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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20, these claim recite “a portion of a route”. It is unclear if “a portion of a route” in these claims refer back to “a portion of a route” in the independent claims, or are new separate unclaimed recitations of “a portion of a route”, therefore these claims are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, Examiner has interpreted “a portion of a route” in these claims to mean any portion of any route.
Regarding claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20, these claims depend from one of claims 1, 12, and 17 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claims 1, 12, and 17 above, as they do not cure the deficiencies of claims 1, 12, and 17 noted above.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 12 recites:
“A system comprising:
a memory device; and
a processing device, coupled to the memory device, wherein the processing device is to:
identify suspension stiffness data and suspension deflection data associated with corresponding distal ends of one or more axles of an autonomous vehicle (AV);
determine, based on the suspension deflection data and the suspension stiffness data, driving constraint data for traveling at least a portion of a route; and
cause, based on the driving constraint data, performance of a corrective action associated with the AV during the traveling of the at least a portion of a route”.
The limitation determining driving constraint data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a processing device, nothing in the claim elements precludes the determining from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the processing device determining driving constraint data in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing the steps of determining vehicle limits based on his understanding of suspension deflection and suspension stiffness data in his mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of causing a performance of a corrective action, as drafted, are also processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting by a processing device, nothing in the claim precludes the performance of a corrective action from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the by a processing device language, the claim encompasses the user thinking and updating routes or generating alerts in his mind. Thus, these limitations are also mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites using a processing device to perform identifying data, determining driving constraints, and causing a corrective action. The processing device in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of identifying, determining, and causing a performance) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a system, a memory device, a processing device, and an autonomous vehicle, to perform identifying, determining, and causing a performance amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20 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 claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims introduce additional elements such as sensors, suspension deflection sensors, laser sensors, scales, and a trailer, which amount to generic computer components. The additional elements in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with claim 12.
Office Note: In order to overcome this rejection, the Office suggests further defining the limitations of the independent claim, for example by linking the claimed subject matter to a non-generic device or controlling movement of the vehicle based on driving constraint data. Limitations such as these suggested above would further bring the claimed subject matter out of the realm of an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, 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 1-3, 11-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berntorp (US 20220234570 A1) in view of Hao (CN 108394406 A).
Claim 1
Berntorp teaches:
A method comprising (Berntorp - Paragraph 0001, 0069)
identifying suspension stiffness data (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0069, 0071-0073) “a spring constant and a damping coefficient modeling suspension dynamics of the vehicle can be estimated based only on a model of the vehicle roll dynamics”; It is obvious that the suspension stiffness data corresponds to distal ends of an axle because Berntorp teaches roll dynamics
of an autonomous vehicle (AV) (Berntorp - Paragraph 0061) “The vehicle can be entirely human-operated, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous”
and causing, based on the driving constraint data, performance of a corrective action associated with the AV during the traveling of the at least a portion of a route (Berntorp - Paragraph 0062, 0068-0069, 0125) “The control command 241 can be modified steering command modifying the drivers' 210 reference input to avoid violating the constraints of the vehicle, or it can be the braking commands of the individual tires”
Berntorp does not teach:
Suspension deflection data, or determining driving constraint data based on suspension deflection data and suspension stiffness data.
However, Hao teaches:
and suspension deflection data associated with corresponding distal ends of one or more axles (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0039) “on the front, back, left and right of spring position sensor, measuring the front, back, left and right of the real spring length”
determining, based on the suspension deflection data and the suspension stiffness data, driving constraint data for traveling at least a portion of a route (Hao - Paragraphs 0039-0045) “performing active braking”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with identifying suspension deflection data and determining driving constraint data of Hao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Hao or both in the field of vehicle control using suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety of the vehicle from rollovers (Hao – Paragraph 0057).
Claim 2
The combination of Berntorp and Hao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Berntorp further teaches:
the AV (Berntorp - Paragraph 0061) “The vehicle can be entirely human-operated, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous”
Berntorp does not teach:
Suspension deflection data associated with distal ends of axles and associated with performing vehicle acceleration or deceleration.
However, Hao teaches:
the suspension deflection data is associated with the corresponding distal ends of the one or more axles prior to traveling the at least a portion of a route (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0043, Fig. 1) “on the front, back, left and right of spring position sensor, measuring the front, back, left and right of the real spring length”
and at least a portion of the suspension deflection data is associated with performing one or more predefined maneuvers associated with at least one of acceleration or deceleration (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0043, Fig. 1) “the vehicle departure side turning”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with identifying suspension deflection data and determining driving constraint data of Hao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Hao or both in the field of vehicle control using suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety of the vehicle from rollovers (Hao – Paragraph 0057).
Claim 3
The combination of Berntorp and Hao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Berntorp does not teach:
The suspension stiffness data is associated with suspension springs or air pressure bladders.
However, Hao teaches:
wherein at least one of: the suspension stiffness data is associated with suspension springs or air pressure bladders; or the suspension deflection data is associated with at least one of displacement of springs at each of the corresponding distal ends of the one or more axles or distance of each of the corresponding distal ends of the one or more axles to a lower surface (Hao - Paragraph 0039, 0050) “the stiffness coefficient of the spring and spring extension quantity (real length of the spring-spring length)”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with suspension stiffness data associated with suspension springs of Hao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Hao or both in the field of vehicle control using suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety of the vehicle from rollovers (Hao – Paragraph 0057).
Claim 11
The combination of Berntorp and Hao teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as seen above.
Berntorp further teaches:
wherein the one or more predefined maneuvers further comprise turning (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0061-0064) “from a driver of the vehicle generating a reference steering command and/or braking/throttle command to the vehicle. E.g., the vehicle can receive external inputs 210 from an autonomous-driving system of the vehicle generating a reference steering command”
Claim 12
Berntorp teaches:
A system comprising: a memory device; and a processing device, coupled to the memory device, wherein the processing device is to (Berntorp - Paragraph 0068) “The vehicle-dynamics control system 199 includes at least one processor 270 for executing instructions of the vehicle-dynamics control system 199 stored in a memory 280”
All the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 13-14
All the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 2-3. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 17
Berntorp teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to (Berntorp - Paragraph 0068) “The vehicle-dynamics control system 199 includes at least one processor 270 for executing instructions of the vehicle-dynamics control system 199 stored in a memory 280”
All the other limitations have been examined with respect to claim 1. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 18-19
All the limitations have been examined with respect to claims 2-3. Please see the rejection above.
Claims 4-6, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berntorp and Hao, as applied to claims 1, 12, and 17 above, and further in view of Coombs (US 20240034116 A1).
Claim 4
The combination of Berntorp and Hao teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as seen above.
Berntorp further teaches:
wherein the determining of the driving constraint data comprises (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0101-0106) “F.sub.z is the vertical load. Wheel liftoff, hence imminent rollover, happens when the LTR becomes higher than 1 or lower than −1. Hence, in one embodiment the rollover avoidance constraint”
the AV (Berntorp - Paragraph 0061) “The vehicle can be entirely human-operated, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous”
and wherein the mass distribution data is associated with a response of the AV to the one or more predefined maneuvers (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0101-0106) “a steering profile generated by a human operator of the vehicle, or it can be an automatic steering or braking profile”
and determining, based on the mass distribution data, the driving constraint data for traveling the at least a portion of a route (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0101-0106) “F.sub.z is the vertical load. Wheel liftoff, hence imminent rollover, happens when the LTR becomes higher than 1 or lower than −1. Hence, in one embodiment the rollover avoidance constraint”
Berntorp does not teach:
Determining mass distribution data based on the suspension deflection data and the suspension stiffness data.
However, Coombs teaches:
determining, based on the suspension deflection data and the suspension stiffness data prior to the traveling of the at least a portion of a route, mass distribution data (Coombs - Paragraphs 0066-0072) “determining an arrangement of the load (which may be different from or identical to the first arrangement) that results in a load distribution that does not exceed the maximum weight borne by each axle”
wherein the mass distribution data is associated with a first load proximate a first distal end of a first axle and a second load proximate a second distal end of the first axle (Coombs - Paragraph 0077) “The actuation points are preferably the physical locations on the vehicle at which the fluid suspension elements (e.g., fluid springs) apply force to the axles and chassis of the vehicle to provide suspension of the vehicle, but may be otherwise suitably defined”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with determining mass distribution data based on the suspension deflection data and the suspension stiffness data of Coombs with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Coombs are both in the field of vehicle control using suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves braking/traction performances and tire life (Coombs – Paragraphs 0092-0093).
Claim 5
The combination of Berntorp, Hao, and Coombs teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as seen above.
Berntorp further teaches:
wherein the mass distribution data comprises one or more of (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0101-0106) “The load transfer ratio measures how much of the vertical load of the vehicle is concentrated on one of the vehicle sides”
a vertical center of gravity (COG) of the AV; a lateral center of gravity (COG) of the AV and a longitudinal COG of the AV; a ratio of the first load to the second load; one or more of moment of inertia data of the AV or roll stiffness data of the AV; or a first mass value associated with the first distal end of the first axle, a second mass value associated with the second distal end of the first axle, a third mass value associated with a third distal end of a second axle, and a fourth mass value associated with a fourth distal end of the second axle (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0051, 0060, Claim 2, Fig. 1C) “the vehicle roll dynamics model include the spring constant”
Claim 6
The combination of Berntorp, Hao, and Coombs teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as seen above.
Berntorp does not teach:
Suspension deflection data from a plurality of sensors located on distal ends of axles, the sensors comprising suspension deflection sensors or laser sensors.
However, Hao teaches:
wherein sensor data comprises the suspension deflection data (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0039, Fig. 1) “on the front, back, left and right of spring position sensor, measuring the front, back, left and right of the real spring length”
the sensor data being from a plurality of sensors, each sensor being proximate a respective distal end of a corresponding axle of the one or more axles (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0039, Fig. 1) “on the front, back, left and right of spring position sensor, measuring the front, back, left and right of the real spring length”
the plurality of sensors comprising one or more of: suspension deflection sensors; or laser sensors aimed at the AV or ground (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0039, Fig. 1) “receiving the suspension displacement by the displacement sensor”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with suspension deflection data and suspension deflection sensors Hao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Hao or both in the field of vehicle control using suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety of the vehicle from rollovers (Hao – Paragraph 0057).
Claim 15
Berntorp teaches:
wherein to determine the driving constraint data, the processing device is to (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0101-0106) “F.sub.z is the vertical load. Wheel liftoff, hence imminent rollover, happens when the LTR becomes higher than 1 or lower than −1. Hence, in one embodiment the rollover avoidance constraint”
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claims 4. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 16
All of the limitations have been examined with respect to claim 5. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 20
Berntorp teaches:
wherein to determine the driving constraint data, the processing device is to (Berntorp - Paragraphs 0101-0106) “F.sub.z is the vertical load. Wheel liftoff, hence imminent rollover, happens when the LTR becomes higher than 1 or lower than −1. Hence, in one embodiment the rollover avoidance constraint”
All of the other limitations have been examined with respect to claims 4. Please see the rejection above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berntorp and Hao, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Terada (JP 2004198176 A).
Claim 7
The combination of Berntorp and Hao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as seen above.
Berntorp further teaches:
the AV (Berntorp - Paragraph 0061) “The vehicle can be entirely human-operated, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous”
Berntorp does not teach:
The sensor data comprises suspension deflection data.
However, Hao teaches:
the sensor data comprises suspension deflection data (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0039, Fig. 1) “on the front, back, left and right of spring position sensor, measuring the front, back, left and right of the real spring length”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with suspension deflection data Hao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Hao or both in the field of vehicle control using suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety of the vehicle from rollovers (Hao – Paragraph 0057).
Berntorp does not teach:
Sensor data responsive to driving onto one or more scales.
However, Terada teaches:
the sensor data being identified responsive to driving onto one or more scales (Terada - Paragraph 0037-0038) “the load data output by the sensor unit 10 corresponding to the tire load data”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with sensor data identified responsive to driving onto one or more scales of Terada with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Terada are both in the field of vehicle weight measurement and control. One would have been motivated to combine as this achieves simple weight calibration and improving the safety of vehicles (Terada – Paragraph 0017).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berntorp, Hao, and Coombs as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Esnault (US 20190160892 A1).
Claim 8
The combination of Berntorp, Hao, and Coombs teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as seen above.Berntorp further teaches:
the AV (Berntorp - Paragraph 0061) “The vehicle can be entirely human-operated, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous”
Berntorp does not teach:
The sensor data comprises suspension deflection data.
However, Hao teaches:
wherein sensor data comprises the suspension deflection data (Hao - Paragraphs 0037-0039, Fig. 1) “on the front, back, left and right of spring position sensor, measuring the front, back, left and right of the real spring length”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with suspension deflection data Hao with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Hao or both in the field of vehicle control using suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves safety of the vehicle from rollovers (Hao – Paragraph 0057).
Berntorp does not teach:
the sensor data comprising one or more of: a first subset received responsive to the AV being disposed on a level surface and a second subset received responsive to the AV being disposed on a non-level surface; pressure data and displacement data at the corresponding distal ends of the one or more axles, the sensor data being associated with corresponding bladders being pressurized to level the AV; oscillation of suspension springs of the AV; Eigen frequency of the AV; frequency of oscillation of the AV; or frequency of motion of the AV.
However, Esnault teaches:
the sensor data comprising one or more of: a first subset received responsive to the AV being disposed on a level surface and a second subset received responsive to the AV being disposed on a non-level surface; pressure data and displacement data at the corresponding distal ends of the one or more axles, the sensor data being associated with corresponding bladders being pressurized to level the AV; oscillation of suspension springs of the AV; Eigen frequency of the AV; frequency of oscillation of the AV; or frequency of motion of the AV (Esnault - Paragraph 0092) “shock absorber supplies data on the oscillating frequency of the shock absorber”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with sensor data comprising the oscillation frequency of Esnault with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that both Berntorp and Esnault are in the field of vehicle suspension control. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves stability and safety of the vehicle (Esnault – Paragraph 0010).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berntorp, Hao, and Coombs as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Sandrasekaran (US 20220402482 A1).
Claim 9
The combination of Berntorp, Hao, and Coombs teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as seen above.Berntorp further teaches:
wherein the causing of the performance of the corrective action is responsive to one or more of (Berntorp - Paragraph 0062, 0068-0069) “The control command 241 can be modified steering command modifying the drivers' 210 reference input to avoid violating the constraints of the vehicle, or it can be the braking commands of the individual tires”
the AV (Berntorp - Paragraph 0061) “The vehicle can be entirely human-operated, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous”
Berntorp does not teach:
determining a change in load of the AV based on the mass distribution data; identifying a malfunctioning component of the AV based on the mass distribution data; diagnosing chassis properties of the AV based on the mass distribution data; or rejecting the load based on the mass distribution data.
However, Sandrasekaran teaches:
determining a change in load of the AV based on the mass distribution data; identifying a malfunctioning component of the AV based on the mass distribution data; diagnosing chassis properties of the AV based on the mass distribution data; or rejecting the load based on the mass distribution data (Sandrasekaran - Paragraphs 0040-0042) “performs an emergency procedure in case a significant shift in load distribution is detected”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with determining a change in load of Sandrasekaran with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Sandrasekaran are both in the field of vehicle control based on suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves vehicle safety and stability from rollovers (Sandrasekaran – Paragraph 0007).
Claim 10
The combination of Berntorp, Hao, and Coombs teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 as seen above.Berntorp further teaches:
the AV (Berntorp - Paragraph 0061) “The vehicle can be entirely human-operated, semi-autonomous, or fully autonomous”
Berntorp does not teach:
The mass distribution data is of a trailer.
However, Sandrasekaran teaches:
the mass distribution data is of a trailer (Sandrasekaran - Paragraphs 0035, 0046) “The truck 100 and the semi-trailer vehicle 200 also comprises respective control units 110 arranged to obtain load data from the load sensors”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Berntorp with determining the mass distribution data of a trailer of Sandrasekaran with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Berntorp and Sandrasekaran are both in the field of vehicle control based on suspensions. One would have been motivated to combine as this improves vehicle safety and stability from rollovers (Sandrasekaran – Paragraph 0007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Matthew Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-1388. The examiner can
normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 9:00-5:30 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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691. 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 are available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (tollfree). 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.
/MATTHEW HO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights