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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-5 are amended.
Claims 6-9 are newly added.
Claims 1-9 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichiki (US Publication 2022/0146664 A1) in view of Fan (Foreign Reference CN115122834A).
Regarding claim 1, Ichiki teaches a self-diagnosis device for a vehicle, the self-diagnosis device comprising: a memory (Ichiki: Para. 208; read only memory (ROM))………. , a camera configured to output information regarding an image obtained by shooting a predetermined region in a vicinity of an own vehicle (Ichiki: Para. 81; the camera captures an image of a view ahead of the vehicle); a millimeter-wave radar device configured to acquire and output a relative velocity that is a velocity of a three-dimensional object with respect to the own vehicle (Ichiki: Para. 82; the millimeter-wave radar performs sensing of any object ahead of the vehicle); ………. ; and a processor configured to identify a stationary object in the vicinity of the own vehicle based on the information acquired from the camera (Ichiki: Para. 3, 66; sensing an object ahead of a vehicle with a combination of a camera and a millimeter-wave radar), detect a relative velocity that is a velocity of the stationary object with respect to the own vehicle from the millimeter-wave radar device (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 86; measures a position and relative velocity of a reflector ahead of the vehicle; millimeter-wave radar), calculate an absolute value of a component of the relative velocity of the stationary object in a direction parallel to a traveling direction of the own vehicle, as an actual vehicle speed of the own vehicle (Ichiki: Para. 108, 168; absolute value of the relative velocity exceeds Vmax; all the reflectors are moving in a direction parallel to the traveling direction of the vehicle), acquire the vehicle speed from the vehicle speed sensor (Ichiki: Para. 60; states of the own vehicle to be detected include, for example, speed), ……… , determine whether the duration of time exceeds a time threshold value (Ichiki: Para. 200; in a range where the absolute value of the relative velocity exceeds Vmax; correction unit corrects the measured velocity; corrected relative velocity of the reflector in the past (for example, one frame before) is less than a predetermined threshold).
Ichiki doesn’t explicitly teach configured to store a coefficient that is a fixed value …… a vehicle speed sensor configured to detect a vehicle speed of the own vehicle by multiplying revolutions per unit time of a wheel of the own vehicle by the coefficient, and output the detected vehicle speed ..….. calculate a duration time of a state in which an absolute value of a difference between the vehicle speed and the actual vehicle speed exceeds a vehicle speed threshold value ……… in response to determining that the duration time exceeds the time threshold value, control a notification device such that predetermined information is provided to a driver.
However Fan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches configured to store a coefficient that is a fixed value (Fan: Pg. 4 Lines 16-23; rear axle speed ratio as K, and the wheel radius as R) …… a vehicle speed sensor configured to detect a vehicle speed of the own vehicle by multiplying revolutions per unit time of a wheel of the own vehicle by the coefficient, and output the detected vehicle speed (Fan: Pg. 4 Lines 14-17; real-time vehicle speed multiplied by the rear axle speed ratio divided by 120 multiplied by pi multiplied by wheel radius) ..….. calculate a duration time of a state in which an absolute value of a difference between the vehicle speed and the actual vehicle speed exceeds a vehicle speed threshold value (Fan: Pg. 6 Lines 29-35; the actual rotational speed of the wheel is less than the theoretical wheel speed corresponding to the highest limit value of the tire pressure) ……… in response to determining that the duration time exceeds the time threshold value, control a notification device such that predetermined information is provided to a driver (Fan: Pg. 2 Lines 11-14, Pg. 6 Lines 29-35; the actual rotational speed of the wheel is less than the theoretical wheel speed corresponding to the highest limit value of the tire pressure; outputting a prompt to the user to indicate the normal tire pressure range of the tire).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and the radar vehicle speed comparison and correction (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 200) with tire pressure detection (Fan: Pg. Lines 29-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because the rotation speed of the wheel is inversely proportional to the wheel radius and is easily checked against the theoretical wheel speed when the tire’s pressure is correct (Fan: Pg. 6 Lines 29-35).
Regarding claim 9, Ichiki teaches the self-diagnosis device according to claim 1, …… , display an image (Ichiki: Para. 50; output unit includes a display device, an instrument panel) ……… , display an image (Ichiki: Para. 50; output unit includes a display device, an instrument panel).
Ichiki doesn’t explicitly teach wherein: the processor is configured to determine whether the vehicle speed is greater than the actual vehicle speed; in response to determining that the vehicle speed is greater than the actual vehicle speed ……….. indicating that air pressure of a wheel is higher than appropriate; and in response to determining that the vehicle speed is greater than the actual vehicle speed ……. indicating that air pressure of a wheel is higher than appropriate.
