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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the submission of information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Gundel (US20170089495A1, hereinafter referred to as “Gundel”).
Regarding claim 1, Gundel discloses a cable management system (abstract line 1, wire management article, Fig 1, wire management article 2), comprising: a multicable clip (Figs 1, wire management elements 6, Fig 3a, Fig 9c, wire management elements 1006, Fig 10a, 1106) including: a plurality of cradles (Fig 2a, channel 112, Fig 3a, channel 212, 312, 412, 512) to receive a plurality of cables (wires 14); and a plurality of pedestals (Fig 6a, adhesive layer 532 and support 536, Fig 7b, base sheet 604 and support 636, Fig 8a, 704 and 736, Fig 9b, 904 and 932) to couple the multicable clip to one or more installation surfaces (Fig 15); a retention plate coupled to the multicable clip (Figs 11a and 11b, cover sheet 1316/1416 and 1318/1418 and 1322 coupled to multicable clips 1306/1406), the retention plate (1316+1318+1322) including: a plurality of spacers (1322) to block openings of the plurality of cradles (see Figs 11a and 11b) to retain the plurality of cables (14) within the plurality of cradles (112/212/312), wherein the plurality of spacers (1322) are positioned within the plurality of cradles (112/212/312) such that a first cradle of the plurality of cradles is blocked by a first spacer (Figs 11a and 11b, at least 5 cradles are blocked by spacers ), of the plurality of spacers, that is positioned within the first cradle, a second cradle of the plurality of cradles is blocked by a second spacer (Figs 11a and 11b, at least 5 cradles are blocked by spacers), of the plurality of spacers, that is positioned within the second cradle, and a third cradle of the plurality of cradles is blocked by a third spacer (Figs 11a and 11b, at least 5 cradles are blocked by spacers), of the plurality of spacers, that is positioned within the third cradle; and a plurality of plate retention fingers (Figs 1, 12e, 12h, pull tab 28, 2228, 2428) to secure the retention plate (1316+1318+1322) to the multicable clip (Figs 1 and 12h); and a cable raceway engageable with the multicable clip to at least partially enclose the multicable clip, the retention plate, and the plurality of cables (Fig 15, wiring duct 2852, cover 2855 and 2854 partially enclose clips, plate 2804 and cables (14)).
Regarding claim 2, Gundel discloses wherein the retention plate (Fig 11a, 1316+1318+1322) includes a first spacer (1322) of the plurality of spacers and a first plate retention finger (28) of the plurality of plate retention fingers, both configured to be positioned to block a first opening of a first cradle of the plurality of cradles (Fig 12h), the first plate retention finger (tabs) spaced apart from the first spacer (spacer can be any of head portion of 2546) by a void (Fig 15).
Regarding claim 3, Gundel discloses wherein the first plate retention finger is resiliently flexible toward the first spacer at least partially through the void during installation of the retention plate on the multicable clip (Fig 12h, note flexibility of pull tab achieved via tab hinge portion 30 of Fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Gundel discloses wherein the plurality of plate retention fingers are spaced apart from the plurality of spacers by a plurality of voids (Fig 12hh, two fingers/pull tabs are spaced apart from spacers (see labeled as A and B), including each plate retention finger being separated from each corresponding adjacent spacer by a corresponding void (note: void is shown above A and B inside channels).
Regarding claim 5, Gundel discloses wherein the plurality of cradles includes a plurality of clip arms (Fig 11a, stem portion 1308) configured to be positioned within some of the plurality of voids (portion of channel) when the retention plate is coupled to the multicable clip (Figs 11a and 11b), the openings of the plurality of cradles defined by gaps between adjacent clip arms (Figs 11a and 11b).
Regarding claim 6, Gundel discloses wherein the multicable clip comprises a first multicable clip, the cable management system further comprising: a first riser (Figs 16a and 16b, terminal block 2966) having a first end configured to be coupled to a first pedestal of the plurality of pedestals ([0062]: connecting using conventional ties or clamps); a second riser (Figs 17a and 17b, terminal block 3066) having a first end configured to be coupled to a second pedestal of the plurality of pedestals (Figs 17a and 17b) and a second multicable clip comprising a second plurality of cradles and a second plurality of pedestals (Fig 17b), the second multicable clip configured to be coupled to the first multicable clip by the first and second risers ([0064] perpendicular piggyback option carrier, second wire management article is stacked on first wire management article).
Regarding claim 7, Gundel discloses wherein: a first pedestal of the second plurality of pedestals of the second multicable clip is configured to be coupled to a second end of the first riser that is opposite the first end of the first riser ([0064] perpendicular piggyback option carrier, second wire management article is stacked on first wire management article); a second pedestal of the second plurality of pedestals of the second multicable clip is configured to be coupled to a second end of the second riser that is opposite the first end of the second riser ([0064] perpendicular piggyback option carrier, second wire management article is stacked on first wire management article); and the first and second risers are configured to align the second plurality of cradles of the second multicable clip to the plurality of cradles of the first multicable clip, space the second multicable clip apart from the first multicable clip, and couple the second multicable clip to the first multicable clip ([0064] perpendicular piggyback option carrier, second wire management article is stacked on first wire management article, see also combination of Figs 16a, 16b, 17a and 17b).
Regarding claim 8, Gundel discloses wherein each of a first and second pedestal of the second multicable clip defines a through hole (Figs 7a, 8a, holes for fasteners 638, 738) configured to receive therethrough a fastener (638, 738) to couple the first or second pedestal of the second multiple clip to the first or second riser (Figs 16a or 17a).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundel (US20170089495A1, hereinafter referred to as “Gundel”) and further in view of Pawluk (US20140008123A1, hereinafter referred to as “Pawluk”).
Regarding claim 14, Gundel fails to disclose or teach wherein: the cable raceway comprises: a base wall; a first sidewall extending from a first edge of the base wall; a second sidewall extending from a second edge of the base wall opposite the first edge; a first retention flange extending from a distal edge of the first sidewall toward the second sidewall; and a second retention flange extending from a distal edge of the second sidewall toward the first sidewall; the first pedestal has a first shoulder formed therein to engage the first retention flange of the cable raceway; and the second pedestal has a second shoulder formed therein to engage the second retention flange of the cable raceway.
However, Pawluk teaches wherein: the cable raceway (Fig 2, raceway 22) comprises: a base wall (Fig 2, bottom cover 34); a first sidewall (Figs 2 and 3, 30a, 30b combined) extending from a first edge of the base wall (Fig 3, 30a extending from edge of bottom cover 34 of raceway 22); a second sidewall (Figs 2 and 3, 32a, 32b combined) extending from a second edge of the base wall opposite the first edge (Fig 3, 32a extending from edge of bottom cover 34 of raceway 22); a first retention flange extending from a distal edge of the first sidewall toward the second sidewall (Fig 3, flange 44a’ or 44b’); and a second retention flange extending from a distal edge of the second sidewall toward the first sidewall (Fig 3, flange 44a or 44b); the first pedestal has a first shoulder formed therein to engage the first retention flange of the cable raceway (Fig 8, shoulder for pedestal at cable tray 32a at area of fastener 66, to engage flange 44a, 44b); and the second pedestal has a second shoulder formed therein to engage the second retention flange of the cable raceway (Fig 8, shoulder for pedestal at cable tray 32b at area of fastener 66, to engage flange 44a, 44b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify wire management article of Gundel by Pawluk based on the following rationales: referring to Figs 2-3, 8-9 of Pawluk, the presence of structures of upper and lower flanges 44a’, 44b and fasteners 66 together combined allows for stackingly fixing arrangement of cables in multiple rows of cable fixing assembly. On the other hand, referring to Gundel in Fig 15, only one row of cables is mounted and secured to raceway. Furthermore, referring to Figs 10, 11, 15, and 18-19 of Pawluk, various installation configurations of the multi-level cable bus system with modular cable trays out in subterranean outdoor environment are described in detailed, thereby enabling practical subterranean power distribution applications. On the other hand, no such installation configurations have been described for Gundel. As a result, above discussed advantages/benefits of Pawluk over Gundel serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify Gundel by Pawluk and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Pawluk and Gundel all belongs to same analogous art, in the field of cable clip holder for multicables.
Regarding claim 17, Gundel fails to disclose wherein: the cable raceway comprises a baseplate and a cover, the baseplate configured to mate with the cover to encircle the multicable clip and the retention plate; the cable management system further comprises a grounding screw that electrically and mechanically couples the cover to the baseplate.
However, Pawluk and Gundel combined teach wherein: the cable raceway comprises a baseplate (Pawluk Fig 2, panel 88) and a cover (Pawluk Fig 2, panel 90), the baseplate configured to mate with the cover to encircle the multicable clip and the retention plate (Pawluk Fig 2, panels 88 and 90 are mated to encircle clips of cables and retention plate of Gundel); the cable management system further comprises a grounding screw (Pawluk Figs 2 and 3, grounding lead 100) that electrically and mechanically couples the cover to the baseplate (Pawluk [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gundel by Pawluk based on the same rationales previously discussed for claim 14 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundel (US20170089495A1, hereinafter referred to as “Gundel”) in view of White (US 9841123B1, hereinafter referred to as “White”).
Regarding claim 15, Gundel fails to disclose or teach wherein: the cable raceway defines an anchor opening; and the cable management system further comprises an anchor fastener having an elongate portion configured to pass through the anchor opening and couple the cable raceway to the installation surface.
However, White teaches wherein: the cable raceway defines an anchor opening (Fig 4A, raceway (10) has anchor opening (60)); and the cable management system (Fig 4A) further comprises an anchor fastener (Fig 4A, set of rod 58 and nut 62) having an elongate portion (rod 58) configured to pass through the anchor opening (60) and couple the cable raceway to the installation surface (col 6, lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gundel by White based on the following rationales: referring to Figs 2D of White, the presence of structures of multiple sets of bolts 48 and clamps 42 together combined allows for stackingly fixing arrangement of cables in multiple columns and rows of cable fixing assembly. On the other hand, referring to Gundel in Fig 15, only one row of cables is mounted and secured to raceway. Furthermore, referring to Figs 4A and 8 of White, various installation configurations of cable trays 10 using hanger bracket 54 or support bracket 66 are described in detailed, thereby enabling practical installations. On the other hand, no such installation configurations have been described for Gundel. As a result, above discussed advantages/benefits of White over Gundel serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify Gundel by White and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because White and Gundel both belongs to same analogous art, in the field of cable clip holder for multicables.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundel (US20170089495A1, hereinafter referred to as “Gundel”) in view of White (US 9841123B1, hereinafter referred to as “White”), and further in view of “How to select a suitable anchor fixing” online article by Sungupta dated 03/17/2020 from JC Gupta and Sons, (hereinafter referred to as “Sungupta”).
Regarding claim 16, Gundel fails to disclose or teach wherein: the anchor opening has a first diameter; the elongate portion of the anchor fastener has a second diameter that is less than the first diameter; the elongate portion has a first end coupled to a head, the head having a third diameter that is greater than the first diameter to prevent the head from passing through the anchor opening; and a second end of the elongate portion opposite the first end is coupled to an expandable toggle anchor.
However, White teaches wherein: the anchor opening has a first diameter (Fig 4A, hole 60 has a diameter); the elongate portion (Fig 4A, rod 58) of the anchor fastener has a second diameter that is less than the first diameter (Fig 4A and col 6, lines 30-35 imply that rod 58 diameter is less than hole 60 diameter, in order to be capable to pass through); the elongate portion has a first end coupled to a head (Fig 4A nut 62 can be considered the head coupled to bottom end of rod 58), the head (62) having a third diameter that is greater than the first diameter to prevent the head from passing through the anchor opening (Fig 4A, nut 62 diameter greater than hole 60 diameter);
However, Gundel and White, singular or in any combination, fail to disclose or teach the following: and a second end of the elongate portion opposite the first end is coupled to an expandable toggle anchor.
However, Sungupta and White combined teach and a second end of the elongate portion opposite the first end is coupled to an expandable toggle anchor(White: the elongate portion (Fig 4A, rod 58); Sungupta: page 5, spring toggle anchor, described as especially useful for fixing cable trays).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gundel by White based on the same rationale previously discussed for claim 15 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify cable tray system of White by Sungupta based on the following rationales: referring to Figs 4A and 8 of White, various installation configurations of cable trays 10 using hanger bracket 54 or support bracket 66 are described in detailed, thereby enabling practical installations. However, referring to page 2 of Sungupta, which recites in part: “This is only a fraction of the possible uses of anchor bolts in masonary construction and with the increase of new, innovative architectural masonary designs, the uses of anchor bolts in masonary construction are likely to increase”. As a result, above discussed advantages/benefits of Sungupta over White serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify Gundel by White in view of Sungupta and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because the anchor bolts including spring toggle anchor of Sungupta can be easily adapted for use in fixing cable trays.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundel (US20170089495A1, hereinafter referred to as “Gundel” in view of Pawluk (US20140008123A1, hereinafter referred to as “Pawluk”), and further in view of Techline Mfg youtube video titled “Snap Track Installing a Bonding Jumper” dated 06/28/2018, (hereinafter referred to as “Techline”).
Regarding claim 18, Gundel fails to disclose or teach further comprising: a second multicable clip and a second retention plate configured to be spaced apart from the multicable clip and the retention plate to support one or more wires or cables at a different position along a length of the one or more wires or cables than the multicable clip and the retention plate; a second cable raceway configured to be positioned end-to-end with the cable raceway, the second cable raceway comprising a second baseplate and a second cover; the second baseplate configured to mate with the second cover to encircle the second multicable clip and the second retention plate; a second grounding screw that electrically and mechanically couples the second cover to the baseplate; and a conductive bonding whip having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the first end electrically and mechanically coupled to the cable raceway by the bonding screw and the second end electrically and mechanically coupled to the second cable raceway by the second bonding screw.
However, Pawluk and Gundel combined teach further comprising: a second multicable clip and a second retention plate configured to be spaced apart from the multicable clip and the retention plate to support one or more wires or cables at a different position along a length of the one or more wires or cables than the multicable clip and the retention plate (Fig 8, second level of clips with bars 50 and cross-brace members 40, spaced apart from first level of clips with bars 50 and cross-brace members 40, to support cables 12 at different positions along extending length of cable); a second cable raceway configured to be positioned end-to-end with the cable raceway (Fig 18, cable bus system 10 has at least three cable raceway sections connected, the middle horizontal cable raceway section is positioned end-to-end with the two vertical cable raceway sections), the second cable raceway comprising a second baseplate and a second cover (Fig 2, panel 88 and panel 90); the second baseplate configured to mate with the second cover to encircle the second multicable clip and the second retention plate (Fig 2, panels 88 and 90 are mated to encircle clips of cables of Gundel); a second grounding screw that electrically and mechanically couples the second cover to the baseplate (Figs 2 and 3, adding another grounding lead 100 to horizontal cable raceway section of Fig 18 that electrically and mechanically couples the cover to the baseplate ([0057]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gundel by Pawluk based on the same rationale previously discussed for claim 14 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
However, Gundel and Pawluk fails to disclose or teach and a conductive bonding whip having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the first end electrically and mechanically coupled to the cable raceway by the bonding screw and the second end electrically and mechanically coupled to the second cable raceway by the second bonding screw.
However, Techline teaches the following: and a conductive bonding whip (bonding jumpers) having a first end and a second end opposite the first end (see screen capture # 1 below), the first end electrically and mechanically coupled to the cable raceway by the bonding screw (video at 1:30min) and the second end electrically and mechanically coupled to the second cable raceway by the second bonding screw (see screen capture # 2 below).
Screen capture # 1 taken from Techline
PNG
media_image1.png
584
1127
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Screen capture # 2 taken from Techline
PNG
media_image2.png
494
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify cable tray system of Pawluk by Techline based on the following rationales: referring to Techline video at 1:00 min ~ 1:06 min, only one bonding jumper with snap track is needed, thereby no more drilling into the side of trays, which saves time and money. As a result, above discussed advantage of Techline over Pawluk serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify Gundel by Pawluk and Techline and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because the bonding jumper of Techline can be easily adapted for use in cable trays of Pawluk for the sake of maintaining a safe and efficient electrical conduit system.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gundel (US20170089495A1, hereinafter referred to as “Gundel”) in view of Cablofil cable label clip product page (hereinafter referred to as “Cablofil”).
Regarding claim 19, Gundel fails to disclose or teach further comprising a visibility clip coupled to the cable raceway, the visibility clip configured to increase a visibility of the cable raceway.
However, Cablofil teaches further comprising a visibility clip coupled to the cable raceway, the visibility clip configured to increase a visibility of the cable raceway (page 1: figure shows a bright green visibility clip coupled to a cable raceway).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify cable retention system of Gundel by Cablofil based on the following rationale: referring to figure in page 1 of Cablofil which shows a bright green visibility clip coupled to a cable raceway and descriptions of various color options in page 1 at bottom left corner for the label including white, orange, blue, yellow, green. As a result, above discussed label clip in many bright color options offered by Cablofil allows for easy identification of different segments of cable trays thereby serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify Gundel by Cablofil and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because the visibility clip of Cablofil can be easily adapted for use in cable trays and cable retention systems.
Regarding claim 20, Gundel fails to disclose or teach wherein at least one of: the visibility clip comprises a surface that faces a direction from which passersby are expected to approach; the visibility clip comprises a surface that exhibits a retroreflective effect; or the visibility clip comprises a surface having a neon yellow, neon green, neon orange, or neon red color.
However, Cablofil teaches wherein at least one of: the visibility clip comprises a surface that faces a direction from which passersby are expected to approach; the visibility clip comprises a surface that exhibits a retroreflective effect; or the visibility clip comprises a surface having a neon yellow, neon green, neon orange, or neon red color (page 1, left bottom corner: orange, yellow, green surfaces color options for the visibility clip, green clip in page 1 appears to exhibit reflective effect).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify cable retention system of Gundel by Cablofil based on same rationale previously discussed for claim 19 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21, 23 and 24 are allowable.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the above cited prior art in any combination, fails to disclose, teach or suggest “wherein a tip of each of the first and second risers is configured to be received within the through hole of the first or second pedestal of the second multicable clip, each tip having an outer diameter that is less than or equal to an inner diameter of the through hole” of claim 9, “wherein each of the first and second pedestals of the first multicable clip defines a riser recess including an enlarged portion having an interior shape that is complementary to an exterior shape of a base of each of the first and second risers” of claim 10, and “a plurality of plate retention fingers extending from the spine to engage the plurality of clip arms to secure the retention plate to the multicable clip; ….. wherein each of the plurality of plate retention fingers comprises an end protrusion configured to engage a corresponding clip arm of the multicable clip” of claim 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gelibert (US 20060144610A1) discloses a cable clamp.
McNutt (US 7534958B2) discloses a cable retaining system. Liu (US 20150056847A1) discloses a cable retention mechanism. Kovac (US 7387282B2) discloses a hinged clip for cable. Stevens (US 10123449B1) disclose a cable bracket.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am MT--5:00pm MT. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797
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.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights