may be expected to be needed to be replaced, , also see para 0154-0155, para 0172-0187, claim 7),
wherein the notification is displayed responsive to the expected useful lifetime remaining being below a replacement threshold (Ohazulike, para 0147: an accumulated brake wear value, a brake wear value for the last brake operation, an average brake wear value per travel distance and/or per driving time, an expected estimated remaining lifetime of brake pad( s ), an expected replacement timing for brake pad replacement…, para 0187: …indicates an estimated remaining brake pad lifetime…; also see Fig. 5 and related text, para 0005).
As to claim 17, Ohazulike in view of Jiang and Nguyen teaches the vehicle system of Claim 16.
Ohazulike further teaches wherein the notification prompting the user to replace the one or more components includes a recommended replacement time for replacing the one or more components based on the expected useful lifetime (Ohazulike, Fig. 5 and related text).
As to claim 18, Ohazulike in view of Jiang and Nguyen teaches the vehicle system of Claim 15.
Ohazulike further teaches wherein the one or more components include one or more of a frame, a suspension, a body, a braking component, or prime mover of the vehicle (Ohazulike, para 0010, claim 1).
As to claim 19, Ohazulike in view of Jiang and Nguyen teaches the vehicle system of Claim 15.
Ohazulike further teaches wherein the event data includes one or more of acceleration data associated with the vehicle during the one or more events, vibration data associated with the vehicle during the one or more events, or operational data associated with the vehicle during the one or more events (Ohazulike, para 0119, claim 1).
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.
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on 571-272-4896. 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.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights