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 . Claims 1-19 are pending and examined below. This action is in response to the claims filed 6/14/24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the following limitation:
“the vehicle comprising at least one with respect to the vehicle vertically and horizontally movable broom system,”
It is unclear as to what this claim element is explicitly claiming. Does the system have at least one vertically movable broom system and at least one horizontally movable broom system? Is the system movable in at least one plane, possibly movable in both vertical and horizontal? The current verbiage does not finitely define the broom system with respect to the vehicle and which movement plane(s?) are included.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 18 further recite the following claim elements:
“typically limited to a position substantially parallel to the side of the road”
The claim elements “typically limited” and “substantially parallel” does not provide a finite definition to the positioning of the wheel as both “typically” and “substantially” do not provide sufficiently limiting factors to how far the system can deviate from parallel.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 further recites the following claim element:
“rotate along a vertical axis over a rear wheel vertical angle of 1-50 degrees”
However, a vertical axis is typically understood as up/down direction, whereas a vertical angle would also be in the same up/down direction. A standard road vehicle has at least 4 wheels which rotate in along a horizontal axis to propel the vehicle forward and the steering wheels additionally rotate along a vertical axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
353
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen above, the vertical axis would be the Z-axis and both X-axis and Y-axis would be horizontal. Vertical angle would be between ZX or ZY, which would imply driven wheel rotation. It is unclear as to whether the vertical angle of the wheel is intended to be a steering direction or a driven wheel rotation.
Claims 3-6 and 18 additionally utilize directional angles which are not sufficiently limited based on the unclear angle/axis labeling in the claims.
Claim 6 recites the following limitation:
“at least one controller is configured to be switched of in order to not rotate the at least one rear wheel over the rear wheel vertical angle”
The claim appears to be switching the controller to not rotate the wheel over the rear wheel vertical angle. It is unclear as to how the controller is to be switched. It is further unclear based on the indefinite angle directional information as to whether this is a yaw/roll/pitch movement and what that has to do with the switching of the controller.
Claim 12 recites the following claim element “the rising edge” without proper antecedent basis.
Claim 12 further recites the following claim element:
“wherein the rising edge is validated on at least two consecutive 3D-images, and combinations thereof”
It is unclear as to what the “and combinations thereof” is referring to. Is the system creating combinations of consecutive 3D images? Are the combinations of more than 2 consecutive images? Without any description relating to the combinations and how it influences the validation, the claim language is indefinite.
Claim 17 recites the claim element “preferably move independent in the horizontal and vertical direction” where the “preferably” claim element does not provide a finite definition on whether or not the systems move independently or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-11, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze et al. (US 2021/0072749) in view of Teixeira Goethel (US 2019/0218732).
Regarding claim 1, Lacaze discloses an autonomous street sweeper vehicle including cleaning machine for at least one selected of a road and pavement, and a gutter comprising a vehicle (Abstract – sweeping along the curb corresponding to the recited gutter on a paved road),
the vehicle comprising at least one with respect to the vehicle vertically and horizontally movable broom system, at least one front wheel, and at least one rear wheel, wherein the vehicle comprises at least one seat for an operator, at least one controller for moving said broom system (¶11, ¶56-63, and Figs. 2 and 9 – controllable sweeper part is able to move upwards and downwards corresponding to the recited vertically movable broom with respect to the vehicle as well as a vehicle with at least one front and rear wheels. The figures as well as the description of the lead vehicle which may perform sweeping functions while having the option to be manned or unmanned discloses the recited at least one seat for an operator. The “at least one” claim elements only require one of the following to be present to disclose the invention as claimed),
a pavement track system comprising a 3D camera providing 3D-images, pattern recognition software adapted to process the 3D-images, wherein the pattern recognition software identifies a side of the road, and wherein the pattern recognition software measures a distance from the vehicle to the side of the road (¶22 and ¶32-38 - stereo vision camera corresponding to the recited 3D camera given that the stereo camera provides depth values to images corresponding to the recited 3D which is then utilized to detect curbs from the sensor data corresponding to the recited pattern recognition software identifies a side of the road as well as a distance to the curb corresponding to the recited measures a distance from the vehicle to the side of the road), and
wherein the at least one controller is adapted to move the broom-system sideways ... such that a distance between the broom system and side of the road is controlled (¶22-27 – vehicle is controlled to maintain serviceable distance to the curb corresponding to the recited move the broom-system sideways ... such that a distance between the broom system and side of the road is controlled),
wherein at least one controller is adapted to switch from a sweeping mode to a transport mode, and vice versa, and when in sweeping mode is adapted to switch from a free sweeping mode to a curb-follow-sweeping mode, and vice versa, wherein, in the sweeping mode, the rotation of the at least one rear wheel is controlled (¶53-60 and Fig. 3 - the autonomous street sweeper vehicle (300) can follow the predetermined routes in the normal manner (303) corresponding to the recited curb-follow sweeping mode and when obstacles are present and obstacle avoidance is required, the vehicle follows a free sweeping mode, where speed is controlled based on the detected debris corresponding to the recited in the sweeping mode, the rotation of the at least one rear wheel is controlled and areas where something might cause damage to the sweeping equipment or vehicle the vehicle stops vacuuming until the situation is passed as well as if the vehicle is exclusively a lead vehicle without activated sweeping functionality corresponding to the recited transport mode), and
typically limited to a position substantially parallel to the side of the road, such that the distance of the rear part of the machine and at least one rear wheel to the side of the road is maintained substantially constant (¶22-27 and Fig. 3 – element 303 discloses when a vehicle is controlled to maintain serviceable distance to the curb corresponding to the recited the distance of the rear part of the machine and at least one rear wheel to the side of the road is maintained substantially constant).
While Lacaze does disclose a movable broom system as well as steering control, it does not explicitly disclose the movable broom system moves sideways with respect to the vehicle or that the steering control is a rear wheel steering system, however Teixeira Goethel discloses a self propelled street sweeping system including being adapted to move the broom-system sideways with respect to the vehicle (¶5 and Fig. 9 – articulated arm with broom mounted assembly is adapted to move sideways with respect to the vehicle)
characterized in that the at least one rear wheel is configured to rotate along a vertical axis over a rear wheel vertical angle of 1-50 degrees (¶26-28 and Fig. 2 – rear wheels (3) are the driven wheels which utilize a hydraulic cylinder (22) to drive steering of the vehicle where a rear wheel steering control system where a vehicle capable of maneuvering on a street with steering control implicitly includes a vertical angle between 1 and 50 degrees), and
The combination of the autonomous street sweeping vehicle system of Lacaze with the extended range of motion controls of Teixeira Goethel fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the autonomous street sweeping vehicle system of Lacaze with the extended range of motion controls of Teixeira Goethel in order to improve the suitability for cleaning different road features such as highway median strips (Teixeira Goethel - ¶3).
Regarding claim 2, Lacaze further discloses wherein the at least one controller is adapted to rotate the at least one rear wheel by switching from the free sweep mode to the curb-follow-sweep mode (¶53-60 and Fig. 3 - the autonomous street sweeper vehicle (300) can follow the predetermined routes in the normal manner (303) corresponding to the recited curb-follow sweeping mode and when obstacles are present and obstacle avoidance is required, the vehicle follows a free sweeping mode, where speed is controlled based on the detected debris corresponding to the recited in the sweeping mode including both free-sweeping and curb-follow-sweeping modes and during switching between the two corresponding to the recited rotate the at least one rear wheel by switching from the free sweep mode to the curb-follow-sweep mode).
Regarding claim 4, Lacaze further discloses wherein at least one is selected of (the “at least one of” claim element only requires one of the following to be present to disclose the invention as claimed)
in free sweeping mode the at least one rear wheel is configured to rotate over a rear wheel vertical angle with an angle size which is 0.5-2.0 times the size of the rotation front wheel angle, and
wherein in curb-follow-sweep mode the at least one rear wheel is configured to rotate over a rear wheel vertical angle such that the at least one rear wheel is maintained substantially parallel to a side of the road (¶22, ¶53-60, and Fig. 3 - the autonomous street sweeper vehicle (300) can follow the predetermined routes in the normal manner (303) corresponding to the recited curb-follow sweeping mode, where speed is controlled based on the detected debris corresponding to the recited in the curb-follow-sweeping modes corresponding to the recited at least one rear wheel is configured to rotate over a rear wheel vertical angle such that the at least one rear wheel is maintained substantially parallel to a side of the road).
Regarding claim 5, Lacaze further discloses wherein at least one controller is configured to rotate the at least one rear wheel over the rear wheel vertical angle, which rear wheel vertical angle is further controlled in view of speed of the cleaning machine (¶22, ¶53-60, and Fig. 3 - the autonomous street sweeper vehicle (300) can follow the predetermined routes in the normal manner (303) corresponding to the recited curb-follow sweeping mode, where speed is controlled based on the detected debris corresponding to the recited in the curb-follow-sweeping modes corresponding to the recited rear wheel vertical angle is further controlled in view of speed of the cleaning machine).
Regarding claim 7, Lacaze further discloses wherein the controller is adapted to move the vehicle sideways such that a distance between the broom system and side of the road is controlled (¶22, ¶53-60, and Fig. 3 - the autonomous street sweeper vehicle (300) can follow the predetermined routes in the normal manner (303) corresponding to the recited curb-follow sweeping mode, where speed is controlled based on the detected debris corresponding to the recited in the curb-follow-sweeping modes corresponding to the recited move the vehicle sideways such that a distance between the broom system and side of the road is controlled).
Regarding claim 8, Lacaze further discloses wherein the controller adapts the distance in view of broom wear (¶48-53 and ¶60 - either stops sweeping (vacuuming) or positions the sweeper as to avoid damage to the truck functionality corresponding to the recited adapting distance in view of broom wear).
Regarding claim 9, Lacaze further discloses an autonomous street sweeper vehicle designed to perform many of the functions of the vehicle without the use of humans such as sweeping, vacuuming, blowing, or scraping, but does not explicitly disclose utilizing a second broom system to perform a secondary function.
However, Teixeira Goethel further discloses further comprising a second broom system (Fig. 9 – front wheel broom and telescopic broom corresponding to the recited first and second broom system).
The combination of the autonomous street sweeping vehicle system of Lacaze with the extended range of motion controls on multiple broom systems of Teixeira Goethel fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the autonomous street sweeping vehicle system of Lacaze with the extended range of motion controls on multiple broom systems of Teixeira Goethel in order to improve the suitability for cleaning different road features such as highway median strips (Teixeira Goethel - ¶3).
Regarding claim 10, Lacaze further discloses wherein the software adapts for contrast and/or wherein the software adapts for shadow effects, and wherein the software is trained for recognizing the pavement (¶35-38 and ¶48-55 – multiple detection sensors are utilized to detect obstacles and a plurality of different features in the road including detecting potholes in asphalt pavement utilizing the magnitude and color of emitted or reflected light and records the information as pixels as well as other systems which utilize contrast/light reflection strength/wavelength corresponding to the recited contrast and shadow effects to recognize the pavement).
Regarding claim 11, Lacaze further discloses adapted to be steered by an operator or driver (¶56 – lead vehicle may be manned or unmanned while performing sweeping functions corresponding to the recited adapted to be steered by an operator or a driver).
Regarding claim 15, Lacaze further discloses wherein the controller is adapted to maintain the distance between the broom system and side of the road at a constant value within a predetermined limit (¶22 – maintaining serviceable distance to the curb corresponding to the recited distance between the broom system and side of the road at a constant value within a predetermined limit).
Regarding claim 16, Lacaze further discloses wherein an orientation of the 3D-camera is adaptable, and adaptable to be in a height position providing images of the side of the road (¶35 – LADAR corresponding to the recited 3D camera which implicitly adapts its orientation and height as it scans the environment for providing images of the side of the road).
Regarding claim 18, Lacaze further discloses a pavement track system computer program, when loaded and executed on a computer, comprising instructions for operating the cleaning machine according to one of the claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), the instructions causing the computer to carry out the following steps:
loading 3D images, identifying the pavement (¶22 and ¶32-38 - stereo vision camera corresponding to the recited 3D camera given that the stereo camera provides depth values to images corresponding to the recited 3D which is then utilized to detect curbs from the sensor data corresponding to the recited pattern recognition software identifies a side of the road as well as a distance to the curb corresponding to the recited measures a distance from the vehicle to the side of the road);
determining a distance between the broom system and pavement (¶33-43 and ¶63 – distances to the pavement and obstacles are determined to lift or lower the positioning of the broom system disclosing distance between the broom system and the pavement); and
maintaining said distance within predetermined limits by moving said broom system by means of the controller sideways, characterized in based on the distance of the cleaning machine to the side of the road and configuration of said side of the road causing the at least one controller to switch from a sweeping mode to a transport mode, and vice versa, and when in sweeping mode to switch from a free sweeping mode to a curb-follow-sweeping mode, and vice versa, wherein, in the sweeping mode, the rotation of the at least one rear wheel is controlled (¶22-27, ¶53-60, and Fig. 3 – element 303 discloses when a vehicle is controlled to maintain serviceable distance to the curb corresponding to the recited the distance of the rear part of the machine and at least one rear wheel to the side of the road is maintained substantially constant where the autonomous street sweeper vehicle (300) can follow the predetermined routes in the normal manner (303) corresponding to the recited curb-follow sweeping mode and when obstacles are present and obstacle avoidance is required, the vehicle follows a free sweeping mode, where speed is controlled based on the detected debris corresponding to the recited in the sweeping mode, the rotation of the at least one rear wheel is controlled and areas where something might cause damage to the sweeping equipment or vehicle the vehicle stops vacuuming until the situation is passed as well as if the vehicle is exclusively a lead vehicle without activated sweeping functionality corresponding to the recited transport mode), and
typically limited to a position substantially parallel to the side of the road, such that the distance of the rear part of the machine and at least one rear wheel to the side of the road is maintained substantially constant (¶22-27 and Fig. 3 – element 303 discloses when a vehicle is controlled to maintain serviceable distance to the curb corresponding to the recited the distance of the rear part of the machine and at least one rear wheel to the side of the road is maintained substantially constant).
While Lacaze does disclose a movable broom system as well as steering control, it does not explicitly disclose the movable broom system moves sideways with respect to the vehicle or that the steering control is a rear wheel steering system, however Teixeira Goethe further discloses by rotating the at least one rear wheel along a vertical axis over a rear wheel vertical angle of 1-50 degrees (¶26-28 and Fig. 2 – rear wheels (3) are the driven wheels which utilize a hydraulic cylinder (22) to drive steering of the vehicle where a rear wheel steering control system where a vehicle capable of maneuvering on a street with steering control implicitly includes a vertical angle between 1 and 50 degrees)
The combination of the autonomous street sweeping vehicle system of Lacaze with the extended range of motion controls of Teixeira Goethel fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the autonomous street sweeping vehicle system of Lacaze with the extended range of motion controls of Teixeira Goethel in order to improve the suitability for cleaning different road features such as highway median strips (Teixeira Goethel - ¶3).
Regarding claim 19, Lacaze further discloses instructions for recognition of a curb (¶22 and ¶32-38 - stereo vision camera corresponding to the recited 3D camera given that the stereo camera provides depth values to images which is then utilized to detect curbs from the sensor data corresponding to the recited instructions for recognition of a curb), and
neglecting the dirt/debris to be removed visible in the image (¶52-55 – avoiding specific areas due to detected potential damage areas), and
compensating for broom-wear (¶52-55 – avoiding specific areas due to detected potential damage areas which would cause broom wear), and
adapting for difficult image situations (¶52-55 – avoiding specific areas due to detected potential damage areas corresponding to the recited difficult image situations).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze et al. (US 2021/0072749) in view of Teixeira Goethel (US 2019/0218732), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kossira et al. (US 2013/0054092).
Regarding claim 3, Lacaze does not explicitly disclose rotating the front wheels and the rear wheels in opposite directions, however Kossira discloses a motor vehicle including wherein the at least one front wheel, are adapted to rotate along a front wheel vertical axis, wherein the at least one rear wheel is configured to rotate over a rear wheel vertical angle which is opposite to a rotation of the front wheel vertical angle (¶37 and Fig. 2 - The rear wheels 3 are hereby deflected by the actuator 7 in the opposite direction of the front wheels 2, wherein the front wheels 2 are deflected to the left, the rear wheels 3 are deflected to the right).
The combination of the autonomous street sweep system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the wheel steering characteristics of Kossira fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the autonomous street sweep system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the wheel steering characteristics of Kossira in order to improve the subjective driving experience in specific driving situations overcoming the limitations of maximum steering angles applied to a single axle steering control (Kossira - ¶21).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze et al. (US 2021/0072749) in view of Teixeira Goethel (US 2019/0218732), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Walter (US 2019/0213427)
Regarding claim 12, Lacaze further discloses utilizing 3D images as well as curb detection, but does not explicitly disclose a rising edge validation, however Walter discloses a detection and validation system for detected objects in a driver assist system including wherein the software is adapted to validate a position of the rising edge, and wherein the rising edge is validated on at least two consecutive 3D-images, and combinations thereof (¶106-112 - Extract in consecutive frames image correspondences for the detection to be validated).
The combination of the 3D sensor based curb detection system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the object verification system of Walter fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the 3D sensor based curb detection system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the object verification system of Walter in order to avoid erroneous detection and classification of detected objects (Walter - ¶2)
Claims 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacaze et al. (US 2021/0072749) in view of Teixeira Goethel (US 2019/0218732), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Anderson (US 2010/0063648).
Regarding claim 13, Lacaze further discloses wherein the control is electronic, and wherein a CAN-bus is used for control (¶23 – drive-by-wire electrical control of vehicle controls corresponding to the recited electronic control distributing signals via a CAN-bus).
While Lacaze does disclose an electric drive-by-wire system, it does not explicitly disclose the use of a bus system to perform these controls, however Anderson discloses an autonomous street sweeping vehicle including a bus system to communicate over a network for controlling the vehicle (¶64).
The combination of the electronic control of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the bus system based communication system of Anderson fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the electronic control of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the bus system based communication system of Anderson in order to provide for a transfer of data between different components or devices attached to the bus system (Anderson - ¶64).
Regarding claim 14, Lacaze further discloses a system capable of both manual and autonomous control, but does not explicitly disclose a manual override.
However, Anderson further discloses wherein the controller is adapted to be manually over-ride (¶43 - operator also may monitor truck 104 for safe operation and ultimately provide overriding control for the behavior of truck).
The combination of the manual/autonomous street sweeping system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the operator control inputs of Anderson fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the manual/autonomous street sweeping system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the operator control inputs of Anderson in order to allow an operator to monitor for safe operation of the autonomous vehicles (Anderson - ¶43)
Regarding claim 17, Lacaze further discloses wherein brooms are adapted to sweep debris and dirt to a suction point (¶56 – first sweeper moves the debris to a position for performing the vacuuming function), and
wherein brooms are adapted to move with respect to the cleaning-machine in at least one of a horizontal direction and a vertical direction, and preferably move independent in the horizontal and vertical direction, and wherein the cleaning machine comprises a suction system for up-taking debris and dirt from the suction point, connected to the suction opening a suction tube, at the other end of the suction tube a container for receiving dirt and debris, and a fan for providing suction, and wherein the cleaning machine comprises at least one ventilation opening, and an outlet (¶53-56 and Fig. 2 – vacuum position on element 200 is adjusted corresponding to the recited move with respect to the cleaning-machine in at least one of a horizontal direction and a vertical direction where the vacuum lifts debris with suction where Fig. 2 discloses the suction tube and a container for receiving the dirt and debris where commercial sized vacuums implicitly include some form of fan/ventilation opening and an outlet for removing the vacuumed materials), and
Lacaze does not explicitly disclose a display, however Anderson further discloses further comprising a display (¶58).
The combination of the manual/autonomous street sweeping system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the operator control inputs of Anderson fully discloses the elements as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to have combined the manual/autonomous street sweeping system of Lacaze in view of Teixeira Goethel with the operator control inputs of Anderson in order to allow an operator to monitor for safe operation of the autonomous vehicles (Anderson - ¶43)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the art of record either alone or in combination explicitly discloses switching a controller to not rotate a rear wheel over a vertical angle.
Additional References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Borra et al. (US 2018/0360284) discloses a floor scrubbing system including a drive wheel, a steering assembly, and a controller. The drive wheel can be rotatably secured to a body of the motive machine. The steering assembly can be operable to steer the motive machine. The controller can be in communication with a steering sensor, a steering motor, and a limit sensor, where the controller can be configured to synchronize the steering motor to the steering sensor as a function of a limit signal. (Abstract)
Tagliaferri (US 2022/0120047) discloses a system for sweeping a road with a dynamic positioning system for the cleaning heads (¶45-50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew J Reda whose telephone number is (408)918-7573. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-4 ET.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on (571) 272-7298. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW J. REDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665