DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application: Claims 1-20 are present for examination at this time.
Claims 1-3 and 4-19 are rejected.
Please refer to any PTO Forms 892 of record in this application and/or submitted IDSes to resolve any possible discrepancies in the listed reference numbers
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 12/10/2024 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file. The text of and foreign references were only considered for any contents that were in English. If Applicant wants non-English portions to be considered, a translation should be filed.
Final Rejection, When Proper on First Action
MPEP 706.07(b) states in part: “The claims of a new application may be finally rejected in the first Office action in those situations where (A) the new application is a continuing application of, or a substitute for, an earlier application, and (B) all claims of the new application (1) are either identical to or patentably indistinct from the claims in the earlier application (in other words, restriction under 37 CFR 1.145 would not have been proper if the new or amended claims had been entered in the earlier application), and (2) would have been properly finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application.”
In the instant case, Applicant has amended the claims but only to add manner of operation and intended use which do not distinguish structure and do not serve to take the claims outside the previously cited prior art of record which read on the structure.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 is acknowledged.
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(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
In considering patentability of the claims under 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 35 U.S.C. 103(c)
and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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(a) 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.
Claims 2-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over “Method and System for Secure Access to a Vehicle by Verkin et al., US2017/0327083 (“Verkin”) in view of “Scalable Complex Event Processing With Probabilistic Machine Learning Models To Predict Subsequent Geolocations” by Reese et al., US2016/0328661 (“Reese”).
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 while Verkin discloses method (and related non-transitory medium and device) for controlling an operation of vehicle via a mobile device, the method comprising:
receiving a set of signal values measured using one or more device antennas of the mobile device, the set of signal values providing one or more signal properties of signals from one or more vehicle antennas in the vehicle, wherein the one or more signal properties of a signal change with respect to a distance between a device antenna of the mobile device that received the signal and a vehicle antenna that emitted the signa (Verkin at ¶¶12-14 where the system uses signal values from two different antennas on the vehicle to determine user position);
…
and providing the plurality of locations or a difference in the plurality of locations to a control unit of the vehicle, thereby enabling the control unit to perform an operation of the vehicle based on a motion of the mobile device toward the vehicle (Verkin at ¶8, where the system compares the current location estimation to a previous estimation and ¶¶14, 39 ).
Verkin does not explicitly state that which is known in the art of communications as taught by Reese. Reese discloses:
determining, using the set of signal values, a region of a set of regions corresponding to a location of the mobile device relative to the vehicle at a plurality of times, thereby obtaining a plurality of locations of the mobile device outside the vehicle (Reese at ¶30, 33, 59, and 67.);
Reasons to Combine: Verkin and Reese are references that are anaolgous to the claimed invention. Verkin is from the same field of endeavor, position estimation of a wireless device within and automobile. Reese is pertinent to the problem being solved, specifically how to process multiple sets of location data.
Calculating position information is processor intensive. Using models and machine learning from past iterations can help to reduce computational complexity for the position determination. This is an advantageous feature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions herein who would want to take the system of Verkin and make it run more efficiently by reducing computation complexity to use machine learning and models as recommended by Reese and combine those techniques with Verkin.
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16, Verkin in view of Reese discloses the method of claim 1 (and related non-transitory medium and device), wherein the set of regions includes a first region outside of the vehicle(Verkin at 10) and a second region that is farther away from the vehicle than the first region (Verkin at ¶¶7-8, 21, and 28 where the system determines signal strengths for a region in the vehicle, which is a distance of zero, and a region outside the vehicle, which by its nature is further away),, and determining the region corresponding to the location of the mobile device relative to the vehicle at a plurality of times comprises: determining a first location of the mobile device at a first time, the first location corresponding the second region; and determining a second location of the mobile device at a second time later than the first time, the second location corresponding to the first region (Verkin at ¶¶7-8, 21, and 28); and
determining a second location of the mobile device at a second time later than the first time, the second location corresponding to the first region (Verkin at ¶8 where the instantaneous position inside the vehicle is compared to a previous position inside the vehicle).
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17, Verkin in view of Reese discloses the method of claim 2 (and related non-transitory medium and device), further comprising: determining a trajectory of the motion of the mobile device toward the vehicle using the first location and the second region; and providing the trajectory to the control unit of the vehicle (Verkin at ¶¶21, 15, 16 where the mobile device’s approach vector is determined).
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18 Verkin in view of Reese discloses the method of claim 3 (and related non-transitory medium and device), further comprising: identifying a particular part of the vehicle based at least in part on the trajectory (Verkin at ¶¶21, 15, 16 where the mobile device’s approach vector is determined, and ¶60 “Based on the approach vector of the mobile computing device 104 and biometric authentication information, the vehicle 102 may unlock one or more doors”).
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19, Verkin in view of Reese discloses the method method of claim 1 (and related non-transitory medium and device), wherein determining the region comprises: providing the set of signal values and the set of data values to a machine learning model to obtain a current classification of a particular region of the set of regions, the particular region corresponding to the location of the mobile device (Reese at ¶¶30, 33, 59, and 67, inter alia).
With respect to claims 6 and 13 Verkin in view of Reese discloses the method of claim 5 (and related non-transitory medium ), wherein: an input to the machine learning model comprises the one or more signal properties of the signals from the one or more vehicle antennas and a set of data values measured by an accelerometer and/or a gyrometer of the mobile device (Verkin at ¶52 where the system can use a gravitation sensor. To one of ordinary skill in the art that term is synonymous with accelerometer, when discussed in the context of a smartphone, as accelerometers are the gravitational sensors found in smartphones at the time of Verkin, and up through today.);
an output of the machine learning model comprises a classification of the location of the mobile device as being within the region of the set of regions in a vicinity of the vehicle; and the machine learning model is trained using various sets of signal values and various sets of data values measured at various locations across the set of regions device (Reese at ¶¶60, 71, 36, inter alia).
With respect to claims 7, 14,and 20, Verkin in view of Reese discloses the method of claim 1 (and related non-transitory medium and device), wherein the operation comprises at least one of: turning on a light of the vehicle; and unlocking one or more doors of the vehicle (Verkin at ¶60 “Based on the approach vector of the mobile computing device 104 and biometric authentication information, the vehicle 102 may unlock one or more doors and extend welcome functions including external lighting, internal lighting, cabin configuration, and other welcome functions. As an example, the vehicle 102 may greet a particular occupant by name: “Hello James.” The vehicle may unlock the doors including front doors, rear doors, and other doors such as a trunk door and provide welcome functions such as an audible chime when the mobile computing device is a particular distance from the vehicle, e.g., one meter. The particular distance may be modified and may be based on a particular location of the vehicle 102.”.)
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the
scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR
3.73(b).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over independent Claim 6 of US Patent 10,285,013, and claim 2 of US Patent 11,212,642B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are almost identical in terminology, with instant claim 1 only missing the last limitation of claim 1, a limitation in the middle of claim 6 relating to the set of regions being comprised of 2 subsets) and the difference in wording being “one of more vehicle antennas” (instant claim) versus “plurality of antennas” (patented claim). As these terms are synonymous they are coextensive in scope. The patented claim is a narrower version of the pending claim herein. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), instant claim 3 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 6. The device version of Claim 2 as embraced in Claim 14 the device that implements the method with action steps recited in structural format is an obvious variation of a method embodiment.
10,285,013
11,212,642
Instant Application
Claim 6: A method comprising:
A method for enabling an operation by a vehicle involving a mobile device, the method comprising:
receiving a set of signal values measured using one or more device antennas of the mobile device, the set of signal values providing one or more signal properties of signals from a plurality of vehicle antennas having various locations in the vehicle, wherein the one or more signal properties of a signal change with respect to a distance between a device antenna of the mobile device that received the signal and a vehicle antenna that emitted the signal;
storing a machine learning model that classifies a location of the mobile device as being within a region of a set of pre-defined regions in a vicinity of the vehicle based on the one or more signal properties of the signals from the plurality of vehicle antennas, the set of pre-defined regions including a first subset of one or more regions outside the vehicle and a second subset of one or more regions outside the vehicle (in instant Claim 4),
the machine learning model being trained using various sets of signal values measured at various locations across the set of pre-defined regions;
providing the set of signal values to the machine learning model to obtain a current classification of a particular region of the set of pre-defined regions
within which the mobile device is currently located;
and providing the particular region to a control unit of the vehicle, thereby enabling the control unit to perform a prescribed operation of the vehicle
A method for determining a current location of a mobile device relative to a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving a set of signal values measured using one or more device antennas of the mobile device, the set of signal values providing one or more signal properties of signals from one or more vehicle antennas having various locations in the vehicle, wherein the one or more signal properties of a signal change with respect to a distance between a device antenna of the mobile device that received the signal and a vehicle antenna that emitted the signal; receiving a set of data values measured by an accelerometer and/or a gyrometer of the mobile device; storing a machine learning model, wherein: an input to the machine learning model comprises the one or more signal properties of the signals from the one or more vehicle antennas and the set of data values measured by the accelerometer and/or the gyrometer of the mobile device; an output of the machine learning model comprises a classification of the current location of the mobile device as being within a region of a set of regions in a vicinity of the vehicle; and the machine learning model is trained using various sets of signal values and various sets of data values measured at various locations across the set of regions; and providing the set of signal values and the set of data values to the machine learning model to obtain a current classification of a particular region of the set of regions, the particular region corresponding to the current location of the mobile device.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing the particular region to a control unit of the vehicle, thereby enabling the control unit to perform a prescribed operation of the vehicle.
1. A method for controlling an operation of vehicle via a mobile device, the method comprising: receiving a set of signal values measured using one or more device antennas of the mobile device, the set of signal values providing one or more signal properties of signals from one or more vehicle antennas in the vehicle, wherein the one or more signal properties of a signal change with respect to a distance between a device antenna of the mobile device that received the signal and a vehicle antenna that emitted the signal; determining, using the set of signal values, a region of a set of regions corresponding to a location of the mobile device relative to the vehicle at a plurality of times, thereby obtaining a plurality of locations of the mobile device outside the vehicle; and providing the plurality of locations or a difference in the plurality of locations to a control unit of the vehicle, thereby enabling the control unit to perform an operation of the vehicle based on a motion of the mobile device toward the vehicle.
the machine learning model being trained using various sets of signal values measured at various locations across the set of regions;
providing the set of signal values to the machine learning model to obtain a current classification of a particular region of the set of regions, ‘-
the particular region corresponding to the location of the mobile device.
3. (New) The method of claim 2, further comprising:
providing the particular region to a control unit of the vehicle, thereby enabling the control unit to perform a prescribed operation of the vehicle.
4. (New) The method of claim 2, wherein the set of regions includes a first subset of one or more regions outside the vehicle and a second subset of one or more regions outside the vehicle.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over independent Claim 13 of US Patent of US Patent 11,212,642B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are almost identical in terminology, with instant claim 1 only missing the last limitation of claim 1, a limitation in the middle of claim 6 relating to the set of regions being comprised of 2 subsets) and the difference in wording being “one of more vehicle antennas” (instant claim) versus “plurality of antennas” (patented claim). As these terms are synonymous they are coextensive in scope. The patented claim is a narrower version of the pending claim herein. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), instant claim 1 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 13. The device version of Claim 2 and medium claims embraced in the mirrored claims is an obvious variation of a method embodiment.
11,262,642
Instant Application
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, using the machine learning model, a region corresponding to a location of the mobile device relative to the vehicle at a plurality of times, thereby obtaining a plurality of locations of the mobile device outside the vehicle; and providing the plurality of locations or a difference in the plurality of locations to a control unit of the vehicle, thereby enabling the control unit to perform a preparatory operation of the vehicle based on a motion of the mobile device toward the vehicle.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the set of regions includes a first region outside of the vehicle and a second region that is farther away from the vehicle than the first region, and determining the region corresponding to the location of the mobile device relative to the vehicle at a plurality of times comprises: determining a first location of the mobile device at a first time, the first location corresponding the second region; and determining a second location of the mobile device at a second time later than the first time, the second location corresponding to the first region.
The method of claim 1, wherein the set of regions includes a first region outside of the vehicle and a second region that is farther away from the vehicle than the first region, and determining the region corresponding to the location of the mobile device relative to the vehicle at a plurality of times comprises: determining a first location of the mobile device at a first time, the first location corresponding the second region; and determining a second location of the mobile device at a second time later than the first time, the second location corresponding to the first region.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over independent Claim 1of US Patent of US Patent 11,212,642B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are almost identical in terminology, with instant claim 1 only missing the last limitation of claim 1, a limitation in the middle of claim 6 relating to the set of regions being comprised of 2 subsets) and the difference in wording being “one of more vehicle antennas” (instant claim) versus “plurality of antennas” (patented claim). As these terms are synonymous they are coextensive in scope. The patented claim is a narrower version of the pending claim herein. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), instant claim 3 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 6. The device version of Claim 2 as embraced in Claim 14 the device that implements the method with action steps recited in structural format is an obvious variation of a method embodiment.
11,262,642
Instant Application
1. A method for determining a current location of a mobile device relative to a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving a set of signal values measured using one or more device antennas of the mobile device, the set of signal values providing one or more signal properties of signals from one or more vehicle antennas having various locations in the vehicle, wherein the one or more signal properties of a signal change with respect to a distance between a device antenna of the mobile device that received the signal and a vehicle antenna that emitted the signal; receiving a set of data values measured by an accelerometer and/or a gyrometer of the mobile device; storing a machine learning model, wherein: an input to the machine learning model comprises the one or more signal properties of the signals from the one or more vehicle antennas and the set of data values measured by the accelerometer and/or the gyrometer of the mobile device; an output of the machine learning model comprises a classification of the current location of the mobile device as being within a region of a set of regions in a vicinity of the vehicle; and the machine learning model is trained using various sets of signal values and various sets of data values measured at various locations across the set of regions; and providing the set of signal values and the set of data values to the machine learning model to obtain a current classification of a particular region of the set of regions, the particular region corresponding to the current location of the mobile device.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the region comprises: providing the set of signal values and the set of data values to a machine learning model to obtain a current classification of a particular region of the set of regions, the particular region corresponding to the location of the mobile device.18429182
Claims 6, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over independent Claim 13 of US Patent of US Patent 11,212,642B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are almost identical in terminology, with instant claim 1 only missing the last limitation of claim 1, a limitation in the middle of claim 6 relating to the set of regions being comprised of 2 subsets) and the difference in wording being “one of more vehicle antennas” (instant claim) versus “plurality of antennas” (patented claim). As these terms are synonymous they are coextensive in scope. The patented claim is a narrower version of the pending claim herein. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), instant claim 3 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 6. The medium version of Claim embraced in the mirrored claim is an obvious variation of a method embodiment.
11,262,642
Instant Application
1. A method for determining a current location of a mobile device relative to a vehicle, the method comprising: receiving a set of signal values measured using one or more device antennas of the mobile device, the set of signal values providing one or more signal properties of signals from one or more vehicle antennas having various locations in the vehicle, wherein the one or more signal properties of a signal change with respect to a distance between a device antenna of the mobile device that received the signal and a vehicle antenna that emitted the signal; receiving a set of data values measured by an accelerometer and/or a gyrometer of the mobile device; storing a machine learning model, wherein: an input to the machine learning model comprises the one or more signal properties of the signals from the one or more vehicle antennas and the set of data values measured by the accelerometer and/or the gyrometer of the mobile device; an output of the machine learning model comprises a classification of the current location of the mobile device as being within a region of a set of regions in a vicinity of the vehicle; and the machine learning model is trained using various sets of signal values and various sets of data values measured at various locations across the set of regions; and providing the set of signal values and the set of data values to the machine learning model to obtain a current classification of a particular region of the set of regions, the particular region corresponding to the current location of the mobile device.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein: an input to the machine learning model comprises the one or more signal properties of the signals from the one or more vehicle antennas and a set of data values measured by an accelerometer and/or a gyrometer of the mobile device; an output of the machine learning model comprises a classification of the location of the mobile device as being within the region of the set of regions in a vicinity of the vehicle; and the machine learning model is trained using various sets of signal values and various sets of data values measured at various locations across the set of regions.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over independent Claim 1of US Patent of US Patent 12,200,567. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are almost identical in terminology, with instant claim 1 only missing the last limitation of claim 1, a limitation in the middle of claim 6 relating to the set of regions being comprised of 2 subsets) and the difference in wording being “one of more vehicle antennas” (instant claim) versus “plurality of antennas” (patented claim). As these terms are synonymous they are coextensive in scope. The patented claim is a narrower version of the pending claim herein. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), instant claim 3 is not patentably distinct from patented claim 6. The device version of Claim 7 as embraced in Claim 14 the device that implements the method with action steps recited in structural format is an obvious variation of a method embodiment.
12,200,567
Instant Application
1. A method performed by a mobile device, the method comprising: receiving, from a control unit connected to a door, an advertising signal using a first wireless protocol; transmitting, using a second wireless protocol, a first ranging signal upon receipt of the advertising signal; receiving a first set of signal values measured using one or more first radiofrequency (RF) antennas of the mobile device, the first set of signal values providing one or more first signal properties of one or more second ranging signals emitted from one or more second RF antennas of the control unit upon receipt of the first ranging signal, wherein the one or more first signal properties of the one or more second ranging signals change with respect to a distance between a first RF antenna that received the one or more second ranging signals and a second RF antenna that emitted the one or more second ranging signals; determining a location of the mobile device relative to the control unit using the one or more first signal properties of the first set of signal values that change with respect to a relative distance between the mobile device and the control unit; and providing the location of the mobile device relative to the control unit, thereby enabling the control unit to perform a prescribed operation for the control unit associated with the door based on the location of the mobile device relative to the control unit.region corresponding to the current location of the mobile device.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the operation comprises at least one of: turning on a light of the vehicle; and unlocking one or more doors of the vehicle
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7494. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10a-6p.
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, Yuwen “Kevin” Pan can be reached on 571-272-7855. 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.
/JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights