DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 12/9/2024 (7), 1/16/2025 (1) , 2/6/2026 (1) , and 6/4/2026 (1) been received however only a cursory review over the references was conducted due to the extremely large number of references included on the IDS’s.
In view of the large number of references, the Examiner requests the Applicant to point out relevant sections of each listed IDS references to help further prosecution.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Restriction/Election of Species
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (Claims 21-25, 28-32, and 35-39) in the reply filed on 6/4/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on ground(s) that “a thorough search and examination of the embodiment of Species I would be relevant to the examination of the embodiment of Species II and III. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the search and examination of the entire Application (Species I-III) can be made without serious burden” and the Office respectfully disagrees.
This is not found persuasive because it remains the Office’s stance that there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: Even though these three species pertain to controlling a vehicle after a determined collision, searching these three distinct and separate species would add a serious burden to the Examiner.
Species I clearly requires that the vehicle be autonomously controlled while Species II or Species III does not require this feature, thus new analysis of non-overlapping subject matter must be considered for analysis. Species II requires that the vehicle be controlled manually after a determined collision while Species I and Species III cannot function if the vehicle is manual controlled, thus again, non-overlapping structure must be analyzed, accounted for, searched, and mapped. Finally, Species III require the vehicle to be remotely controlled, thus Species I and Species II would be function as they are against this type of control, as Species I still has pull over autonomous control, and Species II is manual control, thus again, these Species do not overlap in scope, or subject matter, and would provide an undue burden to the Examiner chasing down these various, distinct, non-overlapping, and mutually exclusive controls of the system. Therefore the Office respectfully disagrees with Applicants election with traverse.
Therefore the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Application
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claims 21, 26, 27, 33, 34, 36, and 40 have been amended.
Claims 26-27, 33-34, and 40 have been withdrawn from consideration due to an “Election of Species” received on 6/4/2026, yet these claims may be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claims.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 are the independent claims.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Election of Species” received on 6/4/2026.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 21-24, 28-31, and 35-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 21 is directed to an apparatus (system). Therefore, Claim 21 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 28 is directed to an process. Therefore, Claim 28 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 35 is directed to an apparatus (medium). Therefore, Claim 35 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 21 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 21 recites: A computer system configured to detect and respond to a vehicle collision of an autonomous vehicle,
the computer system comprising: one or more processors; one or more transceivers adapted to communicate with a plurality of components associated with a plurality of autonomous operation features of the autonomous vehicle;
and a non-transitory program memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to:
identify an operating condition from collected operating data associated with the plurality of autonomous operation features of the autonomous vehicle
the operating condition indicative of a likelihood of an incident occurring during operation of the autonomous vehicle;
determine that a collision has occurred based upon a portion of the collected operating data and additional operating data received from the one or more transceivers;
and determine a response to the collision based upon the operating data and the additional operating data.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “identifying, determining a collision, and determining a response” steps encompass a user to interpret information and determine a response. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “computer with processors and transceivers”, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the “computer with processors and transceivers” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the identifying and determining steps, therefore clearly acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the computer system is claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity of computers and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of identifying and determining is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only identifies data with a determination step where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that using data and using a computer, are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the identifying and determining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 21 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the computer with processor and transceivers amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of identifying and determining a response, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of identifying and determining a response are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the data is acquired/received are all conventional sensors and conventional processors. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 21 is not patent eligible.
Further Claims 28 and 35 are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 22-24, 29-31, and 36-28 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 21, 28, and 35.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claims, for example linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device and controlling a vehicle as stated in Claims 25, 32, and 40. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of abstract idea and into the realm of a statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 21-24, 28-31, and 35-38 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (United States Patent Publication 2015/0348337) in view of Gupta (United States Patent Publication 2017/0200330).
With respect to Claim 21: While Choi discloses “A computer system configured to detect and respond to a vehicle collision” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099 with Figures 4-6 (The vehicle accident determining unit 620 performs a function of determining whether an accident of the vehicle occurs based on the traveling information about the vehicle)];
“the computer system comprising: one or more processors” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099, 0116 (so that they can be implemented as a computer program)];
“one or more transceivers adapted to communicate with a plurality of components associated with a plurality of autonomous operation features of the vehicle” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099, 0116 (so that they can be implemented as a computer program)];
“and a non-transitory program memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099, 0116 (so that they can be implemented as a computer program)];
“identify an operating condition from collected operating data associated with the plurality of autonomous operation features of the vehicle” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099 with Figures 4-6 (The vehicle accident determining unit 620 performs a function of determining whether an accident of the vehicle occurs based on the traveling information about the vehicle)];
“determine that a collision has occurred based upon a portion of the collected operating data and additional operating data received from the one or more transceivers” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099 with Figures 4-6 (The vehicle accident determining unit 620 performs a function of determining whether an accident of the vehicle occurs based on the traveling information about the vehicle)];
“and determine a response to the collision based upon the operating data and the additional operating data” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099 with Figures 4-6 (The vehicle accident determining unit 620 performs a function of determining whether an accident of the vehicle occurs based on the traveling information about the vehicle)];
Choi does not say that this vehicle is an autonomous vehicle or that there is a determination step of a likelihood of a collision.
Gupta, which is in the same field of invention of using vehicle data for analysis and vehicle control and teaches “A computer system configured to detect and respond to a vehicle collision of an autonomous vehicle” [Gupta, ¶ 0003-0004 (an on-board computing system of an autonomous vehicle assesses the criticality of a situation)];
“the computer system comprising: one or more processors” [Gupta, ¶ 0024-0025 (The on-board computing system 200 may include the controller 202 having a processor 204, first memory 208, and a second memory 206)];
“one or more transceivers adapted to communicate with a plurality of components associated with a plurality of autonomous operation features of the autonomous vehicle” [Gupta, ¶ 0024-0025 (The on-board computing system 200 may include the controller 202 having a processor 204, first memory 208, and a second memory 206)];
“and a non-transitory program memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to” [Gupta, ¶ 0024-0025 (The on-board computing system 200 may include the controller 202 having a processor 204, first memory 208, and a second memory 206)];
“identify an operating condition from collected operating data associated with the plurality of autonomous operation features of the autonomous vehicle” [Gupta, ¶ 0044 with Figure 10 (the on-board computing system 200 may determine if there is a critical situation in which a predetermined threshold value has been exceeded. The assessment of the criticality of a situation may be based upon the number of objects in the vicinity of an autonomous vehicle 10 or a time to collision as described above)];
“the operating condition indicative of a likelihood of an incident occurring during operation of the autonomous vehicle” [Gupta, ¶ 0044 with Figure 10 (the on-board computing system 200 may determine if there is a critical situation in which a predetermined threshold value has been exceeded. The assessment of the criticality of a situation may be based upon the number of objects in the vicinity of an autonomous vehicle 10 or a time to collision as described above)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gupta into the invention of Choi to not only include controlling a vehicle after an accident has been determined based on data as Choi discloses but to also do this for autonomous vehicles as well as manual vehicles and further predict times of possible collisions as taught by Gupta with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Gupta into Choi to create a more robust system that not only react to accidents but predict accidents and can increase computing power [Gupta, ¶ 0002]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control around collisions and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 22: While Choi discloses “The computer system of claim 21, wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computer system to: monitor operation of the vehicle by receiving, via the one or more transceivers, and processing the operating data associated with the plurality of autonomous operation features while the vehicle is operating” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099 with Figures 4-6 (The vehicle accident determining unit 620 performs a function of determining whether an accident of the vehicle occurs based on the traveling information about the vehicle)];
Choi does not say that this vehicle is an autonomous vehicle.
Gupta, which is in the same field of invention of using vehicle data for analysis and vehicle control and teaches “A computer system configured to detect and respond to a vehicle collision of an autonomous vehicle” [Gupta, ¶ 0003-0004 (an on-board computing system of an autonomous vehicle assesses the criticality of a situation)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gupta into the invention of Choi to not only include controlling a vehicle after an accident has been determined based on data as Choi discloses but to also do this for autonomous vehicles as well as manual vehicles and further predict times of possible collisions as taught by Gupta with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Gupta into Choi to create a more robust system that not only react to accidents but predict accidents. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control around collisions and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 23: Choi discloses “The computer system of claim 21, wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computer system to: cause one or more sensors to collect the additional operating data” [Choi, ¶ 0079-0088 with Figure 5].
With respect to Claim 24: Choi discloses “The computer system of claim 21, wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computer system to: cause one or more sensors to collect the additional operating data” [Choi, ¶ 0079-0088 with Figure 5].
With respect to Claim 24: Choi discloses “The computer system of claim 21, wherein the operating data includes sensor data collected from a plurality of sensors associated with the plurality of autonomous operation features and control data generated by the plurality of autonomous operation features” [Choi, ¶ 0079-0088 with Figure 5].
With respect to Claims 28-31: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 21-24. The method taught/disclosed in Claims 28-31 can clearly perform on the system of Claims 21-24. Therefore Claims 28-31 are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claims 35-38: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claims 21-24. The medium taught/disclosed in Claims 35-38 can clearly perform on the system of Claims 21-24. Therefore Claims 35-38 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 25, 32, and 39 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (United States Patent Publication 2015/0348337) in view of Gupta (United States Patent Publication 2017/0200330) and in further view of Chou (United States Patent 6,330,499)
With respect to Claim 25: While Choi discloses “The computer system of claim 21, wherein the executable instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the computer system to” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099, 0116 (so that they can be implemented as a computer program)];
“initiate the response including causing the vehicle to send a message” [Choi, ¶ 0089-0099 with Figures 4-6 (The vehicle accident determining unit 620 performs a function of determining whether an accident of the vehicle occurs based on the traveling information about the vehicle)];
Choi does not say that this vehicle is an autonomous vehicle or that other control based on issues is known.
Gupta, which is in the same field of invention of using vehicle data for analysis and vehicle control and teaches “A computer system configured to detect and respond to a vehicle collision of an autonomous vehicle” [Gupta, ¶ 0003-0004 (an on-board computing system of an autonomous vehicle assesses the criticality of a situation)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gupta into the invention of Choi to not only include controlling a vehicle after an accident has been determined based on data as Choi discloses but to also do this for autonomous vehicles as well as manual vehicles and further predict times of possible collisions as taught by Gupta with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Gupta into Choi to create a more robust system that not only react to accidents but predict accidents and can increase computing power [Gupta, ¶ 0002]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control around collisions and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Further, Chou, which is also a vehicle control system based on data teaches “initiate the response including causing the vehicle to move out of a traffic lane of a roadway” [Chou, Col 7 lines 4-14 (advised to take appropriate action based on the severity of the fault (e.g. "pull over" to a safe area)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chou into the invention of Choi to not only include controlling a vehicle (send message) after an accident has been determined based on data as Choi discloses but to also initiate a movement of the vehicle based on the issue as taught by Chou with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Chou into Choi to create a more robust system that not only reacts to accidents by sending messages but can also attempt to move the vehicle, to avoid future traffic. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as vehicle control around collisions and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 32: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claim 25. The method taught/disclosed in Claim 32 can clearly perform on the system of Claim 25. Therefore Claim 32 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to Claim 39: all limitations have been examined with respect to the system in Claim 25. The medium taught/disclosed in Claim 39 can clearly perform on the system of Claim 25. Therefore Claim 39 is rejected under the same rationale.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights