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 .
Examiner Note:
Examiner strongly recommends scheduling an interview to help move prosecution in a positive direction.
Response to Amendment
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 11/10//2025. Claims 3 and 11 have been amended. Claims 5-9 and 13 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 10 and 14-15 remain canceled. No Claims are newly added. Claims 3-4, 11-12 and 16 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, on page 8-22 of the remark filed on 11/10/2025, on limitations of independent Claim 3: “a gateway public key associated with the communication terminal in the operator infrastructure, a first encryption, termed a gateway encryption, of a frame with a first gateway public key associated with the communication terminal attached to the first operator infrastructure to produce an encrypted frame identified by the first encryption as a frame of the first operator infrastructure sent by the communication terminal,”, arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10 of the remarks filed on 11/10/2025 that the cited references fail to expressly or inherently disclose or make obvious the features that incorporate that the communication terminal is a terminal of a first operator infrastructure between several operator infrastructure; 2) that the performed first encryption by the communication terminal is operated with a first terminal public key associated with the communication terminal attached to the first operator infrastructure; and 3) that the performed first encryption produces an encrypted frame identified as a frame of the first operator infrastructure. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Sridhar teaches on Page 2 Figure 1, IoT device gateway in communication with gateway server on page 5 step 7.1 a performing of a first encryption using a public key and on Page 3 Section B paragraph 3 describing a encryption of a frame or message from gateway device to network server.
Applicant argues on pages 10 of the remarks filed on 11/10/2025 that the cited references fail to expressly or inherently disclose or make obvious the features that incorporate an operator infrastructure or several distinct operators. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Sridhar describes on Page 2 Figure 1 an operator infrastructure with IoT devices and gateway servers. Examiner states that the specification on page 26 lines 1-15 state an operator infrastructure a comprising the network server, therefore it is broadly and reasonably interpreted that an IoT device network with multiple gateway servers reads upon the claimed limitation. Examiner states further defining the different distinct operators and what the operators include or are defined as to teach away from the gateway server.
Applicant argues on pages 11 of the remarks filed on 11/10/2025 that the cited references fail to expressly or inherently disclose or make obvious the features that incorporate a network gateway and a gateway relaying frames exchanged between communication terminals and service provider server. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Choi teaches on Figure 8A labels 820, 840, 830 and 850 an IoT network gateway, operator infrastructure and on Par. (0132-0135) a relaying of messages between communication terminals, IoT devices and service providers of the devices.
Applicant argues on pages 14 of the remarks filed on 11/10/2025 that the cited references fail to expressly or inherently disclose or make obvious the features that incorporate “the first terminal public key associated with the communication terminal attached [..]only the frame decrypted by the first network gateway is relayed [..] of the first operator infrastructure. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Sridhar describes on Page 2 Figure 1 a communication terminal operator infrastructure with IoT devices and a plurality of gateway servers. Sridhar further discloses on Page 3 Section B paragraph 3 a device coupled to network server and encrypting and transmitting frames. Sridhar describes on Page 3 Section B paragraph 3 the producing of encrypted frames with messages being encrypted and destined for network server.
Applicant argues on pages 14 last three paragraphs 1-3 of the remarks filed on 11/10/2025 that the cited references fail to expressly or inherently disclose or make obvious the features that incorporate the first network gateway public key associated with the communication terminal attached to the first operator infrastructure being paired with a first gateway private key associated with the communication terminal attached to the first operator infrastructure stored in at least one first network gateway of the first operator infrastructure; and; the encrypted frame being identified as a frame of the first operator infrastructure whereas the first network gateway of the first operator infrastructure is able to decrypt said encrypted frame with the first gateway private key generated by a server of the first operator infrastructure upon the attachment of the communication terminal to the first operator infrastructure, the frame being decrypted only by the first network gateway are relayed only to the first service provider servers of the first operator infrastructure. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Paterra teaches on Par. (0187) a private and public key stored on each storage device and on Par. (0064 and 0096) disclosing an encryption of frames and decryption step of the storage devices and service provider upon attachment of the devices.
Applicant further argues on Page 15 last paragraph that Lee does not teach several operator infrastructures. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee teaches on Par. (0020) a mobile server as a operator infrastructure.
Applicant further argues on Page 17 that it would not have been motivated to combine Sridhar and Choi with Lee. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee teaches analogous concept of operator infrastructures, gateway devices, terminals and a plurality of features.
Applicant argues on Page 18 that Paterra does not explicitly teach “the first terminal private key [..] of the first operator infrastructure and more specifically does not teach a pair of keys generated by a server [..] stored in the network gateway (last paragraph page 18) . Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Paterra teaches on Par. (0096) a decryption of the frame and decrypted data relayed to one or more storage locations.
Applicant further argues on page 19 that Paterra does not disclose decryption depending on the attachment. Applicant’s interpretation of the reference has been noted; however, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner states that the limitations Paterra discloses there is no indication of an attachment step then decryption. Pattera teaches on Par. (0096 and 0064) a decryption step and providing decrypted data store data one or more location.Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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 3 and 11, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. (“Intelligent Security Framework for IoT Devices Cryptography based End -To- End security Architecture” (retrieved from IDS), hereinafter referred to as “Sridhar”) Choi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20150312041, hereinafter referred to as “Choi”) and Lee et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20140317401, hereinafter referred to as “Lee”) further in view of Paterra et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170178069, hereinafter referred to as “Paterra”)
Regarding Independent Claim 3, Sridhar teaches a method of transmission of frames via a first communication network by a communication terminal of a first operator infrastructure of a plurality of operator infrastructure, the first communication network comprising a first local network implementing the first communication terminal and a first wide network linked by a first network gateway: (Page 1 Abstract: “.”; transmission of frames (message transfer) by a communication device (IoT device corresponding to low-consumption (low power)), (Page 2 Figure 1 labels Device Gateway IoT nodes, and wifi/ cellular network; an operator infrastructure via first communication network (intelligent security framework for IoT devices with network, gateway server (IoT application service), (Page 3 section A paragraph 2-4: ”; transmission of frames ( secure data transmission); sensor node message corresponding to handshake))
the network gateway of an operator infrastructure relaying exchanges between communication terminals implemented within a local network and said service provider server of the same operator infrastructure, ((Page 1 Abstract: “.”; transmission of frames (message transfer) by a communication device (IoT device corresponding to low-consumption (low power)), (Page 2 Figure 1 labels Device Gateway IoT nodes, and wifi/ cellular network; an operator infrastructure via first communication network (intelligent security framework for IoT devices with network, gateway server (IoT application service)
the method of transmission of frames comprising: performing, by the first communication terminal, a first encryption, of a frame with a first terminal public key associated with the first communication terminal (Page 5 Step 7: 7.1 “:”; performing a first encryption(encryption by communication device using a public key)) (Page 3 Section B paragraph 3 ”; first encryption termed gateway encryption, of a frame (device gateway encrypts the message), destined for network server (the cloud service, see Fig 2 on page 3)), (Page 3 Section B paragraph 1 “”; frame with a gateway public key (public key generated and used to transfer message)), (Page 3 Section B paragraph 1 “”; frame with a gateway public key (public key generated and used to transfer message)),
to produce an encrypted frame identified by the first encryption as a frame of the first operator infrastructure sent by the first communication terminal, (Page 3 Section B paragraph 3 ; first encryption termed gateway encryption, of a frame (device gateway encrypts the message), destined for network server (the cloud service, see Fig 2 on page 3)), (Page 3 Section A paragraph 3: “”; produce an encrypted frame (message is encrypted)),
transmitting, by the first communication terminal, the encrypted frame destined to a first service provider server of the first operator infrastructure to the at least one first network gateway via the first communication network. (Page 5 Step 7: End-To-End secure transaction step 7.1-7.2 “:”; transmitting the encrypted frame (sends the message and double encrypts it) to the gateway (The device gateway decrypts the message))
However Sridhar does not explicitly teach each operator infrastructure comprising both a service provider server and a network gateway, wherein: the service provider server providing at least one service to the first communication terminals, the service provider server being implemented within a wide network; and the first terminal public key being paired with a first terminal private key associated with the first communication terminal stored in at least one first gateway of the first operator infrastructure; and; the first terminal public key and the first terminal private key having been generated upon the attachment of a communication terminal to the first operator infrastructure by a server of the first operator infrastructure; and the encrypted frame being identified as a frame of the first operator infrastructure whereas the first network gateway of the first operator infrastructure is able to decrypt said encrypted frame with the first terminal private key, only the frame being decrypted by the first network gateway is relayed only to the first service provider servers of the first operator infrastructure.
Wherein Choi teaches each operator infrastructure comprising both a service provider server and a network gateway, wherein: the service provider server providing at least one service to the first communication terminals, the service provider server being implemented within a wide network; and (Figure 8A labels 820, 840, 830, 850; operator infrastructure (IoT Network) at least one service provider (IoT Service Provider 840) which provides service to communication terminals (communication Terminal 820))), (Figure 1B labels 130 and 180; communication terminals attached to the operator infrastructure (Communication terminal 180) linked with Service Proving server 130 in Iot Network)), (Par. (0181) ”; communication terminals attached to the operator infrastructure (plurality of communication terminals associated with service providing server of operator infrastructure))
the first terminal public key being paired with a first terminal private key associated with the first communication terminal stored in at least one first gateway of the first operator infrastructure; and; ((Par. (0132-0135) “”; at least one gateway relaying exchanges between communication terminal and service provider servers (IoT device with an access point set-up box that transmits, controls, registers data corresponding to communication terminal and service provider))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Choi within the teachings of Sridhar and because of the analogous concept of connected objects such as IoT devices in communication utilizing key exchanges, with the motivation of because once assuring to the user that only on the condition that the correct communication terminal is connected that the key generation process will commence and the correct frames and messages will be authentically transmitted. This eliminates potential risk and harm in the relay exchange of sensory data of connected objects and creates high credibility in the communication without tampering. (Choi Par. (0002-0008))
However Sridhar and Choi do not explicitly teach the first terminal public key and the first terminal private key having been generated upon the attachment of a communication terminal to the first operator infrastructure by a server of the first operator infrastructure; and the encrypted frame being identified as a frame of the first operator infrastructure whereas the first network gateway of the first operator infrastructure is able to decrypt said encrypted frame with the first terminal private key, only the frame being decrypted by the first network gateway is relayed only to the first service provider servers of the first operator infrastructure.
Wherein Lee teaches the first terminal public key and the first terminal private key having been generated upon the attachment of a communication terminal to the first operator infrastructure by a server of the first operator infrastructure; (Par. (0020); attachment (connecting) of a communication terminal (user terminal) to the first operator infrastructure (mobile server) then after generating a private public key pair)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Choi within the teachings of Sridhar and because of the analogous concept of connected objects such as key exchanges in a operator infrastructure, with the motivation of key generation upon attachment of a the devices and server to enhance encrypted communication and create trust within the network. (Lee Par. (0005-0010))
Sridhar, Choi and Lee do not explicitly teach the encrypted frame being identified as a frame of the first operator infrastructure whereas the first network gateway of the first operator infrastructure is able to decrypt said encrypted frame with the first terminal private key, only the frame being decrypted by the first network gateway is relayed only to the first service provider servers of the first operator infrastructure.
Wherein Paterra teaches the encrypted frame being identified as a frame of the first operator infrastructure whereas the first network gateway of the first operator infrastructure is able to decrypt said encrypted frame with the first terminal private key, (Par. (0096) “”; decrypt said encrypted frame (data manifest is decrypted))
only the frame being decrypted by the first network gateway is relayed only to the first service provider servers of the first operator infrastructure. (Par. (0064) “the data from the shippable storage device 100 is decrypted, and the decrypted data is stored at one or more storage locations of the storage service provider 102.”; decrypted by gateway storage device 100 and sent to service provider for storage)) (Fig. 4 label 408 and 410; encrypted data that is decrypted sent to service provider))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sridhar, Choi and Lee within the teachings of Paterra because of the analogous concept of operator infrastructure the exchange of keys associated with service provider. Paterra includes a process of encryption keys used to decrypt frames and provide the data to service providers. This creates high assurances for users in the network that data will not be modified or compromised because of the decryption techniques only executed by one gateway device. This safeguard the system from harm and maintains high integrity as a whole. (Paterra Par. (0001-0003))
Regarding Independent Claim 11, claim is an independent communication device claim that recites similar limitations to the method of claim 3 and the teachings of Sridhar Choi, Lee and Paterra address all the limitations discussed in independent claim 3 and are thereby rejected under the same grounds.
Claim 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. (“Intelligent Security Framework for IoT Devices Cryptography based End -To- End security Architecture” (retrieved from IDS), hereinafter referred to as “Sridhar”) Choi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20150312041, hereinafter referred to as “Choi”) Lee et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20140317401, hereinafter referred to as “Lee”)and Paterra et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170178069, hereinafter referred to as “Paterra”) further in view of Teo et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20160134594, hereinafter referred to as “Teo”)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Sridhar, Choi, Lee and Paterra teach the method of claim 1, Sridhar further teaches the method of transmission of frames as claimed in claim 3, wherein the method of transmission comprises, (Page 3 section A paragraph 2-4: ”; transmission of frames ( secure data transmission); sensor node message corresponding to handshake))
a server private key, (Page 4 Step 1: 1.1 “ :; master key repository corresponding to key pairs of server (cloud services)), (Page 5 Step 7: 7.1 “”; encryption with server private key (private key of master key repository of server (cloud services))
However Sridhar, Choi, Lee and Paterra do not explicitly teach prior to the first encryption, a second encryption, termed a server encryption, of the frame with a server private key, the server private key being paired with a server public key stored in a network server of the first operator infrastructure.
Wherein Teo teaches prior to the first encryption, a second encryption, termed a server encryption, of the frame with a server …. key, (Par. (0020) .”; server encryption (method performed by at least one server [..] encryption key associated with server); (Par. (0020) ” ; prior to the first encryption (before third and fourth encryption), a second encryption termed sever encryption of the frame (second encryption with second encryption key corresponding to data packet)), (Par. (0038) .”; using server private key (private key of the server)), (Par. (0048) ”; with server private key (encryption key corresponding to private key)), (Par. (0031) .”; frame destined for the network server (data packet forward through servers))
the server private key being paired with a server public key stored in a network server of the first operator infrastructure. (Par. (0031) ”; pair of public and private key corresponding to storage of private key in server))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Teo within the teachings of Sridhar, Choi, Lee and Paterra because of the analogous concept of data transmission in wireless communication using a distribution of keys. Teo includes a process in which the server private keys are stored in the network server as well as prior to an encryption, a second encryption of the frame being performed with a server key. This is significant because by storing the keys in a network server it provides a solution to the growing problem of weak security in gateways, routers and modems. By moving the location of the key pair to a network server it lessens the likelihood of unnecessary risk and harm that might be caused in the transmission of frames in the network. By also performing a second encryption of the frames that is meant for transmission to the network server and extra layer of security is implemented and only the corresponding key pair can be used to decrypt the frame and have access to the contents. This in return leads to a wireless communication network that is no longer limited, compliant with IP protocols as well as be thorough in the verification process of frames because only the matching keys from the network server can lead to an authentic frame being transmitted. This securely protects to the network communication from impersonation, interception of keys and forgery as well as effective detection of valid frames being transmitted. (Teo Par. (0001-0003))
Claim 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. (“Intelligent Security Framework for IoT Devices Cryptography based End -To- End security Architecture” (retrieved from IDS), hereinafter referred to as “Sridhar”) Choi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20150312041, hereinafter referred to as “Choi”) Lee et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20140317401, hereinafter referred to as “Lee”) and Paterra et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170178069, hereinafter referred to as “Paterra”) further in view of Cole et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20190081716, hereinafter referred to as “Cole”)
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Sridhar, Choi, Lee and Paterra do not explicitly teach wherein the first communication network is a low-consumption wireless communication network.
Wherein Cole teaches wherein the first communication network is a low-consumption wireless communication network. (Par. (0076) “h”; low-consumption wireless communication network (long-range, wide area low-power wireless networks)), (Par. (0068-0069) ”; wireless network (wireless channel with packets) corresponding to low-consumption (low-power consumption))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cole within the teachings of Sridhar, Choi, Lee and Paterra to include a communication network being a low-consumption wireless communication network because of the analogous concept of LoRa wireless communication and the transmission of data. Cole includes an implementation in which the first communication network is a low-consumption wireless network. This is important because it allows users at home or in business using automation such as smart phones, watches, detection system etc. to be able to transmit and carry more data but use low power or energy. This allows long range wireless communication to be to send packets/frames to rural areas as opposed to indoor or underground location. By implementing a low-consumption wireless network antennas or transceivers communicating data can run on small inexpensive batteries as well as reduce the complexity of hardware designs and lower costs. This ultimately provides a solution to gateways in the zone of coverage by providing an effective way to prevent overloading of network traffic on servers because of the low-power or low-consumption use. This in return provides not only a secure communication in the network but a faster and efficient way to transmit data to a wide variety of users and business for longer periods of time. (Cole Par. (0002-0005))
Claim 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar et al. (“Intelligent Security Framework for IoT Devices Cryptography based End -To- End security Architecture” (retrieved from IDS), hereinafter referred to as “Sridhar”) Choi et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20150312041, hereinafter referred to as “Choi”) Lee et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20140317401, hereinafter referred to as “Lee”) and Paterra et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170178069, hereinafter referred to as “Paterra”) in further view of Luff et al. (U.S Pub. No. 20170070890, hereinafter referred to as “Luff”)
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Sridhar, Choi, Lee and Paterra do not explicitly teach wherein generating a digest of the frame as a function of an integrity key, the digest and the integrity key being added to the frame prior to the gateway encryption.
Wherein Luff teaches generating a digest of the frame as a function of an integrity key, (Par. (0009) ”; generating a digest of the frame (generating rolling hashes for plurality of packets)), (Par. (0047) “”; digest (digest/rolling hashes)), (Par. (0051) .”; as a function of an integrity key ( generation of digest/rolling hashes corresponding to key), (Par. (0037) ”; destined for the network servers (resources corresponding cloud servers in communication with device))
the digest and the integrity key being added to the frame prior to the gateway encryption. (Par. (0056-0061) ,”; the digest and the integrity key being added to the frame (combining the rolling hash, secret data and packets); prior to gateway encryption (combining of digest (rolling hashes) and integrity key (secret data corresponding to key) process done before encryption is performed)), , (Par. (0051) ”; secret data corresponding to key material), (Par. (0059) ”; key material corresponding to cryptographic key pairs)), (Par. (0040).”; gateway encryption (hardware used in encryption process corresponding to gateway devices))
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Luff within the teachings of Sridhar, Choi and Paterra because of the analogous concept of data transmission in wireless communication using a distribution of keys. Luff includes a process in which a generation of a digest associated with a frame is created as well as a key linked with both, the digest and key are added to the frame before encryption. This is important because it allows every frame that is sent to the network server through the gateway to only be accessible when corresponding to the accurate and valid key and digest combined beforehand. This allows the user for connected objects such as house-automation with opening of doors/curtains, thermostat, scales, monitoring systems such as weather detection and personal items such as watches and smart phones to be thoroughly verified and easily detected for authenticity or compromise. This ensures the user before encryption that forgery or penetration would not be possible because of the keys/digest are not a match when received than the frame would be ignored. This in return maintains the integrity of the system as a whole and provides low-consumption transmission of frames that protects the network from overloading of traffic flowing through the servers. (Luff Par. (0003-0006))
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Apelfrodj; Rikke (U.S No. 11159349) “Method For Estimating The Channel Between A Transceiver And A Mobile Communicating Object”. Considered this reference because it had a simpler assignee and addressed wireless communication with long range radio signals much like the instant application.
CHEN; Yong (U.S Pub. No. 20170223532) “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ACCESSING WIRELESS LOCAL AREA NETWORK”. Considered this application because it relates to the encryption of frames/packets and storing private keys in the server along with the concept of wireless network communication
Kountouris; Apostolos (U.S No. 9247430) “Method Of Processing A Data Packet On Transmission, A Method Of Processing A Data Packet On Reception, And Associated Devices And Nodes”. Considered this application because it addressed the transmission of data packets or frames with the use of gateway, routers, and nodes.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN A HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3554. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5pm.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. 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-y.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.
/H.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2497
/ELENI A SHIFERAW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2497