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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments/Remarks filed 5/26/2026. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant states, pg(s). 7, that the nonstatutory double patenting rejections should be held in abeyance.
This is a deliberate omission of a necessary part of a complete reply. Future statements that nonstatutory double patenting rejections should be held in abeyance will be treated as a not-fully responsive reply, and thus, will not be accepted, and may result in abandonment of this application.
A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims, or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action. Replies with an omission should be treated as provided in MPEP § 714.03. In an effort to advance prosecution, the examiner is accepting the amendment as a reply to the non-final Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, pg(s). 7-10, with respect to the prior art rejections to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the newly formulated rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (US 20250135899 A1) in view of Niimi et al. (US 20200198563 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Foley teaches A method performed by an apparatus of a vehicle, the method comprising:
selecting, by a controller of the vehicle, a driving mode, among a plurality of driving modes, for the vehicle (“The controller 150 is coupled to sensors within the system 100, interfaces with the integrated controller of the kingpin no and executes methods and techniques described below to: selectively enter an operational mode (e.g., a tow mode, a regenerative braking mode, a service mode)”, [0068], “the system 100 is configured to dynamically tow and regeneratively brake a trailer 140 (e.g., a towed vehicle) by: selectively entering an operational mode (e.g., a tow mode, a regenerative braking mode, a service mode)”, [0022]);
(“The controller 150 can then trigger the first battery assembly 120 to supply a first electrical energy flux to the motor 131 to output torque to the driven axle 137; trigger the second battery assembly 120 to supply a second electrical energy flux, different from the first electrical energy flux, to the refrigeration system to maintain a target temperature of the trailer 140 in the tow mode”, [0078]), wherein the driving motor supplies a driving force to a plurality of wheels of the vehicle (“the driven axle 137 is supported by an axle housing, suspended from the bogie chassis 132, and includes a left driven wheel 138 and a right driven wheel 139…In this implementation, the motor 131 is configured to drive the left driven wheel 138 and the right driven wheel 139 and thus, output torque in a tow mode.”, [0054]),
controlling, by the controller, the selected battery to supply power to the driving motor (“The controller 150 can then trigger the first battery assembly 120 to supply a first electrical energy flux to the motor 131 to output torque to the driven axle 137.”, [0078], “the controller 150 can trigger an individual motor 131 or a set of motors coupled to the driven axle 137 to output torque to the driven axle 137 or regeneratively brake the driven axle 137, and thus, manipulate the driven wheels of the trailer 140 in a tow mode”, [0085]).
Further, Niimi teaches
based on an operational characteristic of a driving motor of the vehicle (“In the power supply device 3, the HV-ECU 102 controls the on/off states of the first switch element S1, the second switch element S2, and the third switch element S3 to switch a connection state of the first battery B1 and the second battery B2 with the first inverter 4a and the second inverter 4b (electrical load) between a series connection state, a parallel connection state, a single connection state of the first battery B1, and a single connection state of the second battery B2.”, [0034], “the HV-ECU 102 controls the first switch element S1 to be ON, and the second switch element S2 and the third switch element S3 to be OFF in order to connect only the first battery B1 to the first inverter 4a and the second inverter 4b (the single connection state of the first battery B1). Alternatively, the HV-ECU 102 controls the first switch element S1 and the second switch element S2 to be OFF, and the third switch element S3 to be ON in order to connect only the second battery B2 to the first inverter 4a and the second inverter 4b (the single connection state of the second battery B2).”, [0035], see also [0024-0027], Niimi does not explicity teach “a plurality of wheels”, however this limitation is inherent since Niimi discloses a traditional vehicle [0020] being driven with power from a driving motor in response to a driver’s request of an acceleration opening degree [0027] and thus is necessarily flows that the driving motor “supplies a driving force to a plurality of wheels of the vehicle”), and wherein the operational characteristic is determined based on a torque of the driving motor and revolutions per minute (RPM) of the driving motor (“In a motor operating range R13 in which the motor rotational speed and motor torque are smaller than the motor rotational speed and the motor torque corresponding to the curve L2, the connection state of the first battery B1, the second battery B2, and the inverter is switched to any one of the series connection state, the parallel connection state, the single connection state of the first battery B1, and the single connection state of the second battery B2.”, [0039]).
Both Foley and Niimi teach selecting a battery between a first battery and a second battery of a vehicle, wherein a driving motor of the vehicle supplies a driving force to a plurality of wheels of the vehicle. Foley teaches the selecting is based on a selected driving mode selected by a controller of the vehicle from among a plurality of driving modes and Niimi teaches the selecting is based on an operational characteristic determined based on a torque and RPM of the driving motor. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Foley with the teachings of Niimi such that the selecting of the battery is based on both an operational characteristic and a driving mode, as taught by Foley and Niimi, respectively, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to “prevent[] an occurrence of output limit due to imbalance of remaining capacity between two power sources” [0005], as taught by Niimi.
Regarding claim 9, Foley in view of Niimi teaches The method of claim 1, and Foley further teaches wherein the plurality of driving modes comprise a low-output mode and a high-torque mode (“the system 100 is configured to dynamically tow and regeneratively brake a trailer 140 (e.g., a towed vehicle) by: selectively entering an operational mode (e.g., a tow mode, a regenerative braking mode, a service mode)”, [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Foley in view of Niimi teaches The method of claim 1, and Foley further teaches wherein the selecting of the driving mode comprises:
selecting, based on a transporting load of the vehicle, one of a first driving mode or a second driving mode (“the controller 150 can interface with the integrated controller to: detect an initial force impulse applied to the kingpin; interpret the initial force impulse as a coupling event with the hitch of the tow vehicle; and, in response to interpreting the initial force impulse as the coupling event with the hitch of the tow vehicle, enter a tow mode.”, [0086]).
Regarding claim 16, Foley in view of Niimi teaches The method of claim 1, and Foley further teaches wherein the selecting of the driving mode comprises:
selecting the driving mode based on a user input of a driver of the vehicle (“the user (e.g., an operator, a driver, a yard manager) or a machine (e.g., a forklift) couples the hitch (e.g., a fifth wheel) of a tow vehicle to the kingpin 110 and the controller 150 can identify a coupling event between the kingpin 110 (e.g., via a signal from a force sensor) and the hitch of the tow vehicle. In particular, the controller 150 can interface with the integrated controller to: detect an initial force impulse applied to the kingpin; interpret the initial force impulse as a coupling event with the hitch of the tow vehicle; and, in response to interpreting the initial force impulse as the coupling event with the hitch of the tow vehicle, enter a tow mode.”, [0086]).
Regarding claim 17, Foley in view of Niimi teaches The method of claim 1, and Foley further teaches wherein the selecting of the battery comprises:
determining that the second battery is detachably connected to a power system of the vehicle, the power system comprising the first battery (“the user or the machine may install a second battery assembly 120, installed in the battery frame, below the floor 146 of the trailer 140 proximal a distal end of the bogie 130 opposite the first battery assembly 120 to engage a second set of latches 133 of the second battery assembly 120 with corresponding engagement features 144 on the left rail 147 and the right rail 147 of the dry van trailer 140. Once the controller 150 enters a tow mode, the controller 150 can: trigger the first battery assembly 120 to supply electrical energy via a power cable to the motor 131 of the dry van trailer type; and trigger the second battery assembly 120 to supply electrical energy to the motor 131 to output torque to the driven axle 137 in a tow mode.”, [0076]).
Regarding claim 18, Foley in view of Niimi teaches The method of claim 1, and Foley further teaches wherein the driving motor is configured to generate a regenerative braking power (“a motor 131 coupled to the driven axle 137 and configured to output torque to the driven axle 137 and regeneratively brake the driven axle 137”, [0019]), and
wherein the method further comprises controlling the vehicle to charge the selected battery with the regenerative braking power (“The controller 150 is configured to: trigger the first battery assembly 120 to supply electrical energy to the motor 131 to output torque to the driven axle 137 in a tow mode; and trigger the motor 131 to supply electrical energy to the first battery assembly 120 to regeneratively brake the driven axle 137 and charge the first battery assembly 120 in a regenerative braking mode.”, [0016]).
Claim(s) 19 recite(s) similar limitation(s) to that of claim(s) 1 and is/are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above. Additional limitations present in the claim are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim(s) 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Regarding claim 19, Foley teaches A vehicle (Figs. 1A-1C) comprising:
a plurality of wheels (“a left driven wheel 138 and a right driven wheel 139”, [0054], “a left passive wheel 135 and a right passive wheel 136”, [0055], Figs. 1A-1C);
a driving motor (“motor 131”, Fig. 2) configured to drive the plurality of wheels (“the driven axle 137 is supported by an axle housing, suspended from the bogie chassis 132, and includes a left driven wheel 138 and a right driven wheel 139…In this implementation, the motor 131 is configured to drive the left driven wheel 138 and the right driven wheel 139 and thus, output torque in a tow mode.”, [0054]); and
a controller (“controller 150”, Fig. 2) comprising:
memory storing instructions (“computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions… The computer-readable medium can be stored on any suitable computer readable media such as RAMs, ROMs, flash memory, EEPROMs, optical devices (CD or DVD), hard drives, floppy drives, or any suitable device. The computer-executable component can be a processor”, [0209]); and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors (“The instructions can be executed by computer-executable components integrated by computer-executable components integrated with apparatuses and networks of the type described above…The computer-executable component can be a processor”, [0209]), cause the controller to:
Regarding claim 20, Foley in view of Niimi teaches The vehicle of claim 19, and Foley further teaches wherein the second battery is detachably connected to a power system of the vehicle (“the user or the machine may install a second battery assembly 120, installed in the battery frame, below the floor 146 of the trailer 140 proximal a distal end of the bogie 130 opposite the first battery assembly 120 to engage a second set of latches 133 of the second battery assembly 120 with corresponding engagement features 144 on the left rail 147 and the right rail 147 of the dry van trailer 140. Once the controller 150 enters a tow mode, the controller 150 can: trigger the first battery assembly 120 to supply electrical energy via a power cable to the motor 131 of the dry van trailer type; and trigger the second battery assembly 120 to supply electrical energy to the motor 131 to output torque to the driven axle 137 in a tow mode.”, [0076]); and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the controller to select the battery by:
selecting the battery after determining that the second battery is connected to the power system, wherein the power system comprises the first battery (“an operator may select a set of (e.g., two) modular battery assemblies 120 characterized by a combined battery capacity within a target capacity range associated with a dry van trailer type to power the motor 131 (e.g., between 100 kilowatt-hours and 400 kilowatt-hours).”, [0076], “shown in FIG. 4C, the battery assembly 120 can include a set of (e.g., two) battery assemblies characterized by a combined battery capacity associated with a refrigerated trailer type to supply electrical energy to the motor 131 in a tow mode and to supply electrical energy to a refrigeration system of the trailer 140 to maintain a target temperature of perishable goods stored within the trailer 140 in a tow mode.”, [0077]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (US 20250135899 A1) in view of Niimi et al. (US 20200198563 A1) in view of Oguma et al. (US 20220185116 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Foley in view of Niimi teaches The method of claim 9,
Instead, Foley teaches the low output mode comprises a “regenerative braking mode” [0016] and the high torque mode comprises a “tow mode” [0016].
However, Oguma teaches
wherein the low-output mode comprises at least one of a normal mode, a comfort mode, or an eco mode, and wherein the high-torque mode comprises at least one of a sports mode or a track mode (“A plurality of travel modes having different power management processing for generating a torque command signal and a passing power command signal in the management ECU 71 are defined in the power supply system 1, whereby the driver can designate any among this plurality of travel modes via operation of the travel mode selection button 77. Hereinafter, a case will be explained defining the three types of a standard normal mode, a sport mode capable of traveling under greater acceleration force than the normal mode, and a range extending mode of traveling so that, the cruising distance becomes as long as possible; however, the present invention is not limited thereto.”, [0061], see also [0070-0077], Fig. 4).
Both Foley in view of Niimi and Oguma teach selecting a battery between a first battery and a second battery of a vehicle based on a selected driving mode selected between a low-output mode and a high-torque mode. Oguma further teaches the low-output mode comprises at least one of a normal mode, a comfort mode, or an eco mode, and the high-torque mode comprises at least one of a sports mode or a track mode. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Foley in view of Niimi with the teachings of Oguma such that the plurality of modes of Foley comprise the “travel modes” [0070], as suggested by Oguma, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to provide driver-focused modes to increase occupant comfort, as suggested by Oguma [0006, 0061].
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (US 20250135899 A1) in view of Niimi et al. (US 20200198563 A1) in view of Takahashi (JP2015057939 (A)).
Regarding claim 12, Foley in view of Niimi teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the selecting of the driving mode comprises:
However, Takahashi teaches wherein the selecting of the driving mode comprises:
selecting, based on a location of the vehicle, one of a first driving mode or a second driving mode (“In the next step S2, it is determined from the obtained road information whether or not the vehicle is entering the predetermined continuous uphill/downhill road described above. “, [0025], “In step S3, the vehicle ECU 30 controls the power source selection unit 22 in a normal manner. The normal control is a control of the power source selection unit 22 so that the battery 18 is mainly used as the power source for the electric motor 6.”, [0026], “In step S6, the vehicle ECU 30 causes the power source selection unit 22 to select the capacitor 20 as the power source in order to charge the capacitor 20 with the energy obtained by regeneration, and then returns from the routine.”, [0029], Fig. 2, see also [0021-0023]).
Both Foley in view of Niimi and Takahashi teach selecting a power source between a first power source and a second power source of a vehicle based on a selected driving mode selected between a plurality of driving modes. Takahashi further teaches the selecting is based on a location of the vehicle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Foley in view of Niimi with the teachings of Takahashi such that the selecting of the driving mode of Foley is based on “the current location of the vehicle” [0022], as suggested by Takahashi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to base the selection between the plurality of driving modes on “the positional relationship between the vehicle and the road” [0023], as suggested by Takahashi.
Regarding claim 13, Foley in view of Niimi and Takahashi teaches The method of claim 12, and Takahashi further teaches wherein the selecting of the driving mode further comprises:
based on the location being a mountain road, selecting the second driving mode (“The navigation unit 32 also detects uphill and downhill roads with a gradient equal to or greater than a predetermined gradient within a predetermined section on the route of the vehicle, and calculates the frequency of uphill and downhill roads within the predetermined section. Then, a predetermined continuous uphill and downhill road with an uphill road having a gradient of at least a predetermined gradient is determined to be a road in which uphill and downhill roads occur at a frequency greater than or equal to a predetermined frequency within a predetermined section.”, [0023]); and
based on the location being at least one of a city road, or a highway, selecting the first driving mode (“If there are no continuous uphill and downhill sections on the route of the vehicle, or if there is a continuous uphill and downhill section but the vehicle has not entered the continuous uphill and downhill section, the result of the determination is false (No), and the process proceeds to step S3.”, [0025], “In step S3, the vehicle ECU 30 controls the power source selection unit 22 in a normal manner.”, [0026], “In step S6, the vehicle ECU 30 causes the power source selection unit 22 to select the capacitor 20 as the power source in order to charge the capacitor 20 with the energy obtained by regeneration, and then returns from the routine.”, [0029]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further combine the invention of Foley in view of Niimi with the teachings of Takahashi such that the selecting of the driving mode of Foley is further based on whether a location of the vehicle is in a “continuous uphill and downhill” [0022], as suggested by Takahashi, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be “by not using the first power supply when traveling on a continuous uphill /downhill road, it is possible to prevent deterioration of the first power supply due to repeated charging and discharging” [0010], as suggested by Takahashi.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (US 20250135899 A1) in view of Niimi et al. (US 20200198563 A1) in view of Javidan et al. (US 20240067283 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Foley in view of Niimi teaches The method of claim 14, and Foley further teaches wherein the selecting of the driving mode further comprises:
based on the vehicle towing a second vehicle (“the controller 150 can interface with the integrated controller to: detect an initial force impulse applied to the kingpin; interpret the initial force impulse as a coupling event with the hitch of the tow vehicle; and, in response to interpreting the initial force impulse as the coupling event with the hitch of the tow vehicle, enter a tow mode.”, [0086]).
However, Javidan teaches wherein the selecting of the driving mode further comprises:
based on the vehicle towing a second vehicle and the transporting load being greater than or equal to a threshold value, selecting the second driving mode (“the battery assembly 120 can include a set of modular batteries configured to engage with each other and fit within a battery frame (e.g., a stressed frame)…The set of modular batteries enables a user to selectively adjust the battery capacity of the battery assembly 120 as a function of…a weight distribution of the trailer 140”, [0068]).
Javidan teaches selecting a battery capacity for a trailer as “a function of…a weight distribution of the trailer” [0068]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the invention of Foley in view of Niimi with the teachings of Javidan such that the selecting of the driving mode of Foley is based on the load of the trailer exceeding a threshold, as suggested by Javidan, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would be to base the selection between the plurality of driving modes on parameters of the towed trailer, as suggested by Javidan [0068].
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 9 of copending Application No. 18/970,163 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the reference claims anticipate each of the instant claims.
Claim 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/970,163 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the references claims in combination anticipate the instant claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, 20 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See Notice of References Cited.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. 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.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights