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 IDS(s) has/have been considered and placed in the application file.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 62/063028, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The provisional does not mention maximum ratio combining (MRC).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,956,035 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they cover the same material as shown in the table below.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent No. 11,362,706 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they cover the same material as shown in the table below .
Instant Application’s claims
‘035 patent claim(s)
‘706 patent claim(s)
Analysis
1
1, 11
1, 12
Same invention. MRC circuit processing plural data streams followed by a MIMO transmitter.
2
2, 12
2, 13
Same architecture. Receiver receives MRC-processed signal and applies additional processing.
3
3, 13
3, 14
Same optical/RF link limitation.
4
4, 14
4, 15
Independent parallel channels limitation.
5
5, 15
6, 17
Same “simultaneous equations” channel matrix limitations.
6
6, 16
7, 18
Same SVD decomposition limitations.
7
7, 17
8, 19
Water-filling power distribution.
8
8, 18
9, 20
MMSE transmission techniques.
9
9
10, 21
Alamouti space-time coding.
10
10, 18
11
Antenna array + gain configurations.
11
1, 11
22, 24
MRC + MIMO transmission using pilot-based channel estimation.
12
2, 12
22, 23
Recovering data streams using MRC/MIMO.
13
3, 13
22
RF and optical communication links.
14
4, 14
23
Independent parallel channels form the combined transmission channel.
15
5, 15
25
Channel matrix defined by simultaneous equations.
16
6, 16
26
SVD decomposition of the channel matrix.
17
7, 17
27
Water-filling power allocation.
18
8, 18
28
MMSE processing.
19
9
10, 21, 29
Alamouti space-time coding.
20
11, 16
22, 24
MDM + MRC + MIMO.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-20 is/are objected to because of informalities. The examiner recommends the following changes.
Claim 1, 11, 20 – “maximum ration combining” should be “maximum ratio combining.”
Claim 1, recites "a plurality of data streams" then refers to "the plurality of input data streams." Inconsistent terminology creates ambiguity.
Claim 9, 19 – "Almouti-type” should be “Alamouti-type.”
Claim 10 – "mode division multiplexing circuitry" lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 does not recite MDM circuitry.
Claims 2-8 and 12-18 depend either directly or indirectly from the objection of claims 1 and 11, therefore they are also objected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The examiner does not believe it is possible to perform maximum ratio combining (MRC) prior to transmission because MRC requires multiple received replicas of the same signal. At the transmitter, there are no received replicas to combine you only have the baseband data streams, not noisy channel outputs. Therefore, when the claims state, “transmitting the MRC processed plurality of data streams” they are either (1) misusing the term MRC, or (2) relabeling MRT/precoding as MRC. Either way, the claims exceed what the specification actually teaches.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Paragraph [0784] of the spec discloses "at receiver, MRC can be determined." This is an explicit definition of where MRC occurs. Paragraph [0785]
discloses "Maximal Ratio Transmission (MRT) results in a simplistic transmission and reception scheme ... " Therefore, the spec knows the correct terminology, uses MRC for the receiver, and uses MRT for the transmitter. Thus there is no written description of “the MIMO transmitter transmits the MRC processed plurality of data streams.” Dependent claims confirm the real operation of SVD, water-filling, MMSE, and Alamouti schemes. These are all preceding/ transmission techniques, not combining.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “maximum ratio combining (MRC)” in claims 1-20 is used by the claim to mean “maximum ratio transmission (MRC),” while the accepted meaning is “maximum ratio transmission (MRT).” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Paragraph [0764] refers to the appendix and states the MRC circuit “processes the signals as discussed in the appendix” and “improves signal-to-noise ratio,” and that the MRC-processed signal is then fed into a MIMO transmitter. However, the equations in the appendix do not teach how to perform maximum ratio combining at the transmitter. These equations are standard derivations of zero-forcing, MMSE and MRC receiver combiners. MRC is a receiver-side diversity combiner: the receiver estimates the channel, rotates the signal by the conjugate channel coefficients and weights them proportional to their magnitude so the signals add coherently.
The appendix does not describe and transmit-side weighting. In fact, it admits that for classical transmit beamforming (MRT) the transmitter must know the complex channel gains and that without such CSI it is not possible to with the antennas so the signals add coherently at the receiver. As a work around they use Alamouti’s 2x1 codes which they state “achieves an order of 2 without CSI at TX.”
The Alamouti space-time block code (uses two transmits antennas and two time slots to achieve diversity without transmitter channel knowledge). In the Alamouti scheme, the transmitter sends x1 and x2 in the first time slot and -x2*and x1* in the second slot. The receiver then combines the two observations using channel conjugate weights to recover the symbols, but the transmitter does not perform any maximum ratio combining.
No maximum ratio combining takes place at the transmitter in this scheme. The two symbols are not weighted or combined before transmission; they are simply arranged in the Alamouti pattern. The “combining” happens entirely at the receiver.
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.
(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) 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Negus (US 8,238,318 B1 – hereinafter “Negus”).
Claims 1 and 11.
A communications system, comprising:
a maximum ratio combining (MRC) circuit for receiving a plurality of data streams and processing the plurality of input data streams using maximum ration combining to improve signal to noise ratio (C25:L1-5 discloses “BF or MRC can be utilized at either the transmitter or the receiver (or both) to improve either the signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) or the signal to noise ratio (SNR).”); and
a MIMO transmitter for transmitting the MRC processed plurality of data streams over a plurality of separate communications links from the MIMO transmitter (C24:L55-60 discloses “the term MIMO is used in the context of spatially multiplexing multiple encoded and modulated information streams from multiple transmit antennas into a multipath channel for receipt at multiple receive antennas“), each of the plurality of separate communications links from one transmitting antenna of a plurality of transmitting antennas to each of a plurality of receiving antennas at a MIMO receiver (C24:L50-55 disclose “a transmitter that has multiple transmit antennas ( or "inputs" to the propagation channel) communicates with a receiver that has multiple
receive antennas ( or "outputs" from the propagation channel)”; C7:L33-47 discloses “The intelligent backhaul radio may further include … a plurality of transmit RF chains … and, wherein the antenna array further includes a plurality of RF connections to couple at least certain of the plurality of directive gain antenna elements to the plurality of transmit RF chains.”), wherein the MIMO transmitter transmits the MRC processed plurality of data streams using a channel matrix of an impulse response of a channel (C24:L58-60 discloses “inversion of channel transfer matrix, usually determined by a known training block associated with each PPDU”), the channel matrix created using a pilot signal transmitted on a pilot channel (C23:L35-43 discloses “transmission of known "pilot" sequences of symbols at certain predetermined subchannels within the transmit block enables the OFDM receiver to track such channel distortions and frequency offsets during reception of information symbol blocks the PPDU as well as provide a coherent reference for demodulation.”).
Claims 2 and 12.
The communications system of Claim 1 further including: a MIMO receiver for receiving the MRC processed plurality of data streams over the plurality of separate communications links from the MIMO transmitter; and second maximum ratio combining (MRC) circuit for processing the MRC processed plurality of data streams to remove the MRC processing and outputting the plurality of data streams (C25:L1-5 discloses “BF or MRC can be utilized at either the transmitter or the receiver (or both) to improve either the signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) or the signal to noise ratio (SNR).” In the case of the MRC being used at both the transmitter and receiver, there would be a second MRC circuit.).
Claim 3 and 13.
The communications system of Claim 1, wherein the MIMO transmitter transmits the carrier signal over at least one of an optical link or a radio frequency (RF) link (C14:L20-25 discloses “transmit RF chains”).
Claims 4 and 14.
The communications system of Claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of separate communications links comprises independent parallel channels (C23:L5-10 discloses “OFDM essentially converts the frequency-selective fading broadband channel into a parallel
collection of flat-fading subchannels wherein the frequency spacing between subchannels is chosen to maintain orthogonality of their corresponding time domain waveforms.”).
Claims 5 and 15.
The communications system of Claim 1, wherein the channel matrix comprises a set of simultaneous equations, each equation representing a received signal which is a composite of a unique set of channel coefficients applied to the transmitted MRC processed plurality of data streams (C24:L55-65 discloses “MIMO is used in the context of spatially multiplexing multiple encoded and modulated information streams from multiple transmit antennas into a multipath channel for receipt at multiple receive antennas wherein inversion of channel transfer matrix.” Where, the inversion of the channel matrix is the linear algebra operation used to solve a system of simultaneous linear equations. C63:L5-10 discloses “a channel equalizer coefficients generator, wherein the channel equalizer coefficients generator determines stream-specific and chain-specific receive weights”).
Claims 6 and 16.
The communications system of Claim 1, wherein the channel matrix can be decomposed using singular value decomposition (C25:L24-27 disclose “As with BF (and MRC), numerous algorithms for computing the optimal weighting criteria, such as Eigen Beam Forming (EBF), amongst multiple antennas are well known.” Where, eigen beam forming is the process of transmitting data on the eigenmodes of the channel. Mathematically, these eigenmodes are derived using the SVD of the channel matrix. See the instant application’s paragraph [0696].).
Claims 8 and 18.
The communications system of Claim 1, wherein the MIMO transmitter implements minimum mean square error (MMSE) techniques for transmissions on the plurality of separate communications links (C31:L1-5 discloses MMSE).
Claim 10.
The communications system of Claim 1, wherein the MIMO transmitter further comprises an antenna array for transmitting the plurality of separate communications links and further wherein the mode division multiplexing circuitry, MRC circuit and MIMO transmitter configure the plurality of separate communications links to provide array gain (C24:L55-65 discloses “MIMO is used in the context of spatially multiplexing multiple encoded and modulated information streams from multiple transmit antennas into a multipath channel for receipt at multiple receive antennas wherein inversion of channel transfer matrix, usually determined by a known training block associated with each PPDU, enables separation and demodulation/decoding of each information stream – a process called MIMO-SM.”).
Claim 20.
A method, comprising:
receiving a plurality of input data streams at mode division multiplexing circuitry (C24:L55-65 discloses “MIMO is used in the context of spatially multiplexing multiple encoded and modulated information streams from multiple transmit antennas into a multipath channel for receipt at multiple receive antennas wherein inversion of channel transfer matrix, usually determined by a known training block associated with each PPDU, enables separation and demodulation/decoding of each information stream – a process called MIMO-SM.”); and
generating a first group of the plurality of input data streams having a first group of orthogonal functions applied thereto and a second group of the plurality of input data streams having a second group of orthogonal functions applied thereto onto a mode division multiplexed carrier signal (C25:L24-27 disclose “As with BF (and MRC), numerous algorithms for computing the optimal weighting criteria, such as Eigen Beam Forming (EBF), amongst multiple antennas are well known.” Where, eigen beam forming utilizes eigenvectors (mathematical orthogonal functions) to define transmission modes. C14:L20-25 discloses “The set of directive gain antenna elements that can be coupled to transmit RF chains may include directive gain
antenna elements of at least two different orthogonal polarizations.”);
receiving the mode division multiplexed carrier signal at a maximum ratio combining (MRC) circuit (C25:L5-10 discloses “BF or MRC optimally combine the information signal received from the multiple antennas or split the information stream signal as transmitted by the multiple antennas.”);
processing the mode division multiplexed carrier signal using maximum ration combining to improve signal to noise ratio at the MRC circuit (C25:L1-5 discloses “BF or MRC can be utilized at either the transmitter or the receiver (or both) to improve either the signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) or the signal to noise ratio (SNR).”);
transmitting the MRC processed mode division multiplexed carrier signal from a MIMO transmitter over a plurality of separate communications links from the MIMO transmitter (C25:L5-8 discloses “BF or MRC optimally combine the information signal received from the multiple antennas or split the information stream signal as transmitted by the multiple antennas.”) each of the plurality of separate communications links from one transmitting antenna of a plurality of transmitting antennas to each of a plurality of receiving antennas at a MIMO receiver (C24:L50-55 disclose “a transmitter that has multiple transmit antennas ( or "inputs" to the propagation channel) communicates with a receiver that has multiple
receive antennas ( or "outputs" from the propagation channel)”; C7:L33-47 discloses “The intelligent backhaul radio may further include … a plurality of transmit RF chains … and, wherein the antenna array further includes a plurality of RF connections to couple at least certain of the plurality of directive gain antenna elements to the plurality of transmit RF chains.”); and
wherein the MIMO transmitter transmits the MRC processed mode division multiplexed carrier signal including the first and the second groups of the plurality of input data streams using a channel matrix of an impulse response of a channel (C24:L58-60 discloses “inversion of channel transfer matrix, usually determined by a known training block associated with each PPDU”), the channel matrix is created using a pilot signal transmitted on a pilot channel (C23:L35-43 discloses “transmission of known "pilot" sequences of symbols at certain predetermined subchannels within the transmit block enables the OFDM receiver to track such channel distortions and frequency offsets during reception of information symbol blocks the PPDU as well as provide a coherent reference for demodulation.”).
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7, 9, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negus in view of Fitch (US 2011/0014885 A1 – hereinafter “Fitch”).
Claim 7 and 17.
Negus discloses the communications system of Claim 1, wherein the MIMO transmitter uses (Negus C24:L55-60 discloses “the term MIMO is used in the context of spatially multiplexing multiple encoded and modulated information streams from multiple transmit antennas into a multipath channel for receipt at multiple receive antennas“).
Negus discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching “a water filling algorithm to determine power distribution.” However, Fitch in the same field of endeavor teaches a water filling algorithm to determine power distribution (Paragraph [0040] discloses “The optimal power allocation can be obtained by using the water-filling algorithm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Negus and Fitch before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to optimize power allocation across the parallel sub-channels and thereby maximize overall channel capacity, particularly in low signal-to-noise ratio conditions. This motivation for the combination of Negus and Fitch is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claims 9 and 19.
Negus discloses the communications system of Claim 1, wherein the MIMO transmitter implements (Negus C24:L55-60 discloses “the term MIMO is used in the context of spatially multiplexing multiple encoded and modulated information streams from multiple transmit antennas into a multipath channel for receipt at multiple receive antennas“).
Negus discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching “Almouti-type techniques.” However, Fitch in the same field of endeavor teaches Almouti-type techniques (Paragraph [0004] discloses “In open-loop MIMO the transmitter typically transmits equal energy from each antenna element and applies symbol coding that is resilient to any channel conditions. An example of such coding is the Alamouti coding specified by the WiMAX forum”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Negus and Fitch before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to include Fitch’s Alamouti coding as a robust transmit diversity technique to maintain reliable communication during open-loop operation modes when precise channel information is unavailable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ross Varndell whose telephone number is (571)270-1922. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, O’Neal Mistry can be reached at (313)446-4912. 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.
/Ross Varndell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674