Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election, without traverse, of claims 1-10 in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
This office action consider claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bulumulla et al. (US 20200166704 A1; hereinafter Bulumulla).
Regarding claim 1, Bulumulla teaches a semiconductor device (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 5; [0163+], and as cited below), comprising:
an electronic device (202; Fig. 2; [0045-0046]);
a guard trace (210; Fig. 2; [0047]), connecting to a ground layer (204b; Fig. 2; [0047]) through a first ground via (214; Fig. 2; [0047]); and
a first trace ({208, 224}; Fig. 2; [0046-0048]), disposed adjacent to the electronic device (202; Fig. 2; [0045-0046]) and the guard trace (210; Fig. 2; [0047]) and comprising a first segment (224; Fig. 2; [0046-0048]), wherein (see below for “a phase or a direction of a first current signal conducted on”) the first trace ({208, 224}; Fig. 2; [0046-0048]) (see below for “is changed in”) the first segment (224; Fig. 2; [0046-0048]), and
wherein the electronic device (202; Fig. 2; [0045-0046]) and the first trace ({208, 224}; Fig. 2; [0046-0048]) are disposed at different sides of the guard trace (210; Fig. 2; [0047]) and the first ground via (214; Fig. 2; [0047]) is beside the first segment (224; Fig. 2; [0046-0048]).
It is the Examiner’s position that the limitation of "wherein a phase or a direction of a first current signal conducted on the first trace is changed in the first segment” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2114. Furthermore, because the device of prior art Bulumulla has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of operating in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Moreover, as per MPEP 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Bulumulla teaches the structure of claim 1 as detailed above. Thus, Bulumulla teaches all of the structural elements of the claimed product, and when the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding claim 2, Bulumulla teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Bulumulla further teaches wherein the first ground via (214; Fig. 2; [0047]) is located at a position on the guard trace (210; Fig. 2; [0047]) that is neighboring to the first segment (224; Fig. 2; [0046-0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Bulumulla teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Bulumulla further comprising: a second trace ({218a, 206}; Fig. 2; [0048]), disposed adjacent to the electronic device (202; Fig. 2; [0045-0046]) and the guard trace (210; Fig. 2; [0047]) and comprising a second segment (206; Fig. 2; [0038]), wherein (see below for “a phase or a direction of a second current signal conducted on”) the second trace ({218a, 206}; Fig. 2; [0048]) (see below for “is changed in”) the second segment (206; Fig. 2; [0038]), and wherein the first trace ({208, 224}; Fig. 2; [0046-0048]) and the second trace ({218a, 206}; Fig. 2; [0048]) (see below for “form a differential pair”) and the first ground via (214; Fig. 2; [0047]) is beside the second segment (206; Fig. 2; [0038]).
It is the Examiner’s position that the limitation of "wherein a phase or a direction of a second current signal conducted on the second trace is changed in the second segment, and wherein the first trace and the second trace form a differential pair and the first ground via is beside the second segment” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2114. Furthermore, because the device of prior art Bulumulla has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of operating in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Moreover, as per MPEP 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Bulumulla teaches the structure of claims 1 and 3 as detailed above. Thus, Bulumulla teaches all of the structural elements of the claimed product, and when the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding claim 4, Bulumulla teaches all of the features of claim 3.
Bulumulla further teaches wherein a layout of the first trace ({208, 224}; Fig. 2; [0046-0048]) and a layout of the second trace ({218a, 206}; Fig. 2; [0048]) cross over one another.
Regarding claim 10, Bulumulla teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Bulumulla further teaches wherein the electronic device (202; Fig. 2; [0045-0046]) is an inductive device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
3. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bulumulla et al. (US 20200166704 A1; hereinafter Bulumulla), in view of Moazzami et al. (US 20100044093 A1; hereinafter Moazzami).
Regarding claim 5, Bulumulla teaches all of the features of claim 3.
Bulumulla further teaches wherein a projection area of the first segment (224; Fig. 2; [0046-0048]) on a predetermined plane and a projection area of the second segment (206; Fig. 2; [0038]) on the predetermined plane are overlapped (see below for “at a first twisting point”).
As noted above, Bulumulla does not expressly disclose “wherein a projection area of the first segment on a predetermined plane and a projection area of the second segment on the predetermined plane are overlapped at a first twisting point”.
However, in the analogous art, Moazzami teaches layout geometries for differential electrical signals ([0002]), wherein (Fig. 1+; [0002+]) traces (103; Fig. 1; [0028]) and (104; Fig. 1; [0028]) form a differential pair for an in-phase component of a QAM signal. In one embodiment, the alternating sections of the conductive elements 103 and 104 may have equal lengths and cross at intervals. Traces (103; Fig. 1; [0028]) and (104; Fig. 1; [0028]) are adjacent to ground layer (105; Fig. 1; [0028])
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bulumulla’s trace structure with Moazzami’s differential pair structure, and thereby, modified Bulumulla’s (by Moazzami) device will have
a projection area of the first segment (Bulumulla in view of Moazzami segment of 103; Fig. 1; [0028]) on a predetermined plane and a projection area of the second segment (Bulumulla in view of Moazzami segment of 104; Fig. 1; [0028]) on the predetermined plane are overlapped at a first twisting point (in view of Moazzami segment of Fig. 1; [0028]).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bulumulla in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides conductive elements that have alternating sections which are symmetrical. The symmetry may contribute to providing a matched capacitive coupling between the conductive elements (Moazzami [0033]).
Regarding claim 6, Bulumulla teaches all of the features of claim 3.
Bulumulla further comprising: a second ground via (214; Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 3B, 3E; [0047]), connecting the guard trace (210; Fig. 2; [0047]) to the ground layer (204b; Fig. 2; [0047]), wherein (see below for “the phase or the direction of the first current signal conducted on”) the first trace ({208, 224}; Fig. 2 in view of ; [0046-0048]) (see below for “is further changed in a third segment, the phase or the direction of the second current signal conducted on”) the second trace ({218a, 206}; Fig. 2; [0048]) (see below for “is further changed in a fourth segment”), the second ground via (214; Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 3B, 3E; [0047]) (see below for “is beside the third segment and the fourth segment and a projection area of the third segment on a predetermined plane and a projection area of the fourth segment on the predetermined plane are overlapped at a second twisting point”).
As noted above, Bulumulla does not expressly disclose “a second ground via, connecting the guard trace to the ground layer, wherein the phase or the direction of the first current signal conducted on the first trace is further changed in a third segment, the phase or the direction of the second current signal conducted on the second trace is further changed in a fourth segment, the second ground via is beside the third segment and the fourth segment and a projection area of the third segment on a predetermined plane and a projection area of the fourth segment on the predetermined plane are overlapped at a second twisting point”.
However, in the analogous art, Moazzami teaches layout geometries for differential electrical signals ([0002]), wherein (Fig. 1+; [0002+]) traces (103; Fig. 1; [0028]) and (104; Fig. 1; [0028]) form a differential pair for an in-phase component of a QAM signal. In one embodiment, the alternating sections of the conductive elements 103 and 104 may have equal lengths and cross at intervals. Traces (103; Fig. 1; [0028]) and (104; Fig. 1; [0028]) are adjacent to ground layer (105; Fig. 1; [0028])
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bulumulla’s trace structure with Moazzami’s differential pair structure, and thereby, modified Bulumulla’s (by Moazzami) device will have a second ground via (Bulumulla 214; Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 3B, 3E; [0047]), connecting the guard trace (Bulumulla 210; Fig. 2; [0047]) to the ground layer (Bulumulla 204b; Fig. 2; [0047]), wherein (see below for “the phase or the direction of the first current signal conducted on”) the first trace (Bulumulla in view Moazzami segment of 103; Fig. 1; [0028]) is further changed in a third segment (in view of Moazzami segment of 103; Fig. 1; [0028]), (see below for “the phase or the direction of the second current signal conducted on”) the second trace (Bulumulla in view of Moazzami segment of 104; Fig. 1; [0028]) is further changed in a fourth segment (in view of Moazzami segment of 104; Fig. 1; [0028]), the second ground via (Bulumulla 214; Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 3B, 3E; [0047]) is beside the third segment (Bulumulla in view of Moazzami segment of 103; Fig. 1; [0028]) and the fourth segment (Bulumulla in view of Moazzami segment of 104; Fig. 1; [0028]) and a projection area of the third segment (Bulumulla in view of Moazzami segment of 103; Fig. 1; [0028]) on a predetermined plane and a projection area of the fourth segment (Bulumulla in view of Moazzami segment of 104; Fig. 1; [0028]) on the predetermined plane are overlapped at a second twisting point
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bulumulla in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides conductive elements that have alternating sections which are symmetrical. The symmetry may contribute to providing a matched capacitive coupling between the conductive elements (Moazzami [0033]).
It is the Examiner’s position that the limitation of "a second ground via, connecting the guard trace to the ground layer, wherein the phase or the direction of the first current signal conducted on the first trace is further changed in a third segment, the phase or the direction of the second current signal conducted on the second trace is further changed in a fourth segment, the second ground via is beside the third segment and the fourth segment and a projection area of the third segment on a predetermined plane and a projection area of the fourth segment on the predetermined plane are overlapped at a second twisting point” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2114. Furthermore, because the device of prior art modified Bulumulla (by Moazzami) has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of operating in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Moreover, as per MPEP 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In this case, modified Bulumulla (by Moazzami) teaches the structure of the claim as detailed above. Thus, modified Bulumulla (by Moazzami) teaches all of the structural elements of the claimed product, and when the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
4. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bulumulla et al. (US 20200166704 A1; hereinafter Bulumulla), in view of Kireev et al. (US 20130176647 A1; hereinafter Kireev).
Regarding claim 7, Bulumulla teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Liu further comprising: (see below for “a first inverter circuit”), disposed on the first trace ({208, 224}; Fig. 2; [0046-0048]) (see below for “to change the direction or the phase of the first current signal”).
As noted above, Bulumulla does not expressly disclose “a first inverter circuit”, disposed on the first trace to change the direction or the phase of the first current signal”.
However, in the analogous art, Kireev teaches integrated circuits, and in particular, to a driver circuit and a method of generating an output signal ([0001]), wherein (Fig. 1+; [0001+]) a driver circuit comprises a signal node coupled to receive an output signal of the integrated circuit; an inductor circuit having a resistor coupled in series with an inductor between a first terminal and a second terminal, where the signal node may comprise a node of an inverter circuit ([0005], Claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Kireev’s inverter circuit into Bulumulla’s device and thereby, modified Bulumulla’s (by Kireev) device will have
a first inverter circuit (in view of Kireev [0005], Claim 3), disposed on the first trace (Bulumulla {208, 224}; Fig. 2; [0046-0048]) (see below for “to change the direction or the phase of the first current signal
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bulumulla in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides an inverter circuit (Kireev [0005]), which helps increase the functionality of the device.
It is the Examiner’s position that the limitation of “a first inverter circuit, disposed on the first trace to change the direction or the phase of the first current signal” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2114. Furthermore, because the device of prior art Bulumulla (by Kireev) has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of operating in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Moreover, as per MPEP 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In this case, modified Bulumulla (by Kireev) teaches the structure of the claim as detailed above. Thus, modified Bulumulla (by Kireev) teaches all of the structural elements of the claimed product, and when the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding claim 8, Bulumulla teaches all of the features of claim 7.
Bulumulla further teaches wherein there is a phase difference around 180 degree at an operation frequency of the semiconductor device in the first current signal between two sides of the first inverter circuit (in view of Kireev [0005], Claim 3).
However, it has been held that “wherein there is a phase difference around 180 degree at an operation frequency of the semiconductor device in the first current signal between two sides of the first inverter circuit” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein there is a phase difference around 180 degree at an operation frequency of the semiconductor device in the first current signal between two sides of the first inverter circuit is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing wherein there is a phase difference around 180 degree at an operation frequency of the semiconductor device in the first current signal between two sides of the first inverter circuit is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein there is a phase difference around 180 degree at an operation frequency of the semiconductor device in the first current signal between two sides of the first inverter circuit as claimed in device because having wherein there is a phase difference around 180 degree at an operation frequency of the semiconductor device in the first current signal between two sides of the first inverter circuit can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired.
The applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of said first predetermined amount.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Bulumulla teaches all of the features of claim 7.
Bulumulla further comprising: a second ground via (214; Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 3B, 3E; [0047]), connecting the guard trace (210; Fig. 2; [0047]) to the ground layer (204b; Fig. 2; [0047]), and a second inverter circuit (in view of Kireev [0005], Claim 3), disposed on the first trace ({208, 224}; Fig. 2; [0046-0048]) (see below for “to change the direction or the phase of the first current signal”), wherein the first ground via (214; Fig. 2; [0047]) is located at a position on the guard trace (210; Fig. 2; [0047]) that is neighboring to the first inverter circuit (in view of Kireev [0005], Claim 3) and the second ground via (214; Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 3B, 3E; [0047]) is located at a position on the guard trace (210; Fig. 2; [0047]) that is neighboring to the second inverter circuit (in view of Kireev [0005], Claim 3).
It is the Examiner’s position that the limitation of “a second ground via, connecting the guard trace to the ground layer, and a second inverter circuit, disposed on the first trace to change the direction or the phase of the first current signal, wherein the first ground via is located at a position on the guard trace that is neighboring to the first inverter circuit and the second ground via is located at a position on the guard trace that is neighboring to the second inverter circuit” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2114. Furthermore, because the device of prior art Bulumulla (by Kireev) has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of operating in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Moreover, as per MPEP 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In this case, modified Bulumulla (by Kireev) teaches the structure of the claim as detailed above. Thus, modified Bulumulla (by Kireev) teaches all of the structural elements of the claimed product, and when the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898