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 .
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.
Claim Status
In the amendment filed on May 26, 2026, claims 7-15 has been canceled, claims 21-28 have been newly added and claims 1-6 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 16-28 are now pending for examination.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is interpreted as being a statutory subject matter of a device as the claim recites a non-volatile memory which as broadly interpreted is a statutory device.
Examiner interprets Claims 6 and 20 limitations “at least one of portable electronic devices and mobile electronic devices” as “at least one of portable electronic devices and at least one of mobile electronic devices”. The plain English meaning of the phrase “at least one of X and Y;” is “at least one of X and at least one of Y”.
Examiner interprets Claim 19 limitations “at least one of: periodically updates … ; and periodically verifies …” as “at least one of periodically updates … ; and at least one of periodically verifies …”. The plain English meaning of the phrase “at least one of X and Y;” is “at least one of X and at least one of Y”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-6 and 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 16 recite “its” and “it”. Claims 21-28 recite “their”. It is unclear to which elements are being referred by “its”, “it” or ”their”.
Claims 2-6 and 17-28 are also rejected since they depend from the rejected claim 1 or 16.
Claims 21-24 recites “The method” without proper antecedent basis in the claims.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 16-17 and 21-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,043,094 (reference application) in view of Ramirez et al. (Ramirez: US 20170343658 A1).
Claims 1 and 16 are generally broader than the respective claims 1 and 19 in U.S. Patent No. 11,043,094 except where the template is established from a histogram established in dependence upon a channel state information (CSI) matrix of pre-processed received wireless signals from the monitoring system; where each entry within the CSI matrix describes a signal received on a defined subcarrier of a wireless stream at a defined time by a wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ramirez teaches detecting movements or a lack of movements of objects and/or living being in a radio range (para 0002) and further teaches where the template is established from a histogram established in dependence upon a channel state information (CSI) matrix of pre-processed received wireless signals from the monitoring system; (Fig. 3, set of CSI values and Par 71-72, matrix-based “Channel State Information [CSI]”-data are generated. As the CSI-data will contain the information about the channel, which is directly affected by obstacles in the apartment, a change in the CSI-data implies a change in the channel, which will then imply a change in the obstacles in the apartment APT. ) and
where each entry within the CSI matrix describes a signal received on a defined subcarrier of a wireless stream at a defined time by a wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices (Par [0095] The algorithm for analysis consists of collecting CSI data over a “Sliding Window” of 50 consecutive packets, corresponding to roughly one second, and computing the variance for each of the 30 subcarriers independently within the window. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ramirez in order to make the detection resistant to false positives (Ramirez: para 96).
Reference application claim 1, 19 corresponds to instant claims 1 and 16,
reference application claim 19 corresponds to instant claims 2 and 17,
reference application claim 19 corresponds to instant claims 21-28.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,043,094 (reference application) in view of Ramirez and Coote (US 20170244597 A1).
Claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,043,094 (reference application) in view of Ramirez does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined amount of time is established by one of a user associated with the monitoring system and another user associated with the sensing region .
However, Coote teaches wherein the predetermined amount of time is established by one of a user associated with the monitoring system and another user associated with the sensing region (Coote: para 96, The model enables the permissions for users and/or the canonical/synthetic devices themselves to be individually defined for each device and para 111, turn on the alarm system if all the rooms in the house are determined to be empty for a period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Coote in order to alert to the home owner or a security service (Coote: para 126).
Claims 4-6 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,043,094 (reference application) in view of Ramirez and Wilson et al. (Wilson: US 2012/0146788).
Claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,043,094 (reference application) in view of Ramirez does not explicitly disclose the claimed subject matter of claims 4-6 and 19-20. However, Wilson teaches the subject matter of claims 4-6 and 19-20 as set forth below in prior art rejection sections.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wilson in order to detect the presence and estimate metrics such as quantity and speed (Wilson: Par 20).
Claims 1-3, 16-18 and 21-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,842,613 (reference application) in view of Ramirez and Coote.
Claims 1 and 16 are generally broader than the respective claim 1 in U.S. Patent No. 11,842,613 except where the template is established from a histogram established in dependence upon a channel state information (CSI) matrix of pre-processed received wireless signals from the monitoring system; where each entry within the CSI matrix describes a signal received on a defined subcarrier of a wireless stream at a defined time by a wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices; wherein the monitoring system upon determining that the sensed area has been empty for a predetermined amount of time triggers automatic arming of a security system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ramirez teaches detecting movements or a lack of movements of objects and/or living being in a radio range (para 0002) and further teaches where the template is established from a histogram established in dependence upon a channel state information (CSI) matrix of pre-processed received wireless signals from the monitoring system; (Fig. 3, set of CSI values and Par 71-72, matrix-based “Channel State Information [CSI]”-data are generated. As the CSI-data will contain the information about the channel, which is directly affected by obstacles in the apartment, a change in the CSI-data implies a change in the channel, which will then imply a change in the obstacles in the apartment APT. ) and
where each entry within the CSI matrix describes a signal received on a defined subcarrier of a wireless stream at a defined time by a wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices (Par [0095] The algorithm for analysis consists of collecting CSI data over a “Sliding Window” of 50 consecutive packets, corresponding to roughly one second, and computing the variance for each of the 30 subcarriers independently within the window. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ramirez in order to make the detection resistant to false positives (Ramirez: para 96).
Wilson or Ramirez does not explicitly disclose wherein the monitoring system upon determining that the sensed area has been empty for a predetermined amount of time triggers automatic arming of a security system.
However, Coote teaches wherein the monitoring system upon determining that the sensed area has been empty for a predetermined amount of time triggers automatic arming of a security system (para 111, turn on the alarm system if all the rooms in the house are determined to be empty for a period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Coote in order to alert to the home owner or a security service (Coote: para 126).
Reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claims 1 and 16,
reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claims 2 and 17,
reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claims 21-28.
Regarding Claims 3 and 18, the combination of Claim 1 of US Patent 11,842,613, Ramirez and Coote teaches wherein the predetermined amount of time is established by one of a user associated with the monitoring system and another user associated with the sensing region (Coote: para 96, The model enables the permissions for users and/or the canonical/synthetic devices themselves to be individually defined for each device and para 111, turn on the alarm system if all the rooms in the house are determined to be empty for a period of time).
Claims 4-6 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,842,613 (reference application) in view of Ramirez and Coote, further in view of Wilson et al. (Wilson: US 2012/0146788).
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,842,613 (reference application) in view of Ramirez and Coote does not explicitly disclose the claimed subject matter of claims 4-6 and 19-20. However, Wilson teaches the subject matter of claims 4-6 and 19-20 as set forth below in prior art rejection sections.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Wilson in order to detect the presence and estimate metrics such as quantity and speed (Wilson: Par 20).
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.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. (Wilson: US 2012/0146788) in view of Ramirez et al. (Ramirez: US 20170343658 A1) further in view of Coote (US 20170244597 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wilson teaches an electronic system comprising:
a monitoring system executing upon one or more processors of the electronic system (Fig.1, 103, 104, 106 and para 26 and para 29; The one or more computing devices 104, 106 may receive signal strength measurements, for example, from the base station control 103, and process the measurements) comprising:
a receiving circuit (Fig. 5 and para 58, The RSSI/LQI vector has been filled with measurements as each of the other nodes has transmitted to the currently transmitting node. This cycle may be repeated indefinitely, filling the RSSI/LQI vector upon receipt of packets from the other nodes in the network, and then broadcasting the values in the RSSI/LQI vector to the other nodes when the protocol allows. And para 43, The time varying aggregate disturbance Q(t) can be used to detect presence and/or motion, or to estimate other valuable characteristics, such as quantity, velocity, or size and para 49, Various metrics can be used as the basis for each link in the aggregate disturbance, depending on the situation and desired functionality and see also para 17 and para 53) for receiving metrics from each wireless device of a plurality of wireless devices (Fig. 1 and para 23, nodes 102 and Fig. 8A-8D, 802 and Fig. 9A-9B, 902) associated with a sensing region (108) operating according to a common wireless standard (para 17, IEEE 802.15.4 and para 25, IEEE 802.11 wireless Internet routers and cards (WiFi), and IEEE 802.15.4 modules (Zigbee)) where each wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices generates its metrics in dependence upon wireless signals received by it from other wireless devices of the plurality of wireless devices (para 28, area of interest 108 and Fig. 8A-8D, 808 and Fig.9A-9B, 908); and
a processing block comprising a pre-processing system which establishes and employs a template within a template matching technique to determine whether the sensing region is empty or not where the template is established from a histogram established which defines a static empty profile of the sensing region established without a presence of a person or vehicle within the sensing region (Fig. 9A, region is empty and Fig. 9B, presence of a person; and para 90, 93 and 96; Q at time 6 is compared to Q at time 3).
Wilson does not explicitly disclose where the template is established from a histogram established in dependence upon a channel state information (CSI) matrix of pre-processed received wireless signals from the monitoring system; or where each entry within the CSI matrix describes a signal received on a defined subcarrier of a wireless stream at a defined time by a wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ramirez teaches detecting movements or a lack of movements of objects and/or living being in a radio range (para 0002) and further teaches where the template is established from a histogram established in dependence upon a channel state information (CSI) matrix of pre-processed received wireless signals from the monitoring system; (Fig. 3, set of CSI values and Par 71-72, matrix-based “Channel State Information [CSI]”-data are generated. As the CSI-data will contain the information about the channel, which is directly affected by obstacles in the apartment, a change in the CSI-data implies a change in the channel, which will then imply a change in the obstacles in the apartment APT. ) and
where each entry within the CSI matrix describes a signal received on a defined subcarrier of a wireless stream at a defined time by a wireless device of the plurality of wireless devices (Par [0095] The algorithm for analysis consists of collecting CSI data over a “Sliding Window” of 50 consecutive packets, corresponding to roughly one second, and computing the variance for each of the 30 subcarriers independently within the window. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Ramirez in order to make the detection resistant to false positives (Ramirez: para 96).
Wilson or Ramirez does not explicitly disclose wherein the monitoring system upon determining that the sensed area has been empty for a predetermined amount of time triggers automatic arming of a security system.
However, Coote teaches wherein the monitoring system upon determining that the sensed area has been empty for a predetermined amount of time triggers automatic arming of a security system (para 111, turn on the alarm system if all the rooms in the house are determined to be empty for a period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Coote in order to alert to the home owner or a security service (Coote: para 126).
Claim 16 rejected for the same reason for claim1 above. Wilson further teaches computer executable instructions stored upon one or more non-volatile memories which when executed by one or more microprocessors configure the one or more microprocessors to establish a monitoring system (Par 100).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Wilson, Ramirez and Coote discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined amount of time is established by one of a user associated with the monitoring system and another user associated with the sensing region (Coote: para 96, The model enables the permissions for users and/or the canonical/synthetic devices themselves to be individually defined for each device and para 111, turn on the alarm system if all the rooms in the house are determined to be empty for a period of time).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Wilson, Ramirez and Coote discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the monitoring system periodically updates the static empty profile and thereby the template during a period of time that the monitoring system determines that the sensing region is empty (Wilson: Par 69, To determine if a node or link is active, meaning that transmissions are being sent and received on a regular basis, a list can be maintained by the schedule manager(s). According to one embodiment, when a successful transmission is received 702 on a particular link, the item in the list corresponding to the particular link is updated 704 with a timestamp or counter value. If after an arbitrary period of time, or after an arbitrary number of cycles, a node or link has not successfully transmitted to the other nodes in the network, the list will not be updated. During each cycle, the list may be examined 706 to determine which nodes and links are active and Par 90-91).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Wilson, Ramirez and Coote discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the monitoring system periodically verifies the static empty profile and thereby the template during a period of time that the monitoring system determines that the sensing region is empty (Wilson: Par 69, To determine if a node or link is active, meaning that transmissions are being sent and received on a regular basis, a list can be maintained by the schedule manager(s). According to one embodiment, when a successful transmission is received 702 on a particular link, the item in the list corresponding to the particular link is updated 704 with a timestamp or counter value. If after an arbitrary period of time, or after an arbitrary number of cycles, a node or link has not successfully transmitted to the other nodes in the network, the list will not be updated. During each cycle, the list may be examined 706 to determine which nodes and links are active and Par 90-91).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Wilson, Ramirez and Coote discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the wireless devices forming the plurality of wireless devices varies over time as at least one of portable electronic devices and mobile electronic devices to which they are associated enter and leave the sensed region (Wilson: Par 25, The nodes 102 can be any radio module or any wireless hardware capable of measuring signal strength … Examples includes mobile phones).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Wilson, Ramirez and Coote discloses the computer executable instructions according to claim 16, wherein the predetermined amount of time is established by one of a user associated with the monitoring system and another user associated with the sensing region (Coote: para 96, The model enables the permissions for users and/or the canonical/synthetic devices themselves to be individually defined for each device and para 111, turn on the alarm system if all the rooms in the house are determined to be empty for a period of time).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Wilson, Ramirez and Coote discloses the computer executable instructions according to claim 16, wherein the monitoring system at least one of: periodically updates the static empty profile and thereby the template during a period of time that the monitoring system determines that the sensing region is empty (Wilson: Par 69, To determine if a node or link is active, meaning that transmissions are being sent and received on a regular basis, a list can be maintained by the schedule manager(s). According to one embodiment, when a successful transmission is received 702 on a particular link, the item in the list corresponding to the particular link is updated 704 with a timestamp or counter value. If after an arbitrary period of time, or after an arbitrary number of cycles, a node or link has not successfully transmitted to the other nodes in the network, the list will not be updated. During each cycle, the list may be examined 706 to determine which nodes and links are active and Par 90-91); and periodically verifies the static empty profile and thereby the template during a period of time that the monitoring system determines that the sensing region is empty (Wilson: Par 69, To determine if a node or link is active, meaning that transmissions are being sent and received on a regular basis, a list can be maintained by the schedule manager(s). According to one embodiment, when a successful transmission is received 702 on a particular link, the item in the list corresponding to the particular link is updated 704 with a timestamp or counter value. If after an arbitrary period of time, or after an arbitrary number of cycles, a node or link has not successfully transmitted to the other nodes in the network, the list will not be updated. During each cycle, the list may be examined 706 to determine which nodes and links are active and Par 90-91).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Wilson, Ramirez and Coote discloses the computer executable instructions according to claim 16, wherein the wireless devices forming the plurality of wireless devices varies over time as at least one of portable electronic devices and mobile electronic devices to which they are associated enter and leave the sensed region (Wilson: Par 25, The nodes 102 can be any radio module or any wireless hardware capable of measuring signal strength … Examples includes mobile phones).
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson in view of Ramirez and Coote further in view of Hall et al. (Hall: US 20040021599 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Wilson, Ramirez and Coote discloses the system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the pre-processing system comprises a bank of digital filters according to a predetermined architecture to perform signal conditioning upon the received metrics from the plurality of wireless devices to generate multiple signal paths of filtered signals.
However, Hall teaches an intrusion detection system and method are provided that can utilize impulse radio technology to detect when an intruder has entered a protection zone (abstract) and further teaches wherein the pre-processing system comprises a bank of digital filters according to a predetermined architecture to perform signal conditioning upon the received metrics from the plurality of wireless devices to generate multiple signal paths of filtered signals (Par 152, Assuming that the propagation environment is stationary (i.e. all reflective surfaces and antennas are fixed and no intruders are present), successive multipath scans taken by the scanning receiver 900 are identical. This can be verified to ensure stationarity via a simple subtraction and digital filtering of the successive scan waveforms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hall in order to ensure stationarity (Hall: Par 152).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Wilson, Ramirez and Coote discloses the computer executable instructions according to claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the pre-processing system comprises a bank of digital filters according to a predetermined architecture to perform signal conditioning upon the received metrics from the plurality of wireless devices to generate multiple signal paths of filtered signals.
However, Hall teaches an intrusion detection system and method are provided that can utilize impulse radio technology to detect when an intruder has entered a protection zone (abstract) and further teaches wherein the pre-processing system comprises a bank of digital filters according to a predetermined architecture to perform signal conditioning upon the received metrics from the plurality of wireless devices to generate multiple signal paths of filtered signals (Par 152, Assuming that the propagation environment is stationary (i.e. all reflective surfaces and antennas are fixed and no intruders are present), successive multipath scans taken by the scanning receiver 900 are identical. This can be verified to ensure stationarity via a simple subtraction and digital filtering of the successive scan waveforms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hall in order to ensure stationarity (Hall: Par 152).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-28 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the 112 rejections and double patenting rejections set forth above.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Curtis Kuntz can be reached on (571) 272-7499. 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).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2687
Prosecution Insights