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 .
Response to Amendment and Argument
1. This communication is in response to applicant's 04/10/2026 communications in the application of Chu et al. for the "BEACONING WITH RANGE EXTENSION" filed 10/04/2023. This application claims priority from provisional application No. 63/378,321 filed on Oct. 4, 2022. The amendment and response have been entered and made of record. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
2. Applicant’s remarks and argument to the rejected claims are insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior arts or overcome the rejection of said claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed below. Applicant’s argument with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
3. In response to applicant's argument that the combination of cited references fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness. In response, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is not necessary that a “prima facie” case of unpatentability exist as to the claim in order for “a substantial new question of patentability” to be present as to the claim. Thus, “a substantial new question of patentability” as to a patent claim could be present even if the examiner would not necessarily reject the claim as either fully anticipated by, or obvious in view of, the prior art patents or printed publications. As to the importance of the difference between “a substantial new question of patentability” and a “prima facie” case of unpatentability see generally In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857 n.5, 225 USPQ 1, 4 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Also, See MPEP § 2141.01(a) for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP § 2131.05 for a discussion of analogous and nonanalogous art in the context of 35 U.S.C. 102. 904.02. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, the idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. See MPEP 2144.06 and In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
4. In response to Applicant’s argument that the reference does not teach or reasonably suggest the functionality upon which the Examiner relies for the rejection. The Examiner first emphasizes for the record that the claims employ a broader in scope than the Applicant’s disclosure in all aspects. In addition, the Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim limitations, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. Since the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is required to interpret the claim limitations in terms of their broadest reasonable interpretations while determining patentability of the disclosed invention. See MPEP 2111. In other words, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000), In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999), and In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). Any term that is not clearly defined in the specification must be given its plain meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.01. See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302, 67 USPQ2d 1438, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The interpretation of the claims by their broadest reasonable interpretation reduces the possibility that, once the claims are issued, the claims are interpreted more broadly than justified. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the failure to significantly narrow definition or scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims in parallel to the Applicant in the response and reiterates the need for the Applicant to distinctly define the claimed invention.
5. In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, i.e., Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975), Choi et al. (US#11,337,149) and Gan et al. (US#12,035,366) as proposed in the office action. The Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Since no substantial amendments have been made and the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, the claims are drawn to the same invention and the text of the prior art rejection can be found in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the references cited and applied in the last office actions for the rejection of the claims are maintained in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4, 6-10 and 13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) in view of Cai et al. (US#8,923,188).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the references disclose a system and method for the range extension frame forwarding in wireless communication systems, according to the essential features of the claims. Zhang discloses a method of broadcasting a beacon by a relay device in a basic service set (Col. 9; lines 30-38: An AP may signal a range extension mode in a beacon frame e.g., to indicate and/or enable BSS-wide range extension), comprising: receiving an announcement from a first device indicating whether the relay device is to forward a received beacon to a second device; receiving a beacon from the first device; and forwarding the beacon to the second device based upon the announcement (Fig. 15; Col. 2, lines 42-67, and Col. 28, lines 9-22 : relay node 1502 received, decodes and forwards a data frame 1524 to a destination node 1506, wherein traffic indication map indications for the new end-STA in a beacon from the Relay-AP. As seen in Fig. 5, The AP 502 broadcasts a TIM 530 with a positive indication of DL data buffered at the AP for STAs 506, 508, 510. The relay node may broadcast its beacon with the full TIM, the same as broadcast by the root AP).
Zhang reference does not explicitly disclose wherein receiving an announcement from a first device indicating whether the relay device is to forward a received beacon to a second device. In the same field of endeavor, Cai et al. (US#8,923,188) teaches in Fig. 3 a block diagram illustrated of operations in providing data forwarding, in which the forwarder beacon (F-STA 305 operating as a forwarder station for n beacon periods) forwards the transmission to the access point (AP 315) over the communications medium. The active F-STAs may also include some other information in its transmission, e.g., channel information between the forwarder and the AP, and the like, to facilitate the forwarder selection of other NF-STAs (see also Figs. 4, 6; Col. 3, lines 30-51 & Col. 6, line 34 to Col. 9, line 14; Col. 11, lines 27-65).
Thus, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Cai’s forwarder station into Zhang’s techniques for associating a new end-station (end-STA) with a relay access point (R-AP) in a relay transmissions, since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR V. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claims 2, 17, Zhang in view of Cai discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) further teaches wherein receiving a ultra-high reliability (UHR) PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) from the first device that announces the forwarding of the beacon (Figs. 2-3; Col. 9, line 50 to Col. 10, line 17: a BSS operating channel established by the AP that features multiple channels used to transmit frames e.g., Physical Layer Protocol Data Units (PPDUs), beacons, management frames, etc. between the root-AP, a relay-STA, and end-STA).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Cai discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) further teaches wherein the beacon is forwarded after a short interframe space (SIFS) amount of time after an end of the received UHR PPDU (Figs. 2-3; Col. 9, lines 55-62: After a short interframe space (SIFS) interval 212, the relay node 204 sends an ACK 214 to the AP 202 and sets the early ACK indication bits for the next outgoing frame to “11” - step 232)
Regarding claims 4, 18, Zhang in view of Cai discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) further teaches wherein a SERVICE field of a PPDU carrying the beacon transmitted by the relay device is same as a SERVICE field of the PPDU carrying the beacon received by the second device (Figs. 24-27; Col. 38, lines 31-44: the transmitter/source node calculates the ACK ID using the same formula as the receiver/ responder/relay node i.e., using the partial FCS and the information from the scrambling seed in the SERVICE field of the frame being acknowledged).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Cai discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) further teaches wherein adjusting a timestamp of the forwarded beacons based upon a timestamp in the received beacon, a length of the beacon, a predefined interframe space (IFS) time, and a number of hops between the first device and the relay device (Figs. 2-3; Col. 9, lines 55-62: After receiving the ACK 214, the AP 202 removes the data frame 210 from its transmission buffer and defers for a period of time equal to: MAX_PPDU+ACK+(2×SIFS) before the next event step 234).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of Cai discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) further teaches wherein the forwarded beacon includes an indication that the forwarded beacon is a forwarded beacon (Col. 15, lines 12-25: the early ACK indication bits in response to a frame from the source node to be forwarded to the destination node).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Cai discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) further teaches wherein the forwarded beacon only carries information of the first device (Col. 15, lines 57-67: the source node STA sends frames e.g., data frames to the relay node to be forwarded to the destination node).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Cai discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) further teaches wherein sending a broadcast management frame announcing the information of a relay station to the second device (Fig. 5; Col. 12, lines 17-29: The relay node n 504 broadcasts its beacon with a TIM 550, the same as broadcast by the root AP, with only positive indications of end-STAs that are associated with the relay node n 504).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Cai discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) further teaches wherein the forwarded beacon carries information of the first device and the relay device (Fig. 8; Col. 16, lines 35-48: When A-MPDUs are forwarded on a relay path, it may improve the efficiency of frame transmission on the relay path because the A-MPDU carries aggregated MPDUs).
Regarding claims 13, 19, 20, Zhang in view of Cai discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth above. Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) further teaches wherein receiving first block acknowledge from the second device indicating that a PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) from the first device was received by the second device; and transmitting a second block acknowledge to the first device indicating that a PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) from the first device was received by the second device (Figs. 2-3; Col. 9, line 50 to Col. 10, line 27: An acknowledgement is received from the root AP on a condition that the root AP correctly receives the message and associates an identifier of the end-STA with an identifier of the R-AP).
9. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) in view of Cai et al. (US#9,793,975) and further in view of Choi et al. (US#11,337,149).
Regarding claims 11-12, the references disclose a system and method for the range extension frame forwarding in wireless communication systems, according to the essential features of the claims. Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) in view of Cai et al (US#8,923,188) discloses the wireless relay device of claim 1 as set forth in the paragraph 8 above. However, Zhang in view of Cai reference does not explicitly disclose wherein forwarding the beacon to the second device using a backoff procedure and a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) of the first/relay device. In the same field of endeavor, Choi et al. (US#11,337,149) teaches in Fig. 27 a diagram illustrated an example of forwarding association identifier (AID) target beacon and information on an allocated resource, in which in order to obtain PS of UEs, the AP can transmit information corresponding to a resource amount of a backoff rule during TBTT to which a backoff count (or CW) is applied in a beacon frame. For example, when backoff is performed in a unit of a transmitted trigger frame, the AP can transmit the number of trigger frames. (In this case, the number of trigger frames can be restricted to the number of trigger frames used for allocating a resource for random access). Or, when backoff is performed in a unit of a frequency resource (e.g., a sub-channel unit or an OFDMA resource allocation unit), the AP can transmit information on the total number of resources for random access such as the number of frequency resources in trigger frames transmitted during TBTT. In particular, it may be able to define a field to transmit information on the total number of trigger frame-based random accesses during TBTT in a beacon frame or the total number of resources of a trigger frame-based random access (Col. 31, lines 5-35: a backoff rule during TBTT to which a backoff count (or CW) is applied in a beacon frame).
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently frame forwarding for range extension in a wireless network, and would have applied Choi’s transmitting/receiving a frame related to MU (Multi User) transmission into Zhang’s techniques for associating a new end-station (end-STA) with a relay access point (R-AP) in a relay transmissions, and Cai’s forwarder station. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Zhang in view of Cai with the teaching of Choi since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR V. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
10. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) in view of Gan et al. (US#12,035,366).
Regarding claim 14, the references disclose a system and method for the range extension frame forwarding in wireless communication systems, according to the essential features of the claim. Zhang et al. (US#9,793,975) discloses a method of determining by a station whether to use a relay station in communication with an access point (Col. 9; lines 30-38: relay functionality allows range extension and supports packet/frame forwarding between source and destination nodes), comprising: receiving an ultra-high reliability (UHR) PHY protocol data unit (PPDU) from the access point; receiving a PPDU from a first relay station; and determining whether to use the relay station to communicate with the AP (Figs. 2-3; Col. 9, line 50 to Col. 10, line 17: a BSS operating channel established by the AP that features multiple channels used to transmit frames e.g., Physical Layer Protocol Data Units (PPDUs), beacons, management frames, etc. between the root-AP, a relay-STA, and end-STA).
However, Zhang reference does not explicitly disclose wherein determining a RSSI of the AP/Relay station based on the received PPDU from the AP/Relay station. In the same field of endeavor, Gan et al. (US#12,035,366) teaches in Fig. 1 a schematic diagram illustrated a system of a typical WLAN deployment scenario, in which before a device needs to send data on a channel, the device first receives data on this channel, and determines whether the channel is occupied by using a received signal strength indicator (RSSI). The RSSI is also referred to as clear channel assessment (CCA) sensitivity. Based on the 802.11 standard, when it is detected that an effective preamble has an RSSI (−82 dBm (decibels per milliwatt)) greater than or equal to a CCA threshold, the CCA indicates that the channel is in a busy state (Col. 7, line 62 to Col. 8, line 16: RSSI of the AP/Relay station based on the received PPDU from the AP/Relay station).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang in view of Gan teaches the method of claim 14. Gan further teaches that determining a third RSSI of the second relay station based on the received PPDU from the second relay station; and determining whether to use the first relay station or the second relay station to communicate with the access point based upon the second RSSI and the third RSSI (Figs. 1-2; Col. 7, line 12 to Col. 8, line 61: if a station that sends the PPDU is the relay, the BSS identifier in the PPDU is used to identify a BSS to which a module of a relay that sends the PPDU belongs. As shown in FIG. 1, if a relay 1 sends the PPDU to an AP in a BSS 1, the BSS identifier included in the PPDU is an identifier of the BSS 1 to which the relay-STA belongs).
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently frame forwarding for range extension in a wireless network, and would have applied Gan’s Multi-hop relay functionality to achieve long-distance transmission into Zhang’s techniques for associating a new end-station (end-STA) with a relay access point (R-AP) in a relay transmissions. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Zhang with the teaching of Gan since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR V. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
12. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein receiving from the first device a multi-user request to send (MU-RTS) frame; sending a clear to send (CTS) frame to the first device; and guaranteeing an interframe space (IFS) accuracy between the PPDU carrying the received beacon and the PPDU carrying the forwarded beacon to be same as the IFS accuracy of the CTS frame and the MU-RTS frame, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
14. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) 07find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
15. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP ' 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
16. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
May. 13, 2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights