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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-13 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits.
Information disclosure statement was filed and reviewed by examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the specification distinguishes between the elements 6 and 6a. However, in Figure 1 6a is labeled as 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a control unit” in claims 1 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph
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 1-13 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.
In claim 1 line 8, the recited limitation “a malfunctioning of the first speed sensor” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the malfunctioning of the speed sensor recited previously or is a different malfunctioning? Further in line 9, the recited limitation “the options” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 5 line 2, the recited limitation “a malfunctioning of the first speed sensor” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the malfunctioning of the speed sensor recited previously or is a different malfunctioning?
In claim 8, the recited limitation “if the operator has selected…” is indefinite. This limitation recites an if statement which is under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is not necessitated in the claim. Examiner suggest amending the claim to recite “when the operator has selected…”.
In claim 9, the recited limitation “if the measurements of the second speed sensor…” is indefinite. This limitation recites an if statement which is under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is not necessitated in the claim. Examiner suggest amending the claim to recite “when the measurements of the second speed sensor…”.
In claim 10 line 2, the recited limitation “a malfunctioning of the first speed sensor” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the malfunctioning of the speed sensor recited previously or is a different malfunctioning?
In claim 11, the recited limitation “if the measurements of the second speed sensor…” is indefinite. This limitation recites an if statement which is under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is not necessitated in the claim. Examiner suggest amending the claim to recite “when the measurements of the second speed sensor…”.
In claim 12, the recited limitation “if the operator has selected…” is indefinite. This limitation recites an if statement which is under the broadest reasonable interpretation, it is not necessitated in the claim. Examiner suggest amending the claim to recite “when the operator has selected…”.
In claim 13 line 10, the recited limitation “a malfunctioning of the first speed sensor” is indefinite. It is unclear to the examiner if this is referring to the malfunctioning of the speed sensor recited previously or is a different malfunctioning? Further in line 11, the recited limitation “the options” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4 and 6-7 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
The independent claims are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claims recite in response to detecting a malfunctioning of the first speed sensor, taking a measurement of the second speed sensor. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a control unit”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as first speed sensor data, malfunctioning data of first sensor, and second speed sensor data could take measurement of the second sensor. The mere nominal recitation of “control unit” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of monitoring measurements of the first speed sensor; providing the operator on the user interface the options of selecting either to (i) continue with operating the agricultural system with restricted functionality or (ii) cease the operation of the agricultural system; using the measurement of the second speed sensor to derive measurements that approximate the measurements that the first speed sensor would generate; a first speed sensor, second speed sensor, control unit and user interface. The monitoring step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (first speed sensor data or second speed sensor data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The providing and using steps/elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The first and second sped sensors are recited at a high level of generality (claimed generically) and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim(s) is/are not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation(s) of a control unit and user interface is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the monitoring, providing, and using steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-12 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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, 5-6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Melby et al (US 7107134 B1) in view of Mercep et al (US 20200209848 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Melby discloses a method for operating an agricultural system (see at least [abstract], Melby teaches a method for operating a motor vehicle powertrain. Operating an agricultural system is an obvious variation of operating a motor vehicle powertrain.), the agricultural system having (i) a first rotating component having a first speed sensor (see at least [Col. 2 lines 4-60], [Col. 3 lines 10-62], and [Fig. 10], element 32c]), (ii) a second rotating component having a second speed sensor (see at least [Col. 2 lines 4-60], [Col. 3 lines 10-62], and [Fig. 10], element 32b]), and (iii) a control unit coupled with the first speed sensor and the second speed sensor (see at least [Col. 2 lines 4-60] and [Fig. 10]), the method comprising: (a) monitoring measurements of the first speed sensor (see at least [Col. 2 lines 4-60], [Col. 3 lines 10-62], and [Fig. 10], element 32c]), (b) in response to detecting a malfunctioning of the first speed sensor, taking a measurement of the second speed sensor (see at least [Col. 2 lines 4-60], [Col. 3 lines 10-62], [claim 1], and [Fig. 10], elements 32c and 32b]), and (d) after receiving the operators decision to continue with operating the agricultural system with restricted functionality, using the measurement of the second speed sensor to derive measurements that approximate the measurements that the first speed sensor would generate (see at least [Col. 2 lines 4-60], [Col. 3 lines 10-62], [Col. 4 lines 15-31], [claim 1], and [Fig. 10], elements 32c and 32b]).
However, Melby do not specifically disclose the control unit having a user interface for an operator; and (c) after detecting a malfunctioning of the first speed sensor, providing the operator on the user interface the options of selecting either to (i) continue with operating the agricultural system with restricted functionality or (ii) cease the operation of the agricultural system.
Mercep teaches the control unit having a user interface for an operator (see at least [0031] and [0073]); and (c) after detecting a malfunctioning of the first speed sensor, providing the operator on the user interface the options of selecting either to (i) continue with operating the agricultural system with restricted functionality or (ii) cease the operation of the agricultural system (see at least [0031] and [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Melby, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Mercep wherein the control unit having a user interface for an operator; and (c) after detecting a malfunctioning of the first speed sensor, providing the operator on the user interface the options of selecting either to (i) continue with operating the agricultural system with restricted functionality or (ii) cease the operation of the agricultural system. This would be done to improve safety and driving functionality of autonomous driving systems (see Mercep para 0004).
With respect to claim 2, Melby teaches wherein the first rotating component is upstream of the second rotating component in a drivetrain of the agricultural system, wherein the first rotating component and the second rotating component are rotatably connected to each other (see at least [Fig.1], elements 32b and 32c).
With respect to claim 3, Melby teaches wherein the first rotating component is located onboard a first unit of the agricultural system and the second rotating component is located onboard a second unit of the agricultural system (see at least [Fig. 1], elements 32c, 22, 32b, and 18]).
With respect to claim 5, Melby do not specifically disclose wherein the operator is notified via the user interface in response to detecting a malfunction of the first speed sensor.
Mercep teaches wherein the operator is notified via the user interface in response to detecting a malfunction of the first speed sensor (see at least [0031] and [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Melby, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Mercep wherein the operator is notified via the user interface in response to detecting a malfunction of the first speed sensor. This would be done to improve safety and driving functionality of autonomous driving systems (see Mercep para 0004).
With respect to claim 6, Melby discloses wherein the first rotating component and the second rotating component are rotatably engageable and/or disengageable with each other by an engagement means (see at least [Col. 2 lines 4-35], [Fig. 1], elements, 32b, 18, 14, 32c, and 22]).
With respect to claim 9, Melby do not specifically disclose wherein the operator is given the selection regarding operating the agricultural system, if the measurements of the second speed sensor indicate that the second rotating component is rotating.
Mercep teaches wherein the operator is given the selection regarding operating the agricultural system, if the measurements of the second speed sensor indicate that the second rotating component is rotating (see at least [0031] and [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Melby, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Mercep wherein the operator is given the selection regarding operating the agricultural system, if the measurements of the second speed sensor indicate that the second rotating component is rotating. This would be done to improve safety and driving functionality of autonomous driving systems (see Mercep para 0004).
With respect to claim 10, Melby teaches wherein operating the agricultural system is paused after detecting a malfunctioning of the first speed sensor until the operator has selected to continue with operating the agricultural system with restricted functionality (see at least [Col. 2 lines 4-35], [Col. 5 lines 8-26], [Fig. 1], elements, 32b, 18, 14, 32c, and 22]).
With respect to claim 11, Melby do not specifically disclose wherein the operator is not given the selection regarding operating the agricultural system, if the measurements of the second speed sensor indicate that the second rotating component is not rotating.
Mercep teaches wherein the operator is not given the selection regarding operating the agricultural system, if the measurements of the second speed sensor indicate that the second rotating component is not rotating (see at least [0031] and [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Melby, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Mercep wherein the operator is not given the selection regarding operating the agricultural system, if the measurements of the second speed sensor indicate that the second rotating component is not rotating. This would be done to improve safety and driving functionality of autonomous driving systems (see Mercep para 0004).
With respect to claim 12, Melby do not specifically disclose wherein, if the operator has selected to continue with operating the agricultural system, information in reference to the restricted functionality of the agricultural system is displayed to the operator via the user interface.
Mercep teaches wherein, if the operator has selected to continue with operating the agricultural system, information in reference to the restricted functionality of the agricultural system is displayed to the operator via the user interface (see at least [0031] [0049], [0056], and [0073-0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Melby, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Mercep wherein, if the operator has selected to continue with operating the agricultural system, information in reference to the restricted functionality of the agricultural system is displayed to the operator via the user interface. This would be done to improve safety and driving functionality of autonomous driving systems (see Mercep para 0004).
With respect to claim 13, it is a system claim that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claim 1. As such, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claim 1 and is incorporated herein.
Claims 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Melby et al (US 7107134 B1) in view of Mercep et al (US 20200209848 A1) in view of De Leener et al (US 20210137020 A1).
With respect to claim 4, Melby as modified by Mercep do not specifically disclose wherein the first unit of the agricultural system is a self-propelled agricultural vehicle, and wherein the second unit of the agricultural system is an agricultural implement that is operatively coupled and driven by the first unit.
De Leener teaches wherein the first unit of the agricultural system is a self-propelled agricultural vehicle (see at least [0150] and [0175]), and wherein the second unit of the agricultural system is an agricultural implement that is operatively coupled and driven by the first unit (see at least [0084-0087] and [Fig. 1]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Melby as modified by Mercep, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of De Leener wherein the first unit of the agricultural system is a self-propelled agricultural vehicle, and wherein the second unit of the agricultural system is an agricultural implement that is operatively coupled and driven by the first unit. This would be done to further improve operating agricultural vehicle attached to implement (tractor).
With respect to claim 7, Melby as modified by Mercep do not specifically teach wherein the engagement means is a clutch or a shear bolt.
De Leener teaches wherein the engagement means is a clutch or a shear bolt (see at least [0070], [0111-0122], and [0149-0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Melby as modified by Mercep, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of De Leener wherein the engagement means is a clutch or a shear bolt. This would be done to further improve operating agricultural vehicle attached to implement (tractor).
With respect to claim 8, Melby as modified by Mercep do not specifically teach wherein, if the operator has selected to cease the operation of the agricultural system, the first rotating component and the second rotating component are disengaged from each other by the engagement means.
Mercep teaches wherein, if the operator has selected to cease the operation of the agricultural system, the first rotating component and the second rotating component are disengaged from each other by the engagement means (see at least [0070], [0111-0122], and [0149-0153]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Melby as modified by Mercep, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of De Leener wherein, if the operator has selected to cease the operation of the agricultural system, the first rotating component and the second rotating component are disengaged from each other by the engagement means. This would be done to further improve operating agricultural vehicle attached to implement (tractor).
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. 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 https://ppair-my.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 (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.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667