DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after Aug 16, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 06/16/26 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 4-5 and 10 have been amended and claim 2 remains cancelled, while all other claims are maintained as previously presented in the application. In view of amendment, all the drawing objections and rejections under 112(b) previously presented have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated a new ground(s) of rejections are made under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 (details below) and claims 1 and 3-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments see (‘Remarks’ filed 06/16/2026, pages 6-11) and in light of amendment, the applicant contends that “the 35 USC § 102 rejection made for claims 1, 7-13 and 16-19 are deficient and that the claimed features are not taught or aligned or suggested, or applied in a manner that attempted to make up for addressing the deficiency of claim 1 have been fully considered, but were not found persuasive for this reason:
In view of argument [ ‘Remarks’, page 7], the applicant argues that the prior art of record – such as Jacobsson fails to anticipate, especially the requirement of “the wheel hub includes a release housing defining a hub drive profile, and a drive ring defines a wheel drive zone that selectively engages the hub drive profile to transmit power from the at least one drive motor to the wheel hub.” The examiner disagreed. Jacobsson anticipates claim 1 and 16 because the prior art discloses, either expressly or inherently, every structural and functional limitation by the claims. The reference teaches a wheelchair frame supporting a wheel-assembly tube that functions as a camber tube and defines a hollow section in which drive motors (13 and 14; figs. 5-6) are housed, satisfying the requirement that at least one drive motor be supported within the hollow section. Jacobsson further discloses clutch system 21, which is especially designed to engage the wheel hub so that the proximal end of the axle shaft transmits torque to the wheel hub, thereby meeting the claim’s requirement that the motor output be connected to the wheel hub. Although claim 1 does not explicitly recite the hub drive profile or drive ring (those appeared in the dependent claims), the clutch system 21 as described by para. 0041 of Jacobsson nonetheless provides a torque-transmitting interface as required by claim 16 that functions as a hub-engagement profile, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard of MPEP 2111, any structure capable of transmitting torque from the motor output to the wheel hub satisfies the claimed connection. Moreover, Jacobsson’s clutch mechanism inherently performs the same selective engagement and disengagement function attributed to the camber-supported hub-drive-profile mechanism in the present application, and under MPEP 2131 and 2131.01, anticipation is established where the prior art discloses a structure capable of performing the claimed function, even if the structural terminology differs. Accordingly, the prior art of record teaches a hollow camber-tube-like housing, a motor positioned, within that housing, and a clutch-based torque transmitting connection to the wheel hub, it fully meets each limitation of claim 1 and 16 and anticipates the claim under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2).
Regarding applicant’s argument, page 9 that the Examiner failed to show “a proximal end of the axle having a torque transmitting profile that engages a wheel hub,” the Examiner disagreed. The claim language and specification provide no disclosure indicating that the claimed hub-drive-profile mechanism is structurally or functionally distinct from the proximal end of the axle torque-transmitting clutch system disclosed in US2018/0133075 A1, nor does it describe any unique benefit arising from replacing a clutch with the claimed hub-profile interface. The ‘075 publication expressly teaches clutch system 21, which engages the wheel hub so that the proximal end (12) of the axle shaft (via 26 to axle shaft 24) transmits torque to the hub (15 or 16), thereby performing the same functional role attributed to the claimed hub-drive-profile mechanism. Although the prior art may implement this torque-transmitting interface using a clutch assembly rather than the specific hub-profile terminology used in the present application, the functional operation is identical: both mechanisms selectively couple the motor output to the wheel hub to transmit drive torque. Therefore, the rejection of claim 16 is sustained and retained.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1
Claim 16, line 4 recites: “supported by one of the camber tube or the frame” is being interpreted as “supported by one of the camber tubes or the frame members.”
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 7-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jacobsson (US Pub. 20180133075 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jacobsson discloses: a wheelchair (2, figs. 1-11and ‘Title’) comprising;
a frame (3 or 4 or 5; figs. 1-2; [0035]);
a camber tube (17 that constitute 18, 19 blocks, fig. 3 and [0036]) attached to the frame (via 3 and 4, fig. 2);
and at least one drive motor (13, 14) supported by one of the frame members (4 or 5, see claim interpretation above) or the camber tube (17), the at least one drive motor (13 or 14) having an output (via 24, 26, fig. 3) connected [ para. 0041 discloses: “a quick release shaft 24 connected to the hub assembly 15, 16”] to a wheel hub (15, 16), the wheel hub (15, 16) includes a release housing (shaft housing 10, [0035 discloses: “a drive shaft housing 10 which is releasably
attached between the two lateral frame elements 4, 5 of the wheelchair 2 and connected to the drive wheels 6, 7”]) defining a hub drive profile (annotated fig. 11 below), and a drive ring (21; note that drive ring is considered to be a component of drive clutch) defines a wheel drive zone (annotated fig. 11 below) that selectively engages the hub drive profile (annotated fig. 11 below) to transmit power from the at least one drive motor to the wheel hub [claim 3 of Jacobsson teaches: “drive unit (1) for a wheelchair (2) according to claim 1, wherein the drive motors (13, 14) are positioned coaxially relative to the respective rotational axis of the drive wheels (6, 7)”; thus, transmit power from the at least one drive motor to the wheel hub.]
PNG
media_image1.png
908
557
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 11 of Jacobsson
Regarding claim 7, Jacobsson further teaches that the motor output (via 13 or 14) is coupled to a drive collar (A2, fig. 11) defining a drive engagement zone having a torque transmitting profile (annotated fig. 11 above) and the drive ring (21) defines a drive ring bore (bore of 21, fig. 11) having a complementary torque transmitting profile (see annotated fig. 11 above where profile constituted by two mating surfaces) that selectively engages the drive collar (A2) to transmit power from the motor (13, 14) to the wheel hub (15, 16).
Regarding claim 8, Jacobsson further teaches that the drive collar (A2) includes a freewheel zone defining a clearance (annotated fig. 11 above) between the drive ring bore (bore of 21) and the drive collar (A2) such that the wheelchair drive wheels (6, 7) rotate freely relative to the output shaft (26, fig. 3) and the wheel hub (15, 16) is mechanically decoupled (fig. 2) from the motor output (24, 26).
Regarding claim 9, Jacobsson further teaches that an axle shaft (24) engages the motor output (at A and B with 26; fig. 10) and defines a proximal end having a torque transmitting profile (annotated fig. 11 above) that engages the drive collar (A2) and a distal end (fig. 11) that connects to the motor output (via output shaft 26 and axle shaft 24).
Regarding claim 10, Jacobsson further teaches that the axle shaft distal end (distal end 12, fig. 2) defines a torque transmitting profile (annotated fig. 11 above) having leading and exiting tapers (leading and exiting taper at 21, fig. 3) configured to accommodate an operating angle between the axle shaft (24; fig. 8 showing a relative angle between the axle shaft) and the motor output (via output shaft 26).
Regarding claim 11, Jacobsson further teaches that the axle shaft distal end (distal end 12; [0035]) defines a quick-release actuator (“quick-release coupling” 11; [0035]) comprising a ball (A, annotated fig. 5 below) that engages a detent to permit the axle shaft (12) and wheel hub (15, 16) to be removed from the motor (13, 14) and camber tube (17 that constitute 18 and19 blocks).
PNG
media_image2.png
694
781
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 5 of Jacobsson
Regarding claim 12, Jacobsson further teaches that the camber tube (17) supports a camber block (19) configured to define a camber angle (fig. 8) between the wheel hub (15, 16) and the camber tube (17, fig. 8).
Regarding claim 13, Jacobsson further teaches that the camber block (19) includes a pilot (29, fig. 8) that locates relative to a motor tail housing (10) mounted proximate to the camber tube (17 that constitute block 18 and 19) and a camber bore (bore of 17, 18 and 19) to define the camber angle [para. 0039 teaches that the outer diameter of the lateral sleeves 18, 19 essentially corresponds to the inner diameter of the top T of the truncated cones 17a, 17b of the central outer sleeve 17 in such a way that the lateral sleeves 18, 19 may be angled within the central outer sleeve 17 so as to allow an adjustment of the camber angle of the drive wheels 6, 7; thus, a pilot that locates relative to a motor tail housing mounted proximate to the camber tube and a camber bore to define the camber angle.]
Regarding claim 16, Jacobsson teaches: A wheelchair (2, figs. 1-11and ‘Title’) comprising:
a frame (3 or 4 or 5; figs. 1-2; [0035]);
a camber tube (17 that constitute block 18 and 19, fig. 3 and [0036]) attached to the frame (via 3 and 4, fig. 2), the camber tube (17) defining a hollow section (Fig. 3 shows hollow section);
and at least one drive motor (13, 14) supported by one of the camber tubes (18 or 19) or the frame members (4 or 5; see claim interpretation above), the at least one drive motor (13 or 14) having an output engaged with an axle shaft (via out shaft 26 to axle shaft 24) at a distal end (12, fig. 3) thereof, a proximal end (12) of the axle shaft (24) having a torque transmitting profile (annotated fig. 11 above) that engages a wheel hub (15, 16) to transmit a rotary output of the drive motor (via output shaft 26, fig. 3) to the wheel hub (15, 16).
Regarding claim 17, Jacobsson further teaches that a coupling is connected to the motor output (via 26), the coupling having a torque-transmitting profile (annotated fig. 11 above) that engages with a mating torque-transmitting profile (fig. 11) of the axle shaft distal end (distal end of 26 as depicted in fig. 8), the mating torque-transmitting profile configured with an apex (fig. 3), a leading taper and an exiting taper (leading and exiting taper at 21, fig. 3) that permit an angular adjustment or deviation (fig. 8) of the axle shaft (24) relative to the output shaft (26).
Regarding claim 18, Jacobsson further teaches that one of the axle shaft proximal end or axle shaft distal end (distal end 12; [0035]) defines a quick-release attachment (“quick-release coupling” 11; [0035]) configured as a ball (A, annotated fig. 5 above) and detent (detent at 12; see 35 USC 112(b) rejection above) that is configured to release the wheel hub (15, 16) from the wheelchair (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Jacobsson teaches: a wheelchair comprising:
a frame (3 or 4 or 5; figs. 1-2; [0035]);
a camber tube (17 that constitute 18, 19 blocks, fig. 3 and [0036]) attached to the frame (via 3 and 4, fig. 2) and supporting at least one drive motor (13, 14) having an output (via 24, 26, fig. 3);
a wheel hub (15, 16) supporting a drive wheel (6, 7) for rotation relative to the frame (3, 4), the wheel hub having a hub drive profile (annotated fig. 11 above) connected to the drive motor (13, 14) output by a drive ring (21) configured for selectively engaging the hub drive profile to transmit power (via motor and drive unit) from the at least one drive motor (13 or 14) to the drive wheel (6, 7).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 no obviousness.
Claims 3-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsson in view of McBridge et al. (US20220176813 A1; hereinafter, “McBridge”).
Regarding claim 3, Jacobsson further teaches the drive ring and the wheel drive zone transfers power from the motor; however fails to explicitly teach that the drive ring is connected to a transfer ring by at least one actuator link, the transfer ring is selectively actuated by a control knob to move the drive ring between an engaged position where the wheel drive zone transfers power from the motor to the wheel hub and a disengaged position where the motor output is mechanically decoupled from the wheel hub; however,
McBridge in another wheel disconnect clutch similar to Jacobsson teaches that the drive ring (132; [0024]) is connected to a transfer ring (96, fig.4; [0024]) by at least one actuator link (“actuator ring 130”; [0024]), the transfer ring (96 that includes pin 138 via 130 and the drive pin that engages the actuator link 130 via 156, 158, fig. 4) is selectively actuated by a control knob (actuator 122 of arrangement 120; [0023 teaches: “an actuator arrangement 120 is configured to engage and disengage the disconnect clutch 90. The actuator arrangement 120 includes an actuator 122 that is operably coupled to the clutch sleeve 96”; thus, the transfer ring is selectively actuated by a control knob]) to move the drive ring (132) between an engaged position (via 176 on 172 as depicted in fig. 6A) where the wheel drive zone transfers power from the motor to the wheel hub (74, [0023]) and a disengaged position where the motor output is mechanically decoupled from the wheel hub [ para. 0023 teaches: “The drive ring 132 and the actuator ring 130 include cooperating features that are configured to urge the rings apart in response to rotation of the actuator ring 130 in a first direction and to move together due to the force of the resilient member 112 when the ring 130 is rotated in a second direction. The clutch 90 may be engaged by extending the rod 124 towards the wheel hub 74 causing the actuator ring 130 to rotate and push the drive ring 132 thus sliding the clutch sleeve 96 into engagement with wheel hub 74; see fig. 6A and para. 0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have hub drive profile, the drive ring and the motor power from the motor to the wheel hub of the Jacobsson drive unit to incorporate the teaching of McBridge in order to advantageously provide the engagement structures that are actuated through a transfer ring linked to an actuator element and moved by a control knob because doing so provides a predictable and user-friendly mechanism for shifting between engaged and disengaged states, improves accessibility for users with limited hand strength and represents well understood design choice for implementing selective mechanical coupling in compact mobility-assist system, such as wheelchair.
Regarding claim 4, Jacobsson does not appear to explicitly teach that the at least one actuator link is integrally connected to the transfer ring, the transfer ring including at least one drive wedge having a tapered profile, and the control knob includes mating actuation recess having a complementary tapered profile; however,
McBridge teaches that the at least one actuator link is integrally connected to the transfer ring (96 that includes pin 138 via 130 and the drive pin that engages the actuator link 130 via 156, 158, fig. 4), the transfer ring including at least one drive wedge (168, fig. 4) having a tapered profile (168 shows tapered profile), and the control knob (122, fig. 6B) includes mating actuation recess (174) having a complementary tapered profile [fig. 6B shows 174 is positioned with tapered profile].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Jacobsson to incorporate the teaching of McBridge and provide an actuator link integrally formed with the transfer ring and to provide the transfer ring with a tapered drive wedge cooperating with a complementary tapered recess of a control knob. The use of integrally formed linkages and tapered wedge-and-recess interface for translating rotational input into axial displacement is a well-known design choice that predictably improves manufacturability, reduce parts count, and provide reliable mechanical engagement. Accordingly, the claimed configuration represents no more than the predictable use of known mechanical actuation features to achieve the expected result of selectively moving the transfer ring.
Regarding claim 5, Jacobsson as modified above further teaches that the transfer ring (96) includes a drive pin (138 via 130) that engages (via 156, 158) the at least one actuator link (130; [see claim rejection 3 above]).
Regarding claim 6, Jacobsson does not appear to explicitly teach that a resilient member biases the transfer ring into the engaged position; however,
McBridge teaches that a resilient member (“resilient member 112; [0022]) biases the transfer ring into the engaged position [claim 12 of McBridge teaches that a resilient member biasing the drive ring towards to the actuator ring; thus, a resilient member biases the transfer ring into the engaged position; also see para. 0022.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Jacobsson to incorporate the teaching of McBridge and provide a resilient member to bias an engagement component towards the engaged state. It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art to include the known biasing member to ensure reliable default engagement and predictable operation of the selective-drive mechanism.
Regarding claim 20, Jacobsson further teaches the drive ring and at least one drive motor but fails to teach that the drive ring is moved by a control knob between an engaged position where the drive motor power rotates the drive wheel and a disengaged position where the drive wheel is mechanically disconnected from and freely rotates relative to the at least one drive motor; however,
McBridge in another wheel disconnect clutch similar to Jacobsson teaches that the drive ring (132; [0024]) is moved by a control knob (actuator 122 of actuation arrangement 120; [0023-0024]) between an engaged position (fig. 6B) where the drive motor (15, 16) power rotates the drive wheel (52, 58, [0018]) and a disengaged position (fig. 6B) where the drive wheel is mechanically disconnected from and freely rotates relative to the at least one drive motor (“electric motor 28”; [0016])
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Jacobsson to incorporate the teaching of McBridge and provide the control mechanism, such that the drive ring is moved by a control knob between an engaged position where the drive motor power rotates the drive wheel and a disengaged position where the drive wheel is mechanically disconnected from and freely rotates relative to the at least one drive motor in order to advantageously provide the engagement structures that are actuated through a drive ring and the transfer ring linked to an actuator element and moved by a control knob because doing so provides a predictable and user-friendly mechanism for shifting between engaged and disengaged states, improves accessibility for users with limited hand strength and represents well understood design choice for implementing selective mechanical coupling in compact mobility-assist system, such as wheelchair.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsson in view of Weege (DE 4136456 C1).
Regarding claim 14, Jacobsson as modified above further teaches that the camber block (18 or 19) includes a camber bore (bore of 18 or 19), but fails to teach that orients at least one support bearing to establish the camber angle, the at least one support bearing configured to orient the axle shaft to the camber angle; however,
Weege in another rear wheels on wheelchair-have adjustable camber similar to Jacobsson teaches that a camber bore (19, fig. 7; [0022]) that orients at least one support bearing (22) to establish the camber angle (fig. 7), the at least one support bearing (22) configured to orient the axle shaft (9) to the camber angle [“have adjustable camber with hub bearing on angled rotatable holders as disclosed by the ‘title’.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Jacobsson to incorporate the teaching of Weege and provide a camber that orients at least one support bearing, such as support bearing of Weegein order to advantageously establish the camber angle and at least one support bearing configured to orient the axle shaft to the camber angle. In doing so, camber can be changed due to the lowering movement and the rear wheels could easily acquire a toe-out, such that the wheels tend to run apart when driving straight ahead [ 0019 of Weege].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsson in view of Patterson et al. (US Pub. 20040251656 A1; hereinafter, “Patterson”).
Regarding claim 15, Jacobsson further teaches a power pack, such as battery pack [0017] for providing a source of electrical power is configured (“connection with control unit”; [0017]), but fails to explicitly teach that a power pack for providing a source of electrical power is configured to slide into a battery slot of a docking station, the battery slot including a contact port configured to make an electrical connection between the power pack and a wheelchair electrical system and an ejector configured to resiliently bias the power pack toward a disconnected state where no electrical connection is formed with the wheelchair electrical system; however,
Patterson teaches that a power pack (116) for providing a source of electrical power is configured to slide into a battery slot (“mating portion”; [0066], “plug” and “receiver” in [0076]) of a docking station (“docking station”; [0066]), the battery slot including a contact port (via male plug 124; [0075])configured to make an electrical connection between the power pack and a wheelchair electrical system and an ejector (“locking pin” in [0076]) configured to resiliently bias (via male 124 and female receiver 122; [0075]) the power pack toward a disconnected state where no electrical connection is formed ( when plug is removed) with the wheelchair electrical system [ see para. 0075].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the modified Jacobsson to incorporate the teaching of Patterson and provide the battery slot with a contact port and a resilient ejector as recited in claim 15, since biasing the plug or and ejector mechanism and sliding battery interfeces are well-known design choices used to ensure reliable electrical connection and facilitate removal of a power pack. In corporation such a conventional feature into the wheelchair power system would have been a predictable modification yielding no unexpected result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20060145531 A1to Galvanin discloses: a wheel fixing device, particularly for go-karts and similar vehicles, comprising a hub that can be coupled to an axle shaft and is associated, at a substantially terminal portion, with a connecting element that comprises at least one stem, which supports at least one retaining portion and elements for engaging a respective abutment portion supported by a wheel, the fixing device further comprising locking elements that are adapted to engage the retaining portion in order to fix the wheel to the hub.
US 20130270893 to Schlanger discloses: a vehicle wheel hub assembly comprising an axle element that is rotationally stationary about an axial axis, and a hub shell element rotatable about the axle element, including a first end portion and a second end portion axially spaced from said first end portion.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM 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, VIVEK D KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571-272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
August 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights