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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to application filed on July 31, 2024. Claims 1-11 are pending for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because
in Fig. 3,
reference character “220” has been used to designate both “determination of whether theft occurs” and “GPS”,
reference character “240” has been used to designate both “theft prevention” of element 200 and “Theft prevention unit” of element 100,
reference character “280” has been used to designate both “communication module” and “Vehicle State”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Examiner interprets Claims 2, 3 and 9 limitation “at least one of element/function X and element/function Y” as “at least one of element/function X and at least one of element/function Y”. The plain English meaning of the phrase “at least one of X and Y;” is “at least one of X and at least one of Y”.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 9 recites “a user authentication means”.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 7 limitations “a theft detection sensing unit which determines a suspected theft state of the vehicle”; and “a vehicle control unit which controls”.
Claim 8 limitations “a theft determination unit which determines the suspected theft state of the vehicle”;
“a theft prevention unit which, …, wakes up the inverter, and then controls the motor with a fixed direct current”; and
“a notification unit which notifies a driver”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claim 7 limitations “a theft detection sensing unit which determines a suspected theft state of the vehicle”, see Fig. 3, 100 and Par 67, sensors for detecting the suspected theft state;
“a vehicle control unit which controls”, see Fig. 3, 200 and Par 32, “a processing device that performs overall control of the device of the electric two-wheeled vehicle”.
Claim 8 limitations “a theft determination unit which determines the suspected theft state of the vehicle”, see Fig. 3, 220 and Par 62, a software module in the vehicle control unit and Par 32, a processing device that performs overall control of the device of the electric two-wheeled vehicle;
“a theft prevention unit which, …, wakes up the inverter, and then controls the motor with a fixed direct current”, see Fig. 3, 240 and Par 63, a software module in the vehicle control unit and Par 32, a processing device that performs overall control of the device of the electric two-wheeled vehicle; and
“a notification unit which notifies a driver”, see Fig. 3, 250 and Par 65, a software module in the vehicle control unit and Par 32, a processing device that performs overall control of the device of the electric two-wheeled vehicle.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim 9 recites “a user authentication means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 of this title, 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 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 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (Wu: US 20130116892) in view of Welchko et al. (Welchko: US 20110309777).
Regarding Claim 7, Wu teaches a control device for an electric two-wheeled vehicle (Fig. 1A-1B and Par 36, FIG. 1A shows an electric scooter or motorbike, the vehicle 108 may be any powered vehicle or powered device with at least two wheels), the control device comprising:
a motor that moves the vehicle (Fig. 2, 212 and Par 41-42);
a theft detection sensing unit which determines a suspected theft state of the vehicle (Par 36, vehicle 108 has a security system (shown in FIG. 2) that senses movement of the vehicle forward 112 when the vehicle is in a state that is not to allow operation of the vehicle (i.e., a "locked state"). This locked state may include or be triggered by a number of factors, including, but not limited to: when a key is not detected as being in the ignition, when a vehicle has been manually switched into a "locked" state by a user, when an authorized wireless external device such as a key fob or mobile device has not been detected by the vehicle security system and Par 37); and
a vehicle control unit which controls power to the motor (Par 42, The motor 212 is configured to run the drive system 214 in order to rotate one or more wheels (e.g., the at least one wheel 110 shown in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B) of the vehicle 108 corresponding to a direction in which the motor 212 is running according to the input received from the motor controller 206.) when the suspected theft state is recognized (Par 37, Upon the detection of the movement forward 112 (e.g., by detection of rotation of the at least one wheel 110 in the first direction), the vehicle security system causes the wheel 110 to rotate in a second direction opposite of the first direction (counteracting the rotation of the at least one wheel 110 in the first direction)).
Wu does not explicitly disclose an inverter which supplies driving power to the motor; or
controlling an inverter to output a direct current power to a motor.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of motor vehicles. Welchko teaches systems for operating an inverter coupled to a permanent magnet electric motor and the inverter has a plurality of high switches and a plurality of low switches coupled to the electric motor (Par 15) and further teaches an inverter which supplies driving power to the motor (Par 27) and controlling an inverter to output a direct current power to a motor (Fig. 3 and Par 30, upon detecting an event indicative of an "unexpected" deceleration (e.g., not normal braking) of the motor 30 (and/or the automobile 10 as a whole), the inverter 24 alternates between a "short" mode of operation and an "open" mode of operation. In the short mode, all of the high switches 52, 54, and 56 are activated, while the low switches 58, 60, and 62 are deactivated, or all of the low switches 58, 60, and 62 are activated, ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Welchko in order to apply the braking torque to the motor while reducing the DC link voltage to a desired level (Welchko: Par 43).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Wu and Welchko teaches the control device for an electric two-wheeled vehicle of claim 7, wherein the theft detection sensing unit comprises at least one of a user authentication means (Wu: Par 73, vehicle security system 200 receives information indicating whether an authorized external device has been wirelessly authenticated by the vehicle security system. ), a GPS receiver sensor, and a 3-axis acceleration sensor (Wu: Par 37, detection may be via other motion sensors of the vehicle security system, including those using accelerometers, and global positioning system (GPS) data, etc., of the vehicle security system ).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Wu and Welchko teaches the control device for an electric two-wheeled vehicle of claim 9, wherein the theft determination unit determines that the vehicle is in the suspected theft when the vehicle exceeds a predetermined distance threshold based on received information of the GPS receiver sensor or when an acceleration detected by the acceleration sensor exceeds a predetermined threshold (Wu: Par 37, detection may be via other motion sensors of the vehicle security system, including those using accelerometers, and global positioning system (GPS) data, etc., of the vehicle security system).
Claims 1-6, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (Wu: US 20130116892) in view of Welchko et al. (Welchko: US 20110309777) further in view of Akins et al. (Akins: US 20130150028).
Regarding Claim 1, Wu teaches
a control method for an electric two-wheeled vehicle (Fig. 1A-1B and Par 36, FIG. 1A shows an electric scooter or motorbike, the vehicle 108 may be any powered vehicle or powered device with at least two wheels ), the control method comprising:
checking a key-on state and a user authentication state; determining a suspected theft state if a key-off state occurs or user authentication is released (Par 36, vehicle 108 has a security system (shown in FIG. 2) that senses movement of the vehicle forward 112 when the vehicle is in a state that is not to allow operation of the vehicle (i.e., a "locked state"). This locked state may include or be triggered by a number of factors, including, but not limited to: when a key is not detected as being in the ignition, when a vehicle has been manually switched into a "locked" state by a user, when an authorized wireless external device such as a key fob or mobile device has not been detected by the vehicle security system );
controlling power to a motor (Par 42, The motor 212 is configured to run the drive system 214 in order to rotate one or more wheels (e.g., the at least one wheel 110 shown in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B) of the vehicle 108 corresponding to a direction in which the motor 212 is running according to the input received from the motor controller 206. ) when a state of the electric two-wheeled vehicle is determined as the suspected theft state (Par 37, Upon the detection of the movement forward 112 (e.g., by detection of rotation of the at least one wheel 110 in the first direction), the vehicle security system causes the wheel 110 to rotate in a second direction opposite of the first direction (counteracting the rotation of the at least one wheel 110 in the first direction) ).
Wu does not explicitly disclose controlling an inverter to output a direct current power to a motor, or notifying a driver of the suspected theft state.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of motor vehicles. Welchko teaches systems for operating an inverter coupled to a permanent magnet electric motor and the inverter has a plurality of high switches and a plurality of low switches coupled to the electric motor (Par 15) and further teaches controlling an inverter to output a direct current power to a motor (Fig. 3 and Par 30, upon detecting an event indicative of an "unexpected" deceleration (e.g., not normal braking) of the motor 30 (and/or the automobile 10 as a whole), the inverter 24 alternates between a "short" mode of operation and an "open" mode of operation. In the short mode, all of the high switches 52, 54, and 56 are activated, while the low switches 58, 60, and 62 are deactivated, or all of the low switches 58, 60, and 62 are activated, ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Welchko in order to apply the braking torque to the motor while reducing the DC link voltage to a desired level (Welchko: Par 43).
Wu does not explicitly disclose notifying a driver of the suspected theft state.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of bicycle security devices. Akins teaches a bicycle monitoring and recovery devices (title) and further teaches notifying a driver of the suspected theft state (Fig. 21 and par 6, The user may be alerted within seconds of a possible theft event; and Par 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Akins in order to improve bicycle safety (Akins: par 32).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Wu, Welchko and Akins teaches the control method for an electric two-wheeled vehicle of claim 1, wherein, in the determining the suspected theft state, at least one of whether the user authentication is performed, vehicle states, GPS, acceleration sensors (Wu: Par 37, detection may be via other motion sensors of the vehicle security system, including those using accelerometers, and global positioning system (GPS) data, etc., of the vehicle security system ), and a back-EMF of the motor is used as a sensor or parameter for detecting the theft (Wu: Par 44, the properties of the electrical current caused by the rotation or phase change of the motor 212 (e.g., the direction of the electrical current) may correspond to, and thus indicate to the motion sensor 204, the direction of the rotation of the wheel. ).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Wu, Welchko and Akins teaches the control method for an electric two-wheeled vehicle of claim 1, wherein the determining the suspected theft state performs at least one of checking whether a moving distance in the key-off state exceeds a predetermined distance using a GPS reception signal, detecting theft movement using a back-EMF of the motor, and detecting the generation of acceleration in a theft situation using an acceleration sensor value (Wu: Par 37, detection may be via other motion sensors of the vehicle security system, including those using accelerometers, and global positioning system (GPS) data, etc., of the vehicle security system ), and a back-EMF of the motor is used as a sensor or parameter for detecting the theft (Wu: Par 44, the properties of the electrical current caused by the rotation or phase change of the motor 212 (e.g., the direction of the electrical current) may correspond to, and thus indicate to the motion sensor 204, the direction of the rotation of the wheel. ).).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Wu, Welchko and Akins teaches the control method for an electric two-wheeled vehicle of claim 1, wherein the detecting the generation of acceleration in a theft situation determines that the vehicle is in the suspected theft state if instantaneous acceleration is generated in the direction of gravity (Akins: Par 35, The three-axis accelerometer 112 can also serve as an event sensor and Wu: Par 43; movement of a front wheel and/or a back wheel of the vehicle 108 may be individually detected, such that if a thief lifted the vehicle 108 so that only the front wheel or back wheel was rolling, this movement of the vehicle would also be detected.)
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Wu, Welchko and Akins teaches the control method for an electric two-wheeled vehicle of claim 1, wherein, in the controlling the inverter to output a direct current power to the motor, all or some of six drive switches of the inverter are continuously turned on with a fixed direct current (Welchko: Fig. 3 and Par 30, upon detecting an event indicative of an "unexpected" deceleration (e.g., not normal braking) of the motor 30 (and/or the automobile 10 as a whole), the inverter 24 alternates between a "short" mode of operation and an "open" mode of operation. In the short mode, all of the high switches 52, 54, and 56 are activated, while the low switches 58, 60, and 62 are deactivated, or all of the low switches 58, 60, and 62 are activated, ).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Wu, Welchko and Akins teaches the control method for an electric two-wheeled vehicle of claim 1, wherein in the notifying the suspected theft state, information on the suspected theft state of the vehicle is transmitted to a cloud server (Akins: par 6, activate the cellular radio to report the event to the server and Fig. 3, 306 ).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Wu and Welchko teaches the control device for an electric two-wheeled vehicle of claim 7, wherein the vehicle control unit comprises:
a theft determination unit which determines the suspected theft state of the vehicle (Wu: Par 36, vehicle 108 has a security system (shown in FIG. 2) that senses movement of the vehicle forward 112 when the vehicle is in a state that is not to allow operation of the vehicle (i.e., a "locked state"). This locked state may include or be triggered by a number of factors, including, but not limited to: when a key is not detected as being in the ignition, when a vehicle has been manually switched into a "locked" state by a user, when an authorized wireless external device such as a key fob or mobile device has not been detected by the vehicle security system Par 37, Upon the detection of the movement forward 112 (e.g., by detection of rotation of the at least one wheel 110 in the first direction),);
a theft prevention unit which, when the vehicle is determined to be in the suspected theft state, wakes up the inverter, and then controls the motor with a fixed direct current (Wu: Par 37, Upon the detection of the movement forward 112 (e.g., by detection of rotation of the at least one wheel 110 in the first direction), the vehicle security system causes the wheel 110 to rotate in a second direction opposite of the first direction (counteracting the rotation of the at least one wheel 110 in the first direction) and Welchko: Fig. 3 and Par 30, upon detecting an event indicative of an "unexpected" deceleration (e.g., not normal braking) of the motor 30 (and/or the automobile 10 as a whole), the inverter 24 alternates between a "short" mode of operation and an "open" mode of operation. In the short mode, all of the high switches 52, 54, and 56 are activated, while the low switches 58, 60, and 62 are deactivated, or all of the low switches 58, 60, and 62 are activated, and Par 6, a back electromotive force (EMF) generated by the automotive traction is above a predetermined threshold. ).
Wu and Welchko do not explicitly disclose a notification unit which notifies a driver and related parties of the suspected theft state.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of bicycle security devices.
Akins teaches a bicycle monitoring and recovery devices (title) and further teaches a notification unit which notifies a driver and related parties of the suspected theft state (Fig. 21 and par 6, The user may be alerted within seconds of a possible theft event; and Par 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Akins in order to improve bicycle safety (Akins: par 32).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Wu, Welchko and Akins teaches the control device for an electric two-wheeled vehicle of claim 8, wherein the theft detection sensing unit comprises a forced rotation detection unit which is activated by an electromotive force for forced rotation of the motor and wakes up the inverter (Wu: Par 44, the motion sensor 204, being electronically and/or mechanically coupled directly or indirectly to the motor 212 and/or drive system 214, may directly or indirectly detect changes or disturbances in magnetic fields caused by the rotation or phase change of the motor 212 or detect electrical current caused by the rotation or phase change of the motor 212. The properties of the detected disturbances in magnetic fields caused by the rotation or phase change of the motor 212 and/or the properties of the electrical current caused by the rotation or phase change of the motor 212 (e.g., the direction of the electrical current) may correspond to, and thus indicate to the motion sensor 204, the direction of the rotation of the wheel. The motion sensor 204 being electronically and/or mechanically coupled directly to the motor 212 may be represented by another connection line (not shown) in FIG. 2 between the motion sensor 204 and the motor 214.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior arts cited for the record but not used in Office Action, are listed in attached PTO-892.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Curtis Kuntz can be reached on (571) 272-7499. 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).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2687