However Fan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the processor is configured to determine whether the vehicle speed is greater than the actual vehicle speed (Fan: Pg. 6 Lines 29-35; the actual rotational speed of the wheel is less than the theoretical wheel speed corresponding to the highest limit value of the tire pressure); in response to determining that the vehicle speed is greater than the actual vehicle speed (Fan: Pg. 2 Lines 11-14, Pg. 6 Lines 29-35; the actual rotational speed of the wheel is less than the theoretical wheel speed corresponding to the highest limit value of the tire pressure) ……….. indicating that air pressure of a wheel is higher than appropriate (Fan: Pg. 2 Lines 11-14, Pg. 6 Lines 29-35; the actual rotational speed of the wheel is less than the theoretical wheel speed corresponding to the highest limit value of the tire pressure; outputting a prompt to the user to indicate the normal tire pressure range of the tire); and in response to determining that the vehicle speed is greater than the actual vehicle speed (Fan: Pg. 2 Lines 11-14, Pg. 6 Lines 29-35; the actual rotational speed of the wheel is less than the theoretical wheel speed corresponding to the highest limit value of the tire pressure) ……. indicating that air pressure of a wheel is higher than appropriate (Fan: Pg. 2 Lines 11-14, Pg. 6 Lines 29-35; the actual rotational speed of the wheel is less than the theoretical wheel speed corresponding to the highest limit value of the tire pressure; outputting a prompt to the user to indicate the normal tire pressure range of the tire).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and the radar vehicle speed comparison and correction (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 200) with tire pressure detection (Fan: Pg. Lines 29-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because the rotation speed of the wheel is inversely proportional to the wheel radius and is easily checked against the theoretical wheel speed when the tire’s pressure is correct (Fan: Pg. 6 Lines 29-35).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichiki (US Publication 2022/0146664 A1) in view of Fan (Foreign Reference CN115122834A) and in further view of Akamine et al. (US Publication 2024/0255612 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ichiki doesn’t explicitly teach wherein, in response to determining that the duration time exceeds the time threshold value.
However Fan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, in response to determining that the duration time exceeds the time threshold value (Fan: Pg. 2 Lines 2-5; when the difference between the theoretical wheel speed of the wheel and the actual speed of the wheel is greater than a preset interval).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and the radar vehicle speed comparison and correction (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 200) with tire pressure detection (Fan: Pg. Lines 29-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because the rotation speed of the wheel is inversely proportional to the wheel radius and is easily checked against the theoretical wheel speed when the tire’s pressure is correct (Fan: Pg. 6 Lines 29-35).
Ichiki and Fan don’t explicitly teach the processor is configured further to correct the vehicle speed output from the vehicle speed sensor, based on a ratio between the actual vehicle speed and the vehicle speed acquired from the vehicle speed sensor.
However Akamine, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the processor is configured further to correct the vehicle speed output from the vehicle speed sensor, based on a ratio between the actual vehicle speed and the vehicle speed acquired from the vehicle speed sensor (Akamine: Para. 35, 50; microprocessor; utilize an error between the point group subjected to the function fitting process by the function fitting processing unit and the function as accuracy information of the detection accuracy of the lateral wall).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and the radar vehicle speed comparison and correction (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 200) with tire pressure detection (Fan: Pg. Lines 29-35) and the driver notification of velocity speed problem and correction (Akamine: Para. 35) with a reasonable expectation of success because vehicle speed sensor failure notification to a driver and quick recalibration prevents taking the vehicle to a dedicated facility for sensor recalibration (Akamine: Para. 4, 9, 35).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichiki (US Publication 2022/0146664 A1) in view of Fan (Foreign Reference CN115122834A), Akamine et al. (US Publication 2024/0255612 A1), and further view of Gorczowski (US Patent 10,392,016 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Ichiki doesn’t explicitly teach wherein, in response to determining that the duration time exceeds the time threshold value.
However Fan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, in response to determining that the duration time exceeds the time threshold value (Fan: Pg. 2 Lines 11-14, Pg. 6 Lines 29-35; the actual rotational speed of the wheel is less than the theoretical wheel speed corresponding to the highest limit value of the tire pressure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and the radar vehicle speed comparison and correction (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 200) with tire pressure detection (Fan: Pg. Lines 29-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because the rotation speed of the wheel is inversely proportional to the wheel radius and is easily checked against the theoretical wheel speed when the tire’s pressure is correct (Fan: Pg. 6 Lines 29-35).
Ichiki, Fan, and Akamine don’t explicitly teach in response to not receiving an input to request correction of the vehicle speed from the driver, the processor is configured to correct the vehicle speed output from the vehicle speed sensor, based on the ratio.
However Gorczowski, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to not receiving an input to request correction of the vehicle speed from the driver, the processor is configured to correct the vehicle speed output from the vehicle speed sensor, based on the ratio (Gorczowski: Para. Col. 11 Lines 11-21; user may request that the controller update the calibration; only when the input from the user is received, the controller updates the calibration such that the sensed speed is substantially equal to the GPS speed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and the radar vehicle speed comparison and correction (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 200) with tire pressure detection (Fan: Pg. Lines 29-35), the driver notification of velocity speed problem and correction (Akamine: Para. 35), and the presenting both detected vehicle speeds to the user (Gorczowski: Col. 10 Lines 60-63) with a reasonable expectation of success because user requesting calibration update when the user visually identifies that the sensed speed is not equal to the GPS speed (Gorczowski: Col. 11 Lines 11-21).
Regarding claim 4, Ichiki doesn’t explicitly teach wherein, in response to determining that the duration time exceeds the time threshold value, and …… the processor is configured to control the notification device to provide the driver with information regarding the wheel of the own vehicle without correcting the vehicle speed output from the vehicle speed sensor based on the ratio.
However Fan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, in response to determining that the duration time exceeds the time threshold value (Fan: Pg. 2 Lines 11-14, Pg. 6 Lines 29-35; the actual rotational speed of the wheel is less than the theoretical wheel speed corresponding to the highest limit value of the tire pressure), and …… the processor is configured to control the notification device to provide the driver with information regarding the wheel of the own vehicle without correcting the vehicle speed output from the vehicle speed sensor based on the ratio (Fan: Pg. 2 Lines 11-14, Pg. 6 Lines 29-35; the actual rotational speed of the wheel is less than the theoretical wheel speed corresponding to the highest limit value of the tire pressure; outputting a prompt to the user to indicate the normal tire pressure range of the tire).
Ichiki, Fan, and Akamine don’t explicitly teach in response to not receiving an input to request correction of the vehicle speed.
However Gorczowski, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to not receiving an input to request correction of the vehicle speed (Gorczowski: Col. 15 Lines 11-12, 27-37; user input is indicative of a request to update the calibration is determined).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and the radar vehicle speed comparison and correction (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 200) with tire pressure detection (Fan: Pg. Lines 29-35), the driver notification of velocity speed problem and correction (Akamine: Para. 35), and the presenting both detected vehicle speeds to the user (Gorczowski: Col. 10 Lines 60-63) with a reasonable expectation of success because user requesting calibration update when the user visually identifies that the sensed speed is not equal to the GPS speed (Gorczowski: Col. 11 Lines 11-21).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichiki (US Publication 2022/0146664 A1) in view of Fan (Foreign Reference CN115122834A), Akamine et al. (US Publication 2024/0255612 A1), Gorczowski (US Patent 10,392,016 B2), and further view of Ricci et al. (US Publication 2021/0234767 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ichiki doesn’t explicitly teach wherein, in response to determining that the duration time exceeds the time threshold value.
However Fan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein, in response to determining that the duration time exceeds the time threshold value (Fan: Pg. 2 Lines 11-14, Pg. 6 Lines 29-35; the actual rotational speed of the wheel is less than the theoretical wheel speed corresponding to the highest limit value of the tire pressure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and the radar vehicle speed comparison and correction (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 200) with tire pressure detection (Fan: Pg. Lines 29-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because the rotation speed of the wheel is inversely proportional to the wheel radius and is easily checked against the theoretical wheel speed when the tire’s pressure is correct (Fan: Pg. 6 Lines 29-35).
Ichiki, Fan, and Akamine don’t explicitly teach in response to not receiving an input to request correction of the vehicle speed.
However Gorczowski, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to not receiving an input to request correction of the vehicle speed (Gorczowski: Col. 15 Lines 11-12, 27-37; user input is indicative of a request to update the calibration is determined).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and the radar vehicle speed comparison and correction (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 200) with tire pressure detection (Fan: Pg. Lines 29-35), the driver notification of velocity speed problem and correction (Akamine: Para. 35), and the presenting both detected vehicle speeds to the user (Gorczowski: Col. 10 Lines 60-63) with a reasonable expectation of success because user requesting calibration update when the user visually identifies that the sensed speed is not equal to the GPS speed (Gorczowski: Col. 11 Lines 11-21).
Ichiki, Fan, Akamine, and Gorczowski don’t explicitly teach the processor is configured to disable a driving assistance function that the own vehicle is equipped with temporarily, without correcting the vehicle speed output from the vehicle speed sensor based on the ratio.
However Ricci, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the processor is configured to disable a driving assistance function that the own vehicle is equipped with temporarily, without correcting the vehicle speed output from the vehicle speed sensor based on the ratio (Ricci: Para. 32, 124, 217-218, Fig. 6; perform a check and/or test, in response to an internally generated interrupt and/or request to determine a selected processing module's ability to perform critical and/or non-critical vehicle tasks, functions, and/or operations, assign a score to the selected processing module based on the check and/or test results, and compare the score to one or more thresholds and/or to a score of a different processing module to determine a state of health to determine a state of health of the selected processing module; if any of the non-critical subsystem is indeed unavailable, the method performs specific stand-by on the specific subsystem).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and the radar vehicle speed comparison and correction (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 200) with tire pressure detection (Fan: Pg. Lines 29-35), the driver notification of velocity speed problem and correction (Akamine: Para. 35), the presenting both detected vehicle speeds to the user (Gorczowski: Col. 10 Lines 60-63), and the disabling of a non-critical vehicle function (Ricci: 217) with a reasonable expectation of success because a health check of non-critical vehicle functions allow for a vehicle to continue driving while unhealthy non-critical vehicle functions are disabled (Ricci: Para. 32, 217, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Ichiki, Fan, Akamine, and Gorczowski don’t explicitly teach wherein the driving assistance function is a function of controlling the own vehicle based on the vehicle speed.
However Ricci, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the driving assistance function is a function of controlling the own vehicle based on the vehicle speed (Ricci: Para. 130; control of critical and non-critical on board sensors and vehicle operations e.g., engine, transmission, throttle, brake power assist/brake lock-up).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and the radar vehicle speed comparison and correction (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 200) with tire pressure detection (Fan: Pg. Lines 29-35), the driver notification of velocity speed problem and correction (Akamine: Para. 35), the presenting both detected vehicle speeds to the user (Gorczowski: Col. 10 Lines 60-63), and the disabling of a non-critical vehicle function (Ricci: 217) with a reasonable expectation of success because a health check of non-critical vehicle functions allow for a vehicle to continue driving while unhealthy non-critical vehicle functions are disabled (Ricci: Para. 32, 217, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Ichiki, Fan, Akamine, and Gorczowski don’t explicitly teach wherein the driving assistance function is adaptive cruise control.
However Ricci, in the same field of endeavor, teaches teach wherein the driving assistance function is adaptive cruise control (Ricci: Para. 130; adaptive cruise control).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and the radar vehicle speed comparison and correction (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 200) with tire pressure detection (Fan: Pg. Lines 29-35), the driver notification of velocity speed problem and correction (Akamine: Para. 35), the presenting both detected vehicle speeds to the user (Gorczowski: Col. 10 Lines 60-63), and the disabling of a non-critical vehicle function (Ricci: 217) with a reasonable expectation of success because a health check of non-critical vehicle functions allow for a vehicle to continue driving while unhealthy non-critical vehicle functions are disabled (Ricci: Para. 32, 217, Fig. 6).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ichiki (US Publication 2022/0146664 A1) in view of Fan (Foreign Reference CN115122834A) and in further view of Yang.
Regarding claim 8, Ichiki teaches the self-diagnosis device according to claim 1, ……. , calculate the duration time, determine whether the duration time exceeds the time threshold value (Ichiki: Para. 200; in a range where the absolute value of the relative velocity exceeds Vmax; correction unit corrects the measured velocity; corrected relative velocity of the reflector in the past (for example, one frame before) is less than a predetermined threshold).
Ichiki doesn’t explicitly teach in response to determining that the duration time exceeds the time threshold value, control the notification device such that the predetermined information is provided to the driver.
However Fan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in response to determining that the duration time exceeds the time threshold value, control the notification device such that the predetermined information is provided to the driver (Fan: Pg. 2 Lines 11-14, Pg. 6 Lines 29-35; the actual rotational speed of the wheel is less than the theoretical wheel speed corresponding to the highest limit value of the tire pressure; outputting a prompt to the user to indicate the normal tire pressure range of the tire).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and the radar vehicle speed comparison and correction (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 200) with tire pressure detection (Fan: Pg. Lines 29-35) with a reasonable expectation of success because the rotation speed of the wheel is inversely proportional to the wheel radius and is easily checked against the theoretical wheel speed when the tire’s pressure is correct (Fan: Pg. 6 Lines 29-35).
Ichiki and Fan don’t explicit teach wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether a wheel has been replaced; and in response to determining that the wheel has been replaced.
However Yang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is configured to: determine whether a wheel has been replaced (Yang: Para. 32; provides a notification regarding tire inspection or replacement; after a tire is replaced according to a tire replacement notification); and in response to determining that the wheel has been replaced (Yang: Para. 32; the aging determination logic of the electronic stability control device may be reset through an input of the input/output unit).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the camera and the radar vehicle speed comparison and correction (Ichiki: Para. 66, 82, 200) with tire pressure detection (Fan: Pg. Lines 29-35) and tire replacement notification (Yang: Para. 32) with a reasonable expectation of success because resetting the tire replacement module that determined an aged tire after that aged tire has been replaced helps the tire replacement module properly calculate braking control according to the tire’s degree of aging (Yang: 32-33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E LINHARDT whose telephone number is (571)272-8325. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TR, M-F: 8am-4pm.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663