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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-20 are cancelled.
Claims 21, 25, 31, and 37 are amended.
Claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12 January 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
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 21-24, 27, 30-34, and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer et al. (US Publication 2015/0199630 A1) in view of Ferrari et al. (US Publication 2021/0034867 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Pfeiffer teaches a method of controlling a mobile agricultural machine, the method comprising: controlling, during a current operation of the mobile agricultural machine on a field, a controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural machine (Pfeiffer: Para. 3; mechanisms that are controlled by the operator in performing operations; controlling the combine direction and speed, but also concave spacing, sieve settings, rotor speed settings) to perform an agricultural operation at a first location on a field using a first value for a setting of the controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural machine (Pfeiffer: Para. 56; evaluate the performance of the machine during unloading, during harvesting).
Pfeiffer doesn’t explicitly teach after the agricultural operation is performed at the first location on the field, receiving a sensor signal representing a sensed field characteristic, external to the mobile agricultural machine, of the agricultural operation at the first location; generating a performance metric based on the sensed field characteristic; generating a second value for the setting based on the performance metric; and controlling the mobile agricultural machine at a second location on the field using the second value for the setting of the controllable subsystem.
However Ferrari, in the same field of endeavor, teaches after the agricultural operation is performed at the first location on the field, receiving a sensor signal representing a sensed field characteristic, external to the mobile agricultural machine, of the agricultural operation at the first location (Ferrari: Para. 27, 62; receiving residue data associated with residue coverage across a surface of the field following the performance of a harvesting operation within the field); generating a performance metric based on the sensed field characteristic (Ferrari: Para. 54, 62; residue coverage across a surface of the field); generating a second value for the setting based on the performance metric (Ferrari: Para. 54; a portion of a prescription map generated based on the updated residue coverage map); and controlling the mobile agricultural machine at a second location on the field using the second value for the setting of the controllable subsystem (Ferrari: Para. 23; generate a prescription map for the field, which may then be used to control the operation of an agricultural implement during the performance a subsequent field operation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the improve control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) with the after operation sensor reading (Ferrari: Para. 27) with a reasonable expectation of success because an updated residue coverage map generated based on residue data collected for the field following the performance of the harvesting operation will improve the performance on a subsequent operation within the field (Ferrari: Para. 27, 62).
Regarding claim 22, Pfeiffer teaches the method of claim 21, and further comprising: identifying a target work control point based on the performance metric (Pfeiffer: Para. 36; compared against scores for a reference group; reference group may be previous scores for the operator himself or herself, scores for other operators in the fleet or scores for other operators in other fleets in a similar crop or geographic region); and generating the second value based on the target work control point (Pfeiffer: Para. 35; change the settings, control parameters, or other operator inputs, in order to improve his or her performance).
Regarding claim 23, Pfeiffer teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the target work control point represents a boundary of the agricultural operation at the second location on the field (Pfeiffer: Para. 184, FIG. 6R; the overall score was at each geographic location in the field).
Regarding claim 24, Pfeiffer teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the sensed field characteristic comprises a first boundary of the agricultural operation corresponding to a first portion of a path of the mobile agricultural machine over the field (Pfeiffer: Para. 56; measures such as the distance that the machine traveled in the field and on the road, an individual percentage breakdown in terms of total time, field setup (passes vs. headlands)).
Regarding claim 27, Pfeiffer teaches the method of claim 21, wherein receiving the sensor signal comprises: obtaining image data representing the first location of the field (Pfeiffer: Para. 158; detailed information regarding overall separator loss, shoe loss, grain quality, straw quality and tailings volume; images section shows images that were taken and that relate to separator and shoe loss).
Regarding claim 30, Pfeiffer teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the mobile agricultural machine comprises a harvesting machine and the performance metric indicates an unharvested area (Pfeiffer: Para. 41; sensors can include crop loss sensors that sense an amount of crop that is being lost, as opposed to harvested).
Regarding claim 31, Pfeiffer teaches a mobile agricultural machine comprising: (Pfeiffer: Para. 56; performance of the machine during unloading, during harvesting) ……. a propulsion subsystem configured to drive one or more ground engaging elements of the set of ground engaging elements (Pfeiffer: Para. 3; controlling the combine direction and speed); and a control system configured to: control, during a current operation of the mobile agricultural machine on a field, a controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural machine (Pfeiffer: ; mechanisms that are controlled by the operator in performing operations; controlling the combine direction and speed, but also concave spacing, sieve settings, rotor speed settings) to perform an agricultural operation at a first location on a field using a first value for a setting of the controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural machine (Pfeiffer: Para. 56; evaluate the performance of the machine during unloading, during harvesting).
Pfeiffer doesn’t explicitly teach a set of ground engaging elements ………. after the agricultural operation is performed at the first location on the field, receive a sensor signal representing a sensed field characteristic, external to the mobile agricultural machine, of the agricultural operation at the first location; generate a performance metric based on the sensed field characteristic; generate a second value for the setting based on the performance metric; and control the mobile agricultural machine at a second location on the field using the second value for the setting of the controllable subsystem.
However Ferrari, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a set of ground engaging elements (Ferrari: Para. 36; pair of driven, ground-engaging front wheels) ………. after the agricultural operation is performed at the first location on the field, receive a sensor signal representing a sensed field characteristic, external to the mobile agricultural machine, of the agricultural operation at the first location (Ferrari: Para. 27, 62; receiving residue data associated with residue coverage across a surface of the field following the performance of a harvesting operation within the field); generate a performance metric based on the sensed field characteristic (Ferrari: Para. 54, 62; residue coverage across a surface of the field); generate a second value for the setting based on the performance metric (Ferrari: Para. 54; a portion of a prescription map generated based on the updated residue coverage map); and control the mobile agricultural machine at a second location on the field using the second value for the setting of the controllable subsystem (Ferrari: Para. 23; generate a prescription map for the field, which may then be used to control the operation of an agricultural implement during the performance a subsequent field operation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the improve control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) with the after operation sensor reading (Ferrari: Para. 27) with a reasonable expectation of success because an updated residue coverage map generated based on residue data collected for the field following the performance of the harvesting operation will improve the performance on a subsequent operation within the field (Ferrari: Para. 27, 62).
Regarding claim 32, Pfeiffer teaches the mobile agricultural machine of claim 31, wherein the control system is configured to: identify a target work control point based on the performance metric (Pfeiffer: Para. 36; compared against scores for a reference group; reference group may be previous scores for the operator himself or herself, scores for other operators in the fleet or scores for other operators in other fleets in a similar crop or geographic region); and generate the second value based on the target work control point (Pfeiffer: Para. 35; change the settings, control parameters, or other operator inputs, in order to improve his or her performance).
Regarding claim 33, Pfeiffer teaches the mobile agricultural machine of claim 32, wherein the target work control point represents a boundary of the agricultural operation at the second location on the field (Pfeiffer: Para. 184, FIG. 6R; the overall score was at each geographic location in the field).
Regarding claim 34, Pfeiffer teaches the mobile agricultural machine of claim 31, wherein the sensed field characteristic comprises a first boundary of the agricultural operation corresponding to a first portion of a path of the mobile agricultural machine over the field (Pfeiffer: Para. 56; measures such as the distance that the machine traveled in the field and on the road, an individual percentage breakdown in terms of total time, field setup (passes vs. headlands)).
Regarding claim 37, Pfeiffer teaches a control system for an agricultural machine, the control system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the control system to: (Pfeiffer: Para. 247; memory stores computer readable instructions that, when executed by processor, cause the processor to perform computer-implemented steps or functions according to the instructions) control, during a current operation of the agricultural machine on a field, a controllable subsystem of the agricultural machine (Pfeiffer: Para. 3; mechanisms that are controlled by the operator in performing operations; controlling the combine direction and speed, but also concave spacing, sieve settings, rotor speed settings) to perform an agricultural operation at a first location on a field using a first value for a setting of the controllable subsystem of the agricultural machine (Pfeiffer: Para. 56; evaluate the performance of the machine during unloading, during harvesting).
Pfeiffer doesn’t explicitly teach after the agricultural operation is performed at the first location on the field, receive a sensor signal representing a sensed field characteristic, external to the agricultural machine, of the agricultural operation at the first location; generate a performance metric based on the sensed field characteristic; generate a second value for the setting based on the performance metric; and control the agricultural machine at a second location on the field using the second value for the setting of the controllable subsystem.
However Ferrari, in the same field of endeavor, teaches after the agricultural operation is performed at the first location on the field, receive a sensor signal representing a sensed field characteristic, external to the agricultural machine, of the agricultural operation at the first location (Ferrari: Para. 27, 62; receiving residue data associated with residue coverage across a surface of the field following the performance of a harvesting operation within the field); generate a performance metric based on the sensed field characteristic (Ferrari: Para. 54, 62; residue coverage across a surface of the field); generate a second value for the setting based on the performance metric (Ferrari: Para. 54; a portion of a prescription map generated based on the updated residue coverage map); and control the agricultural machine at a second location on the field using the second value for the setting of the controllable subsystem (Ferrari: Para. 23; generate a prescription map for the field, which may then be used to control the operation of an agricultural implement during the performance a subsequent field operation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the improve control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) with the after operation sensor reading (Ferrari: Para. 27) with a reasonable expectation of success because an updated residue coverage map generated based on residue data collected for the field following the performance of the harvesting operation will improve the performance on a subsequent operation within the field (Ferrari: Para. 27, 62).
Regarding claim 38, Pfeiffer teaches the control system of claim 37, wherein the instructions cause the control system to: identify a target work control point based on the performance metric (Pfeiffer: Para. 36; compared against scores for a reference group; reference group may be previous scores for the operator himself or herself, scores for other operators in the fleet or scores for other operators in other fleets in a similar crop or geographic region); and generate the second value based on the target work control point (Pfeiffer: Para. 35; change the settings, control parameters, or other operator inputs, in order to improve his or her performance).
Regarding claim 39, Pfeiffer teaches the control system of claim 38, wherein the target work control point represents a boundary of the agricultural operation at the second location on the field (Pfeiffer: Para. 184, FIG. 6R; the overall score was at each geographic location in the field).
Claims 25-26, 28, 35-36, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer et al. (US Publication 2015/0199630 A1) in view of Ferrari et al. (US Publication 2021/0034867 A1) and in further view of Travis et al. (US Publication 2024/0155963 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Pfeiffer and Ferrari don’t explicitly teach wherein controlling the mobile agricultural machine comprises defining a work control point representing a second boundary of the agricultural operation in a second portion of the path of the mobile agricultural machine.
However Travis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein controlling the mobile agricultural machine comprises defining a work control point representing a second boundary of the agricultural operation in a second portion of the path of the mobile agricultural machine (Travis: Para. 47; first monitor will be able to provide prescriptions, boundaries, and coverage data directly to the second monitor and thus influence control and operation of the application pass that is being performed with the second machine and the second implement).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the improve control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) with the after operation sensor reading (Ferrari: Para. 27) and a first operation influencing a second operation (Travis: Para. 23) with a reasonable expectation of success because data of field coverage shared between machines will help the second vehicle not to plant or harvest in the first region (Travis: Para. 26).
Regarding claim 26, Pfeiffer and Ferrari don’t explicitly teach wherein the first portion of the path comprises a first pass over the field and the second portion of the path comprises a second pass over the field.
However Travis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first portion of the path comprises a first pass over the field and the second portion of the path comprises a second pass over the field (Travis: Para. 49; tillage tool performs a first application pass and measures environmental data; side dress tool performs a second application pass and the organic matter data influences operational parameters for the second application pass).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the improve control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) with the after operation sensor reading (Ferrari: Para. 27) and a first operation influencing a second operation (Travis: Para. 23) with a reasonable expectation of success because data of field coverage shared between machines will help the second vehicle not to plant or harvest in the first region (Travis: Para. 26).
Regarding claim 28, Pfeiffer and Ferrari don’t explicitly teach wherein performing the agricultural operation at the first location comprises controlling the mobile agricultural machine to end the agricultural operation based on a work control point, the sensed field characteristic represents a sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation, and generating the performance metric comprises generating the performance metric based on a relationship between the work control point and the sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation.
However Travis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein performing the agricultural operation at the first location comprises controlling the mobile agricultural machine to end the agricultural operation based on a work control point, the sensed field characteristic represents a sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation (Travis: Para. 23, 67; spatial data indicates that seeds have been applied (or covered) in that area; coverage information can then be used by monitor B as the equipment traverses the field to instruct the control modules when to turn on or off; controllers and sensors may also provide swath control to shut off individual rows), and generating the performance metric comprises generating the performance metric based on a relationship between the work control point and the sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation (Travis: Para. 28; for a partial row harvest, an agricultural application will attribute the yield data for the second machine to the 4 rows that have not yet been harvested instead of attributing the yield data to all 8 rows).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the improve control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) with the after operation sensor reading (Ferrari: Para. 27) and a first operation influencing a second operation (Travis: Para. 23) with a reasonable expectation of success because data of field coverage shared between machines will help the second vehicle not to plant or harvest in the first region (Travis: Para. 26).
Regarding claim 35, Pfeiffer and Ferrari don’t explicitly teach wherein the control system is configured to: define a work control point representing a second boundary of the agricultural operation in a second portion of the path of the mobile agricultural machine over the field.
However Travis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the control system is configured to: define a work control point representing a second boundary of the agricultural operation in a second portion of the path of the mobile agricultural machine over the field (Travis: Para. 47; first monitor will be able to provide prescriptions, boundaries, and coverage data directly to the second monitor and thus influence control and operation of the application pass that is being performed with the second machine and the second implement).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the improve control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) with the after operation sensor reading (Ferrari: Para. 27) and a first operation influencing a second operation (Travis: Para. 23) with a reasonable expectation of success because data of field coverage shared between machines will help the second vehicle not to plant or harvest in the first region (Travis: Para. 26).
Regarding claim 36, Pfeiffer and Ferrari don’t explicitly teach wherein the control system is configured to: control the mobile agricultural machine to end the agricultural operation based on a work control point, the sensed field characteristic representing a sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation, and generate the performance metric based on a relationship between the work control point and the sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation.
However Travis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the control system is configured to: control the mobile agricultural machine to end the agricultural operation based on a work control point, the sensed field characteristic representing a sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation (Travis: Para. 23, 67; spatial data indicates that seeds have been applied (or covered) in that area; coverage information can then be used by monitor B as the equipment traverses the field to instruct the control modules when to turn on or off; controllers and sensors may also provide swath control to shut off individual rows), and generate the performance metric based on a relationship between the work control point and the sensed end boundary of the agricultural operation (Travis: Para. 26; first machine plants or harvests in a first region, then a second machine will know not to plant or harvest in the first region; second machine can receive the seed coverage planting data from the first machine and additional related parameters such as population data, singulation data for the planting, and performance metrics from the first machine).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the improve control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) with the after operation sensor reading (Ferrari: Para. 27) and a first operation influencing a second operation (Travis: Para. 23) with a reasonable expectation of success because data of field coverage shared between machines will help the second vehicle not to plant or harvest in the first region (Travis: Para. 26).
Regarding claim 40, Pfeiffer teaches the control system of claim 37, wherein the sensed field characteristic comprises a first boundary of the agricultural operation corresponding to a first portion of a path of the agricultural machine over the field (Pfeiffer: Para. 56; measures such as the distance that the machine traveled in the field and on the road, an individual percentage breakdown in terms of total time, field setup (passes vs. headlands)).
Pfeiffer and Ferrari don’t explicitly teach the instructions cause the control system to: define a work control point representing a second boundary of the agricultural operation in a second portion of the path of the agricultural machine over the field.
However Travis, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the instructions cause the control system to: define a work control point representing a second boundary of the agricultural operation in a second portion of the path of the agricultural machine over the field (Travis: Para. 47; first monitor will be able to provide prescriptions, boundaries, and coverage data directly to the second monitor and thus influence control and operation of the application pass that is being performed with the second machine and the second implement).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the improve control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) with the after operation sensor reading (Ferrari: Para. 27) and a first operation influencing a second operation (Travis: Para. 23) with a reasonable expectation of success because data of field coverage shared between machines will help the second vehicle not to plant or harvest in the first region (Travis: Para. 26).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer et al. (US Publication 2015/0199630 A1) in view of Ferrari et al. (US Publication 2021/0034867 A1) and in further view of Schoeny (US Publication 2020/0037491 A1).
Regarding claim 29,Pfeiffer and Ferrari don’t explicitly teach wherein the mobile agricultural machine comprises a tilling machine and the performance metric indicates an un-tilled area.
However Schoeny, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the mobile agricultural machine comprises a tilling machine and the performance metric indicates an un-tilled area (Schoeny: Para. 30; effectiveness of the tillage operation, such as residue coverage, residue size, clod size, seedbed depth, soil compaction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the improve control parameters based on calculated performance scores (Pfeiffer: Para. 33, 35) with the after operation sensor reading (Ferrari: Para. 27) and combine zones identified within the map (Schoeny: Para. 48) with a reasonable expectation of success because controlling an adjacent second swath of field based on the monitored field condition of a first pass is taught by Schoeny (Schoeny: Para. 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 27 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s attorney argues that claim 21’s “control, during a current operation of the mobile agricultural machine on a field, a controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural machine to perform an agricultural operation at a first location on a field using a first value for a setting of the controllable subsystem of the mobile agricultural machine” is not taught by the prior arts.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, Pfeiffer teaches an agricultural equipment that have multiple different mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic and electro-mechanical subsystems. These pieces of mobile equipment have mechanisms that are controlled by the operator in performing operations (Pfeiffer: Para. 3). It is well known by one of ordinary skill of the art to control multiple subsystems to perform an agricultural operation on a field.
The applicant next argues that claim 21’s “after the agricultural operation is performed at the first location on the field, receive a sensor signal representing a sensed field characteristic, external to the mobile agricultural machine, of the agricultural operation at the first location” is not taught by the prior arts.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, this argument is moot because it doesn’t apply to the prior art used in this rejection.
The applicant next argues that claim 21’s “generate a performance metric based on the sensed field characteristic” is not taught by the prior arts.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, this argument is moot because it doesn’t apply to the prior art used in this rejection.
The applicant next argues that claims 31 and 37 are similarly amended. The arguments for claim 21 would similarly apply.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, the arguments for claim 21 are addressed above. The examiner’s responses would similarly apply to claims 31 and 37.
The applicant next argues that dependent claims 22-30, 32-36, and 38-40 are allowable at least based on their dependencies.
In response to the applicant’s argument above, the independent claims 21, 31, and 37 are rejected. Dependent claims 22-30, 32-36, and 38-40 are rejected at least based on their dependencies.
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
Prosecution Insights