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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2024, 11/06/2024, 11/25/2024, 09/25/2025, 10/01/2025, 12/11/2025 and 06/29/2026 have been entered and considered. Initialed copies of the PTO-1449 by the Examiner are attached.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claims 1 and 13 recites limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language but do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claims 1 and 13; recite the limitation, “the computer system is configured to…,” in [Line 4] respectively.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“computing system ….” have a structure associated with it a computer.
Examiner`s note: Due to the claim language “A computer system comprising a hardware memory, wherein the computer system is configured to execute software instructions stored on non-transitory machine-readable storage media that: Analyze” clearly stating that the computer system comprising a hardware memory configured to execute software and the office understands that a memory in a black box since the term “system” is understood to be an unknown structure cannot execute a function by itself thus the claim interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph for clarity on the record.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract without significantly more.
Claims 1-12
Independent claim 1
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a device/method, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 1, in part recites “perform, based on the collected data, passenger screening for the person”.
The step of “perform, based on the collected data, passenger screening for the person” of the claim encompass for e.g. a driver or operator looking at images of passenger or the passenger themselves with their eyes and determining based on certain characteristic who would potential be an unsafe passenger. This step falls under mental observations and these, mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processed” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: The claim does include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application. In particular, the claim in part recites the additional elements –
at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service;
and a computing system configured to
provide, on a user interface based on the passenger screening, a notification to a driver of the vehicle.
The “computing system” are recited as carry out the steps of performing and providing. The “computing system” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more a processor used to apply the exception and is a part of a generic computer.
The claim element of “at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service” impart additional element, the additional elements merely constitute pre-solution activating involving receiving of input data.
The claim element of “provide, on a user interface based on the passenger screening, a notification to a driver of the vehicle” impart additional element, the additional elements merely constitute post-solution activating involving outputting of the results to a screen via a user graphical interface.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the reasons
given in Step 2A Prong 2. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12
Claim 2 recites in part “wherein the person is using a ridesharing application as a potential passenger of the vehicle” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites in part “wherein the person requests the vehicle using a ridesharing application on a mobile device.” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites in part “wherein the notification is provided to the driver via a ridesharing application” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites in part “wherein the notification indicates that the passenger is intoxicated” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites in part “wherein the sensor comprises a camera” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites in part “wherein the notification is based on a risk of the person” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites in part “wherein the person is approaching the vehicle when the data is collected by the sensor” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites in part “wherein prior to collecting the data, the person has requested the vehicle using the ridesharing service” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites in part “wherein the sensor is configured to record images of objects exterior to the vehicle” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites in part “wherein the passenger screening is performed by communicating with a ridesharing service server” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites in part “wherein the user interface is on a mobile device of the driver” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 13-15
Independent claim 12
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a device/method, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 13, in part recites “perform, based on the collected data, passenger screening for the person”.
The step of “perform, based on the collected data, passenger screening for the person” of the claim encompass for e.g. a driver or operator looking at images of passenger or the passenger themselves with their eyes and determining based on certain characteristic who would potential be an unsafe passenger. This step falls under mental observations and these, mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processed” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: The claim does include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application. In particular, the claim in part recites the additional elements –
at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service.
The claim element of “at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service;” impart additional element, the additional elements merely constitute pre-solution activating involving receiving of input data.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the reasons
given in Step 2A Prong 2. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 14-15
Claim 14 recites in part “wherein the computing system is further configured to send, based on the passenger screening, a communication to the vehicle” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites in part “wherein the communication provides a notification to a person in the vehicle” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 16-20
Independent claim 16
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a device/method, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis: Claim 16, in part recites “performing, based on the collected data, passenger screening for the potential passenger”.
The step of “performing, based on the collected data, passenger screening for the potential passenger” of the claim encompass for e.g. a driver or operator looking at images of passenger or the passenger themselves with their eyes and determining based on certain characteristic who would potential be an unsafe passenger. This step falls under mental observations and these, mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processed” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis: The claim does include any additional elements that amount to an integration of the judicial exceptions into a practical application. In particular, the claim in part recites the additional elements –
receiving a communication from a ridesharing application regarding a request for a vehicle.
collecting, using at least one sensor, data regarding a potential passenger of the vehicle.
The claim element of “receiving a communication from a ridesharing application regarding a request for a vehicle” and “collecting, using at least one sensor, data regarding a potential passenger of the vehicle” impart additional element, the additional elements merely constitute pre-solution activating involving the receiving text message from a potential passenger and receiving of input data.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the reasons
given in Step 2A Prong 2. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 17-20
Claim 17 recites in part “further comprising providing, based on the passenger screening, a notification regarding the potential passenger” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 18 recites in part “wherein the passenger screening is based on a risk of the potential passenger” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites in part “wherein the sensor records at least one image of the potential passenger” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites in part “wherein the sensor is mounted on the vehicle” do not overcome the rejection of the parent claims 1 as stated above because the additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charette et al (Pub No.: 20170371339) in view of Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1).
Regarding claim 1, Charette teaches a device (system for detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle – see [p][0001]) comprising: at least one sensor (for e.g. camera 205 – see Fig 2) to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle (instruct camera to record an approaching object – see [p][0026]) configured to: perform, based on the collected data, passenger screening for the person (neural network module can process sensor data for each approaching objects to determine the likelihood of the object being a threat to occupants of vehicle – see [p][0022]); and a computing system (100 – see Fig 1); and provide, based on the screening, a notification to a driver of the vehicle (for e.g. Display 209 can present object classification to the occupants of vehicle or for e.g. send command to camera to capture an image or in autonomous state in which the computer is “the driver”, send a notification or command to drive away – see [p][0034-0035]).
However, Charette does not explicitly teach via a ridesharing service, passenger and provide on a user interface.
Hodge explicitly teaches teach via a ridesharing service (enhanced ridesharing applications – see [p][0021]), passenger (the rider is then asked to submit to a facial scan – see [p][0086]) and provide on a user interface (when the driver arrives at the pickup location, the driver client device sends an arrival notification 1202 to the system – see [p][0086] and each rideshare car within a network includes a vehicle-mounted client device which allows each car driver to communicate with each other. The vehicle-mounted client device uses object and facial recognition software to locate objects, people, sounds, QR codes and gestures outside the car and to respond accordingly – see [p][0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Charette a device comprising: at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service with the teachings of Hodge via a ridesharing service, passenger and provide on a user interface.
Wherein having Charette teaches via a ridesharing service, passenger and provide on a user interface.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to perform functions to ensure that both riders and drivers of rideshare services and drivers of car-share services are safe and can communicate with each other, before, during, and after a ride or drive and preventing access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected since both Charette and Hodge autonomous vehicle ride sharing. Wherein Charette detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle while Hodge prevent access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected (Charette et al (Pub No.: 20170371339), see [p][0001] and Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1), see Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Charette and Hodge teach the device of claim 1, Charette does not explicitly teach wherein the person is using a ridesharing application as a potential passenger of the vehicle.
Hodge explicitly teaches wherein the person is using a ridesharing application as a potential passenger of the vehicle (any user needing a ride may use their mobile device and the ridesharing mobile application to request a ride from other users within system – see [p][0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Charette a device comprising: at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service with the teachings of Hodge wherein the person is using a ridesharing application as a potential passenger of the vehicle.
Wherein having Charette wherein the person is using a ridesharing application as a potential passenger of the vehicle.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to perform functions to ensure that both riders and drivers of rideshare services and drivers of car-share services are safe and can communicate with each other, before, during, and after a ride or drive and preventing access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected since both Charette and Hodge autonomous vehicle ride sharing. Wherein Charette detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle while Hodge prevent access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected (Charette et al (Pub No.: 20170371339), see [p][0001] and Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1), see Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Charette and Hodge teach the device of claim 1, Charette does not explicitly teach, wherein the person requests the vehicle using a ridesharing application on a mobile device.
Hodge explicitly teaches wherein the person requests the vehicle using a ridesharing application on a mobile device (any user needing a ride may use their mobile device and the ridesharing mobile application to request a ride from other users within system – see [p][0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Charette a device comprising: at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service with the teachings of Hodge wherein the person requests the vehicle using a ridesharing application on a mobile device.
Wherein having Charette wherein the person requests the vehicle using a ridesharing application on a mobile device.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to perform functions to ensure that both riders and drivers of rideshare services and drivers of car-share services are safe and can communicate with each other, before, during, and after a ride or drive and preventing access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected since both Charette and Hodge autonomous vehicle ride sharing. Wherein Charette detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle while Hodge prevent access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected (Charette et al (Pub No.: 20170371339), see [p][0001] and Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1), see Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Charette and Hodge teach the device of claim 1, Charette does not explicitly teach, wherein the notification is provided to the driver via a ridesharing application.
Hodge explicitly teaches wherein the notification is provided to the driver via a ridesharing application (when the driver arrives at the pickup location, the driver client device sends an arrival notification 1202 to the system – see [p][0086] and each rideshare car within a network includes a vehicle-mounted client device which allows each car driver to communicate with each other. The vehicle-mounted client device uses object and facial recognition software to locate objects, people, sounds, QR codes and gestures outside the car and to respond accordingly – see [p][0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Charette a device comprising: at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service with the teachings of Hodge wherein the person requests the vehicle using a ridesharing application on a mobile device.
Wherein having Charette wherein the notification is provided to the driver via a ridesharing application.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to perform functions to ensure that both riders and drivers of rideshare services and drivers of car-share services are safe and can communicate with each other, before, during, and after a ride or drive and preventing access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected since both Charette and Hodge autonomous vehicle ride sharing. Wherein Charette detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle while Hodge prevent access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected (Charette et al (Pub No.: 20170371339), see [p][0001] and Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1), see Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Charette and Hodge teach the device of claim 1, Charette does not explicitly teach, wherein the notification indicates that the passenger is intoxicated.
Hodge explicitly teaches wherein the notification indicates that the passenger is intoxicated (when the driver arrives at the pickup location, the driver client device sends an arrival notification 1202 to the system – see [p][0086] and each rideshare car within a network includes a vehicle-mounted client device which allows each car driver to communicate with each other. The vehicle-mounted client device uses object and facial recognition software to locate objects, people, sounds, QR codes and gestures outside the car and to respond accordingly – see [p][0022] and according to another aspect of this embodiment, to help protect the driver, client device 101 may also detect the motions and voice and other actions of the user as he or she enters the vehicle and, for example, may determine that he or she appears to be intoxicated or perhaps smokes. If so, client device 101 will make note of this in the ride history file, generate an event-based video clip (as described above with reference to FIG. 5) and save the video footage of the ride. Also, during a ride, if the passenger becomes sick and throws up in the vehicle, or smokes, client device 101 may automatically detect these events by monitoring the actions and movements and other behavioral clues associated with these “behavioral events” and actions and either alert the driver at that moment, generate an event-based video clip, or at least make note of it in the ride history fil – see [p][0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Charette a device comprising: at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service with the teachings of Hodge wherein the notification indicates that the passenger is intoxicated.
Wherein having Charette wherein the notification indicates that the passenger is intoxicated.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to perform functions to ensure that both riders and drivers of rideshare services and drivers of car-share services are safe and can communicate with each other, before, during, and after a ride or drive and preventing access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected since both Charette and Hodge autonomous vehicle ride sharing. Wherein Charette detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle while Hodge prevent access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected (Charette et al (Pub No.: 20170371339), see [p][0001] and Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1), see Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Charette and Hodge teach the device of claim 1, Charette explicitly teaches, wherein the sensor comprises a camera (203 – see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 7, Charette and Hodge teach the device of claim 1, Charette explicitly teaches, wherein the notification is based on a risk of the person (neural network module 208 can calculate a threat probability for each approaching object and an output node yields a value that corresponds to the class (e.g., threat or non-threat) inferred by the neural network – see [p][0022][0024]).
Regarding claim 8, Charette and Hodge teach the device of claim 1, Charette explicitly teaches, wherein the person is approaching the vehicle when the data is collected by the sensor (environment 200 also includes approaching object 221, such as, for example, a person, an animal, an object being carried by a person, etc – see [p][0019]).
Regarding claim 9, Charette and Hodge teach the device of claim 1, Charette does not explicitly teach, wherein prior to collecting the data, the person has requested the vehicle using the ridesharing service.
Hodge explicitly teaches wherein prior to collecting the data, the person has requested the vehicle using the ridesharing service (any user needing a ride may use their mobile device and the ridesharing mobile application to request a ride from other users within system – see [p][0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Charette a device comprising: at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service with the teachings of Hodge wherein the person requests the vehicle using a ridesharing application on a mobile device.
Wherein having Charette wherein the person requests the vehicle using a ridesharing application on a mobile device.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to perform functions to ensure that both riders and drivers of rideshare services and drivers of car-share services are safe and can communicate with each other, before, during, and after a ride or drive and preventing access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected since both Charette and Hodge autonomous vehicle ride sharing. Wherein Charette detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle while Hodge prevent access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected (Charette et al (Pub No.: 20170371339), see [p][0001] and Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1), see Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Charette and Hodge teach the device of claim 1, Charette explicitly teaches, wherein the sensor is configured to record images of objects exterior to the vehicle (external sensors 202 include camera(s) 203 - see [p][0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Charette and Hodge teach the device of claim 1, Charette does not explicitly teach, wherein the passenger screening is performed by communicating with a ridesharing service server.
Hodge explicitly teaches wherein the passenger screening is performed by communicating with a ridesharing service server (any user needing a ride may use their mobile device and the ridesharing mobile application to request a ride from other users within system – see [p][0089] and the ride history of each ride is sent to the ridesharing cloud server – see [p][0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Charette a device comprising: at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service with the teachings of Hodge wherein the passenger screening is performed by communicating with a ridesharing service server.
Wherein having Charette wherein the passenger screening is performed by communicating with a ridesharing service server.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to perform functions to ensure that both riders and drivers of rideshare services and drivers of car-share services are safe and can communicate with each other, before, during, and after a ride or drive and preventing access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected since both Charette and Hodge autonomous vehicle ride sharing. Wherein Charette detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle while Hodge prevent access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected (Charette et al (Pub No.: 20170371339), see [p][0001] and Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1), see Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Charette and Hodge teach the device of claim 1, Charette does not explicitly teach, wherein the user interface is on a mobile device of the driver.
Hodge explicitly teaches wherein the user interface is on a mobile device of the driver (the driver is asked to point a mobile device 104 camera to his or her face. In another embodiment, the rider is asked to stand in front of an auxiliary camera 106 provided at the pick-up location for a facial scan. The system verifies 1204 the rider, using facial recognition to confirm that the rider's profile stored by the system matches his or her face. The system then notifies the driver that the rider is present. In one embodiment, the driver and rider are then linked 1207 by, for example, sending a picture of the driver to the rider and a picture of the rider is to the driver so that both people can more easily locate each other – see [p][0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Charette a device comprising: at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service with the teachings of Hodge wherein the user interface is on a mobile device of the driver.
Wherein having Charette wherein the user interface is on a mobile device of the driver.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to perform functions to ensure that both riders and drivers of rideshare services and drivers of car-share services are safe and can communicate with each other, before, during, and after a ride or drive and preventing access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected since both Charette and Hodge autonomous vehicle ride sharing. Wherein Charette detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle while Hodge prevent access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected (Charette et al (Pub No.: 20170371339), see [p][0001] and Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1), see Abstract).
Regarding independent claim 13, Charette teaches a device (system for detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle – see [p][0001]) comprising: at least one sensor (for e.g. camera 205 – see Fig 2) to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle (instruct camera to record an approaching object – see [p][0026]) and a computing system (100 – see Fig 1) configured to; and perform, based on the collected data screening for the person(for e.g. Display 209 can present object classification to the occupants of vehicle or for e.g. send command to camera to capture an image or in autonomous state in which the computer is “the driver”, send a notification or command to drive away – see [p][0034-0035]).
However, Charette does not explicitly teach via a ridesharing service and passenger.
Hodge explicitly teaches teach via a ridesharing service (enhanced ridesharing applications – see [p][0021]) and passenger (the rider is then asked to submit to a facial scan – see [p][0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Charette a device comprising: at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service with the teachings of Hodge via a ridesharing service and passenger.
Wherein having Charette teaches via a ridesharing service and passenger.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to perform functions to ensure that both riders and drivers of rideshare services and drivers of car-share services are safe and can communicate with each other, before, during, and after a ride or drive and preventing access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected since both Charette and Hodge autonomous vehicle ride sharing. Wherein Charette detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle while Hodge prevent access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected (Charette et al (Pub No.: 20170371339), see [p][0001] and Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1), see Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Charette and Hodge teach the device of claim 13, Charette teaches wherein the computing system is further configured to send, based on the passenger screening, a communication to the vehicle (for e.g. Display 209 can present object classification to the occupants of vehicle or for e.g. send command to camera to capture an image or in autonomous state in which the computer is “the driver”, send a notification or command to drive away – see [p][0034-0035])).
Regarding claim 15, Charette and Hodge teach the device of claim 14, Charette does not teach wherein the communication provides a notification to a person in the vehicle.
Hodge explicitly teaches wherein the communication provides a notification to a person in the vehicle (when the driver arrives at the pickup location, the driver client device sends an arrival notification 1202 to the system – see [p][0086] and each rideshare car within a network includes a vehicle-mounted client device which allows each car driver to communicate with each other. The vehicle-mounted client device uses object and facial recognition software to locate objects, people, sounds, QR codes and gestures outside the car and to respond accordingly – see [p][0022])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Charette a device comprising: at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service with the teachings of Hodge wherein the communication provides a notification to a person in the vehicle.
Wherein having Charette wherein the communication provides a notification to a person in the vehicle.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to perform functions to ensure that both riders and drivers of rideshare services and drivers of car-share services are safe and can communicate with each other, before, during, and after a ride or drive and preventing access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected since both Charette and Hodge autonomous vehicle ride sharing. Wherein Charette detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle while Hodge prevent access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected (Charette et al (Pub No.: 20170371339), see [p][0001] and Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1), see Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Charette teaches a method (method for detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle – see [p][0001]) comprising: at least one collecting, using at least one senso data (for e.g. camera 205 – see Fig 2 and instruct camera to record an approaching object – see [p][0026]) configured to: performing, based on the collected data, (neural network module can process sensor data for each approaching objects to determine the likelihood of the object being a threat to occupants of vehicle – see [p][0022]); (for e.g. Display 209 can present object classification to the occupants of vehicle or for e.g. send command to camera to capture an image or in autonomous state in which the computer is “the driver”, send a notification or command to drive away – see [p][0034-0035]).
However, Charette does not explicitly teach receiving a communication from a ridesharing application regarding a request for a vehicle, regarding a potential passenger of the vehicle and passenger screening for the potential passenger.
Hodge explicitly teaches receiving a communication from a ridesharing application regarding a request for a vehicle (enhanced ridesharing applications – see [p][0021] and a typical rideshare service allows a user needing a ride to request a rideshare pickup at their present location – [p][0084]) regarding a potential passenger of the vehicle (the rider is then asked to submit to a facial scan, for example, in one embodiment, the driver is asked to point a mobile device 104 camera to his or her face – see [p][0086]) and passenger screening for the potential passenger (the rider is then asked to submit to a facial scan, for example, in one embodiment, the driver is asked to point a mobile device 104 camera to his or her face – see [p][0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Charette a device comprising: at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service with the teachings of Hodge receiving a communication from a ridesharing application regarding a request for a vehicle, regarding a potential passenger of the vehicle and passenger screening for the potential passenger.
Wherein having Charette receiving a communication from a ridesharing application regarding a request for a vehicle, regarding a potential passenger of the vehicle and passenger screening for the potential passenger.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to perform functions to ensure that both riders and drivers of rideshare services and drivers of car-share services are safe and can communicate with each other, before, during, and after a ride or drive and preventing access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected since both Charette and Hodge autonomous vehicle ride sharing. Wherein Charette detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle while Hodge prevent access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected (Charette et al (Pub No.: 20170371339), see [p][0001] and Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1), see Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Charette and Hodge teach the method of claim 16, Charette does not teach further comprising providing, based on the passenger screening, a notification regarding the potential passenger.
Hodge explicitly teaches further comprising providing, based on the passenger screening, a notification regarding the potential passenger (the system verifies 1204 the rider, using facial recognition to confirm that the rider's profile stored by the system matches his or her face. The system then notifies the driver that the rider is present – see [p][0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Charette a device comprising: at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service with the teachings of Hodge further comprising providing, based on the passenger screening, a notification regarding the potential passenger
Wherein having Charette further comprising providing, based on the passenger screening, a notification regarding the potential passenger.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to perform functions to ensure that both riders and drivers of rideshare services and drivers of car-share services are safe and can communicate with each other, before, during, and after a ride or drive and preventing access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected since both Charette and Hodge autonomous vehicle ride sharing. Wherein Charette detecting physical threats approaching a vehicle while Hodge prevent access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected (Charette et al (Pub No.: 20170371339), see [p][0001] and Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1), see Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Charette and Hodge teach the method of claim 16, Charette explicitly teaches, wherein the passenger screening is based on a risk of the potential passenger (neural network module 208 can calculate a threat probability for each approaching object and an output node yields a value that corresponds to the class (e.g., threat or non-threat) inferred by the neural network – see [p][0022][0024]).
Regarding claim 19, Charette and Hodge teach the method of claim 16, Charette teaches wherein the sensor records at least one image of the potential passenger (camera 406 (a 360-degree camera) can capture an image of person 411 – see [p][0037]).
Regarding claim 20, Charette and Hodge teach The method of claim 16, Charette teaches wherein the sensor is mounted on the vehicle (a camera is mounted on the roof of a vehicle to more fully capture the environment around the vehicle – see [p][0008]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 13 and 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 10 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 1214806 (Herein referred to as Patent806). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Patent806 recites “wherein the derived data is an input to an artificial neural network (ANN) used to determine the risk score; determine whether the risk score exceeds a risk threshold”, not required by the instant claims.
Instant claim 1 and patent claim 1 recite common subject matter;
Whereby instant claim 1, which recites the open ended transitional phrase “comprising”, does not preclude the additional elements recited by instant patent claim 1, and
Whereby the elements of instant claim 1 are fully anticipated by patent claim 1 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
Instant claims
US Patent No.: 12148060B2
1. A device comprising:
A system comprising:
at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service;
at least one camera configured to record at least one image of a person approaching a vehicle, and derive data from the at least one image; and
a computing system configured to:
and a computing system configured to:
perform, based on the collected data, passenger screening for the person;
determine, using the derived data, a risk score of the person as a potential passenger of a ridesharing application, wherein the derived data is an input to an artificial neural network (ANN) used to determine the risk score;
determine whether the risk score exceeds a risk threshold; and
.
and provide, on a user interface based on the passenger screening, a notification to a driver of the vehicle.
in response to determining that the risk score exceeds the risk threshold, provide, on a user interface of the ridesharing application and to a driver of the vehicle, a notification regarding the risk score
2. The device of claim 1, wherein the person is using a ridesharing application as a potential passenger of the vehicle.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein determining the risk score is based on a database of passengers, the database including biometric characteristics for prior passengers.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the prior passengers are prior passengers of a ridesharing service.
13. A device comprising:
10. A system comprising:
at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a ridesharing service;
at least one camera configured to provide image data regarding a person approaching a vehicle; and
a computing system configured to:
and a computing system configured to: perform, based on the collected data, passenger screening for the person.
determine whether the risk score exceeds a risk threshold; and
in response to determining that the risk score exceeds the risk threshold, cause a notification regarding the risk score to be provided on a user interface of the ridesharing application.
16. A method comprising:
18. A method comprising:
receiving a communication from a ridesharing application regarding a request for a vehicle;
collecting, using at least one sensor, data regarding a potential passenger of the vehicle;
recording at least one image of a person approaching a vehicle;
determining, based on the image, a risk score of the person as a potential passenger of a ridesharing application, wherein the derived data is an input to an artificial neural network (ANN) used to determine the risk score;
determining whether the risk score exceeds a risk threshold; and
in response to determining that the risk score exceeds the risk threshold, providing a notification via a user interface of the ridesharing application regarding the risk score to a driver of the vehicle.
and performing, based on the collected data, passenger screening for the potential passenger.
17. The method of claim 16, further comprising providing, based on the passenger screening, a notification regarding the potential passenger.
Claims 1, 13 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11494865 (Herein referred to Patent’865) in view of Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1).
Instant claims
U.S. Patent No. 11494865
1. A device comprising:
1. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle
at least one processing device; and
memory containing instructions configured to instruct the at least one processing device to:
receive, from at least one camera of a vehicle, biometric data, wherein the at least one camera is configured to record at least one image of a person approaching the vehicle, and the biometric data is derived from the at least one image;
and a computing system configured to:
perform, based on the collected data, passenger screening for the person;
determine, using an artificial neural network (ANN), a risk score of the person, wherein the received biometric data or a derivative thereof is an input for the ANN, and wherein the ANN has been previously trained using images of sample passengers and corresponding risk scores determined for the passengers by a driver of the vehicle;
and provide, on a user interface based on the passenger screening, a notification to a driver of the vehicle.
determine whether the risk score exceeds a risk threshold; and
in response to determining that the risk score exceeds the risk threshold, cause, on a user interface of the vehicle, a notification regarding the person to the driver.
13. A device comprising:
12. A system comprising:
at least one sensor to collect data regarding a person associated with a vehicle via a
at least one camera configured to record at least one image of a person approaching a vehicle, and derive biometric data from the at least one image; and
a computing system configured to:
determine a risk score of the person using a decision tree, wherein the derived biometric data is an input for the decision tree;
perform, based on the collected data, passenger screening for the person.
determine whether the risk score exceeds a risk threshold; and
in response to determining that the risk score exceeds the risk threshold, provide, on a user interface of the vehicle, a notification regarding the risk score to a driver of the vehicle.
16. A method comprising:
20 A method comprising:
receiving a communication from a
determining a risk score of the person using an artificial neural network (ANN) or decision tree, wherein the collected biometric data is an input for the ANN or decision tree, and wherein the ANN has been trained using images of prior passengers and corresponding risk scores determined for the passengers by a driver of a vehicle;
. and performing, based on the collected data, passenger screening for the potential passenger.
comparing the risk score to a risk threshold;
determining, based on the comparing the risk score, whether to provide a notification regarding the person; and
in response to determining to provide the notification, causing output of the notification to the driver on a user interface of the vehicle.
However, Patent’865 does not explicitly teach via a ridesharing service
Hodge explicitly teaches teach via a ridesharing service (enhanced ridesharing applications – see [p][0021]),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Charette An apparatus, comprising: at least one processing device with the teachings of Hodge via a ridesharing service.
Wherein having Charette teaches via a ridesharing service.
The motivation behind the modification would have been to performing passenger screening and preventing access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected since both Patent’865and Hodge autonomous vehicle ride sharing. Wherein Patent’865 perform passenger screening while Hodge prevent access to a vehicle when a threat such as non-matching biometrics is detected (Patent’865 et al (U.S. Patent No. 11494865), see col, lines 5-6 and Hodge et al (Pub No.: US20200349666A1), see Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Levy et al (Pub No.: US20190137290) - One variation of a method for executing autonomous rideshare requests includes: following arrival of an autonomous vehicle proximal a pickup location specified in a rideshare request submitted by a user, setting a user arrival timer for a first duration and a depart timer for a second duration exceeding the first duration; serving a state of the user arrival timer to a mobile computing device affiliated with the user; rendering a state of the depart timer on an external display arranged on the autonomous vehicle; in response to failure of the user to arrive at the autonomous vehicle prior to expiration of the user arrival timer, departing from the pickup location without the user; and, in response to the user arriving at the autonomous vehicle prior to expiration of the user arrival timer, departing from the pickup location with the user prior to expiration of the delay timer.
Aimura et al (Pub No.: 20140285667) - This vehicle periphery monitoring device appropriately determines whether or not an animal detected by an imaging device is a high-risk animal which may possibly contact the vehicle. For example, compared with an animal in a posture with the head facing downwards, an animal in a posture with the head facing upwards is determined to be a high-risk animal which may suddenly bolt, so the latter animal is enclosed in a thick red frame and highlighted as a warning, and an alarm is emitted from speakers.
Boss et al (Pub No.: 20180162307)- A method for improving risk situations for vehicle occupants in a vehicle which includes: configuring a set of circumstances; defining a set of values for each circumstance where each value has a rate; collecting context information for the circumstances, values and rates; collecting real-time sensor measurements pertaining to a vehicle, a driver and vehicle occupants; retrieving risk patterns from a risk pattern database; matching the sensor measurements to the risk patterns to find a matching risk pattern having a risk similarity value; contextualizing the matching risk pattern by increasing the risk similarity value to result in a personalized risk value; comparing the personalized risk value to a threshold; and executing a context modifying action to lower the personalized risk value below a predefined threshold when the personalized risk value exceeds the predefined threshold.
KATSUMATA et al (Pub No.: 20190392233) - A vehicle occupant count monitoring system includes: an imaging unit that captures a depth image including a distance to an occupant in a cabin of a vehicle; a facial recognizing unit that recognizes a face of the occupant from the depth image captured by the imaging unit; an upper half body recognizing unit that recognizes an upper half body of the occupant from the depth image captured by the imaging unit; and a counting unit that counts the number of occupants by combining a recognition result of the face using the facial recognizing unit and a recognition result of the upper half body using the upper half body recognizing unit.
SHIGA et al (Pub No.: 20200097743 ) - A riding manner evaluation apparatus includes a memory; and a processor configured to detect a feature indicating the possibility of inappropriate behavior by a passenger riding in a vehicle, from interior compartment information representing the state of a compartment of the vehicle captured by a capture device installed in the vehicle that is under automatic driving control; and collect, whenever the feature is detected, the interior compartment information captured in a predetermined interval including the time when the feature is detected.
Fu et al (Pub No.: 20220194404) - Systems, methods, and non-transitory computer-readable media can receive a trip order comprising a driver assigned to the trip order, a passenger of the trip order, and information about the trip order. Driver features associated with the driver, passenger features associated with the passenger, and trip order features extracted from the information about the trip order can be obtained. A driver-score is determined by a driver-evaluation machine learning model based on the driver features. A risk score for the trip order is determined using a risk-evaluation machine learning model based on the driver-score, the passenger features, and the trip order features. An alert notification is sent to a computing device of the driver based on the risk score.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRAE S ALLISON whose telephone number is (571)270-1052. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns, can be reached on (571) 272-9752. 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.
/ANDRAE S ALLISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673 September 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights