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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Claims, Applicant’s arguments filed 04/27/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objections to Claims have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 04/27/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 04/27/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive at least in view of reasons set forth below.
On page 11 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
First, this reasoning does not sufficiently establish what feature in Zorgui allegedly teaches "determining [ ... ] a profile of the [ ... ] Doppler characteristics of a geographical area." FIG. 8 and its description do not mention the term "profile," for example. And Office Action's reasoning with respect to paragraph 0118 of Zorgui-"analyzing, with the AD 600 via the SnMF 700, RF sensing reports 825 on a region based on the RF sensing results 842"- offers no clarification. On its face, "analyzing [ ... ] sensing reports" is not the same as "determining [ ... ] a profile of the [ ... ] Doppler characteristics of a geographical area," and the Office does not provide reasoning as to why it appears to equate these features. Thus, the record is unclear as to what the alleged "profile" is, or what alleged "Doppler characteristics" are.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant argues that Zorgul fails to teach “determining … a profile of the . . . Doppler characteristics of the geographical area,” asserting that “analyzing . . . RF sensing reports” is not the same as “determining . . . a profile.” However, the rejection does not rely merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a user equipment, but recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features. On the literal presence of the word “profile” in Zorgul. Rather, the rejection relies on the teachings of Zorgul as a whole, including the analysis and processing of RF sensing results associated with a geographical region/environment.
As discussed in ¶0118-0120, Zorgul discloses RF sensing results including Doppler-related channel characteristics and further discloses analyzing RF sensing reports for a region/environment to determine characteristics such as object velocities, channel characteristics, and environmental information. Specially, ¶0118 of Zorgul discloses that the RF sensing results message “may include one or more channel characteristics (e.g., . . . Doppler, etc.)”, while ¶0120 discloses analyzing RF sensing reports to determine “object velocities” and “channel characteristics.” One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such analyzed Doppler-related environmental/channel information associated with a geographical region to constitute a profile of Doppler characteristics under the “broadest reasonable interpretation” of the claim language.
The applicant further argues that the Office has not sufficiently identified the alleged “profile” or “Doppler characteristics.” However the claims do not positively recite any particular data structure, format, or mathematical representation for the claimed “profile”. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claimed “profile” reasonably encompasses analyzed or aggregated Doppler-related sensing information associated with a geographical area/environment, as taught by Zorgul.
On page 12 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
Second, even accepting, arguendo, the Office's assertion that Zorgui teaches "determining a profile of Doppler characteristics," Motlagh fails to cure Zorgui's acknowledged deficiency with respect to "profiling clutter Doppler characteristics of a geographical area." See Office Action at 6. The Office relies on Motlagh ¶0284-0285 and 0287-0288 to bridge this gap, but the cited portions of Motlagh do not teach or suggest expanding Doppler profiling to clutter Doppler profiling. Instead, Motlagh teaches removing clutter components during signal processing. See Motlagh ¶0287. Thus, even I fMotlagh is somehow combinable with Zorgui, the combination would result in the removal of these clutter components from any data that would be included in the reports of Zorgui. Ultimately, Motlagh's teaching of clutter removal would not have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zorgui's alleged Doppler profiling to "determine[e] [ ... ] a profile of the [ ... ] clutter Doppler characteristics of a geographical area" in the manner recited in the claims.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Office does not rely on Motlagh to independently teach “profiling clutter Doppler characteristics”. Rather, Motlagh is relied upon to teach that clutter Doppler characteristics are recongnized, analzed, and processed as a meaningful singal signal category within a geographical area. One of ordingary skill in the art would understand that in order to remove clutter component - as Motlagh explicitly teaches - a system must first characterize and profile those components. Removal of clutter Doppler characteristics requires recongnization or determining thereof in advance.
Second, the proposed combination of Zorgul and Motlagh does not simply remove clutter data from Zorgul. Rather, Motlagh’s clutter characterization step - occurring prior to removal - is applied to Zorgul’s Doppler profiling to improve the accuracy of Zorgul’s Doppler profiling.
Furthermore, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, and in many cases will be able to fit teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressively suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). There is no reasons to compel a person having an ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the references in the specific manner set forth by Applicant.
On page 12 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
Accordingly, the Office has not established how the cited references teach or make obvious at least the feature of "a profile of [ ... ] clutter Doppler characteristics" as recited in claim 1 or similarly in claim 17.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Since claim 17 recites similar features to claim 1 without further patentable features, claim 17 is unpatentable in view of the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
On page 12 of Remarks, Applicant argued:
Claims 3-10 and 19-25 depend from claims 1 and 17, respectively, and are allowable at least for the reasons set forth above.
In response to the above Applicant’s argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Since claims 1 and 17 are unpatentable over the cited references of record as set forth above, patentability of other dependent claims should be determined based on the claimed limitations recited thereon, rather than their respective independent claims. The dependent claims are also unpatentable in view of the corresponding cited references of records as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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, 3-8, 17 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zorgul et al (WO 2022/081624 A1)1 in view of Motlagh et al (US Publication No. 2025/0374235 A1)2.
Regarding claim 1, Zorgul discloses, a method of profiling . . . Doppler characteristics of a geographical area for radio frequency (RF) sensing by sensing nodes communicatively coupled with a wireless network [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0108, a method for an environment map of a region (e.g., room, outdoor area) including target objects for RF sensing by sensing nodes (e.g., BSs, UEs) communicatively coupled with a wireless network; further see, “Doppler measurements”], the method comprising:
sending, from a configuring device to a sensing node set comprising one or more sensing nodes communicatively coupled with the wireless network, a sensing configuration [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0114, sensing, from the combination of AD 600 and SnMF 700/RF sensing coordination unit 750 to transmitter 805 and receiver 806 communicatively coupled with the wireless network, RS configuration messages (steps 822 and 824)], wherein the sensing configuration is configured to enable the sensing node set to perform an RF sensing procedure and obtain clutter Doppler measurement information of the geographical area based at least in part on the RF sensing procedure [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0115-0116, the RF configuration message is configured to enable the transmitter(s) 805 to send the configured RS (step 832) and the receiver(s) 806 to receive the RS reflected by target object/environment (step S834) and obtain RF sensing results (step 842); further see, ¶0116, “the RF sensing results message 842 may include one or more measurements and/or information derived from one or more measurements (e.g., one or more ranges, one or more position estimates, etc.). The RF sensing results message 842 may include one or more channel characteristics (e.g., path loss, fading, interference, Doppler, etc.). and further see ¶0110, “report all objects in the region with non-zero Doppler measurements” for clutter Doppler measurement information].
receiving, at the configuring device from the sensing node set the clutter Doppler measurement information [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0117, receiving, at the combination of AD and SnMF 700 from the receiver(s) 806, the RF sensing results/RF sensing report]; and
determining, with the configuring device, a profile of the . . . Doppler characteristics of the geographical area based at least in part on the clutter Doppler measurement information [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0118-0119, analyzing, with the AD 600 via the SnMF 700, RF sensing reports 825 on a region based on the RF sensing results 842; further see ¶0118, the RF sensing results message “may include one or more channel characteristics (e.g., . . . Doppler, etc.)” and ¶0120, analyzing RF sensing reports to determine “object velocities” and “channel characteristics; note that analyzed Doppler-related environmental/channel information associated with a geographical region is considered as the claimed “profile of Doppler Characteristics under the broadest reasonable interpretation].
Although Zorgul discloses, “a method of profiling . . . Doppler characteristics of a geographical area for radio frequency (RF) sensing by sensing nodes communicatively coupled with a wireless network” and “determining, with the configuring device, a profile of the . . . Doppler characteristics of the geographical area based at least in part on the clutter Doppler measurement information” as set forth above, Zorgul does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), “profiling Doppler characteristics of a geographical area” is modified to be “profiling “clutter” Doppler characteristics of a geographical area”.
However, Motlagh discloses, profiling “clutter” Doppler characteristics of a geographical area [¶0284-0285 and 087-0288, estimating clutter effect of a background environment (see e.g., 206 of FIG. 2); further see ¶0287 for clutter Doppler characteristics, the clutter effects includes measurement of CSI values based on the received sensing reference signal at the sensing Rx node in the delay doppler domain and removing the components with doppler frequency of smaller than 10 Hz and/or delay of more than 20 ns from the measured CSI within the delay doppler domain].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Motlagh in the system of Zorgul in order to cause the system to be able to increase precision for radio sensing of target objects in different environments and reduce power consumption [e.g., ¶0006 of Motlagh].
Regarding claim 3, Zorgul in view of Motlagh discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Zorgul does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Motlagh discloses, wherein the sensing configuration includes an indication of one or more triggers to initiate the performing of the RF sensing procedure by the sensing node set, wherein the one or more triggers comprise: a schedule [¶0135, a radio sensing controller entity configures a sensing Rx node with one or multiple of” (1) a first configuration . . .; further see ¶0141, the first configuration . . . may include at least one or multiple of . . . (d) Sensing reference signal resources according to the used waveform for sensing reference signal transmission, e.g., CP-OFDM time/frequency resources over which the sensing reference signal is transmitted].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Motlagh in the system of Zorgul for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Zorgul in view of Motlagh discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Zorgul does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Motlagh discloses, wherein the sensing configuration includes an indication of one or more reporting triggers to cause the sensing node set to report the clutter Doppler measurement information to the configuring device, the one or more reporting triggers comprising: one or more event-based triggers [¶0176, a fourth configuration for the transmission of a report from sensing measurements and signal processing of the received signals, such as according to the configurations described above; further see ¶0196, e) configures one or multiple sensing Tx nodes with a sensing signal transmission, e.g., including configurations of the time-frequency, beam resources].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Motlagh in the system of Zorgul for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Zorgul in view of Motlagh discloses, the method of claim 4 as set forth above.
Zorgul does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Motlagh discloses, wherein the one or more reporting triggers comprises the one or more event-based triggers, and wherein the one or more event-based triggers comprises reporting the clutter Doppler measurement information when a power of one or more measurements of the clutter Doppler measurement information exceeds a threshold [¶0176, a fourth configuration for the transmission of a report from sensing measurements and signal processing of the received signals, such as according to the configurations described above; further see ¶0274, b) one or multiple criteria for the transmission of the report, e.g., a time pattern for sensing reporting, or criterion based on the generated processing outcomes. This can include one or multiple of: . . . ii. when a generated measurement information output according to a measurement information output type, or multiple of the generated measurement outputs satisfy a condition. Examples of the condition include a measured received reference signal power is above a threshold].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Motlagh in the system of Zorgul for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Zorgul in view of Motlagh discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Zorgul discloses, wherein the sensing configuration includes an indication of one or more RF signals to be used for the RF sensing procedure [¶0114, the RS configuration message contain at least the parameters of the RS and further see ¶0119, 0127], the one or more RF signals comprising: a positioning reference signal (PRS) [¶0080 and 0091, PRS],
a sounding reference signal (SRS) [¶0091 and 0097, SRS],
a channel start information reference signal (CSI-RS) [¶0091, CRI-RS], or
any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 7, Zorgul in view of Motlagh discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Zorgul discloses, wherein the sensing node set comprises a single sensing node [¶0103, a co-located transmitter and receiver (transceiver) is called a monostatic radar], and wherein the sensing configuration enables the single sensing node to perform the RF sensing procedure in a monostatic configuration [¶0103, a co-located transmitter and receiver (transceiver) is called a monostatic radar. . . . the transceiver 521 provides a monostatic radar, with a transmitted signal 531 being reflected as a reflected signal 532 that is received by the transceiver 521].
Regarding claim 8, Zorgul in view of Motlagh discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Zorgul discloses, wherein the wireless network comprises a cellular network [¶0034, 3G RAN, 4G LTE RAN, or NG-RAN] and wherein:
the configuring device comprises a sensing management function (SnMF) of the cellular network [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0109, SnMF 700]; and
the one or more sensing nodes comprise one or more user equipments (UEs) [FIGS. 1 and 8; their related descriptions; ¶0116, for a UE receiver, the receiver 806 …], one or more base stations [FIGS. 1 and 8; their related descriptions; ¶0115, base stations and ¶0116, TRP].
Regarding claim 17, Zorgul discloses, a configuring device [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0109, the combination of AD 600 and SnMF 700] . . , the configuring device [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0109, the combination of AD 600 and SnMF 700] comprising:
one or more transceivers [FIGS. 6-7; their related descriptions; interfaces 620 and 720; note that every network device has at least one transceiver];
one or more memories [FIGS. 6-7; their related descriptions; memories 630 and 730; note that every network device has at least one memory]; and
one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more transceivers and the one or more memories, wherein the one or more processors are configured to [FIGS. 6-7; their related descriptions; processors 610 and 710; note that every network device has at least one processor coupled with the transceiver and the memory].
Since claim 17 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zorgul et al (WO 2022/081624 A1) in view of Motlagh et al (US Publication No. 2025/0374235 A1) and further in view of Stefan et al (US Publication No. 2023/0156429 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zorgul in view of Motlagh discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Zorgul in view of Motlagh does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Stefan discloses, wherein the clutter Doppler measurement information comprises: a Doppler-range map [¶0050, the sensing result is the result of processing the sensing measurement at the processor (e.g., compressed CSI or range-Doppler map)].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Zorgul in view of Motlagh with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Stefan to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Stefan into the system of Zorgul in view of Motlagh would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as enabling more accurate sensing and characterizing environmental motion, such a modification (or application) would have involved 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 claim 18, claim 18 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zorgul et al (WO 2022/081624 A1) in view of Motlagh et al (US Publication No. 2025/0374235 A1) and further in view of Phuyal et al (US Publication No. 2021/0258741 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Zorgul in view of Motlagh discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Although Zorgul in view of Motlagh discloses, . . . sending the sensing configuration, determining the sensing configuration based at least in part on capability information . . . the sensing node set [see ¶0196 of Motlagh, a radio sensing controller entity performs . . . a) collects capability information of radio sensing capable node . . . e) configures one or more multiple sensing Tx nodes], Zorgul in view of Motlagh does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Phuyal discloses, prior to sending the . . . configuration, determining the . . . configuration based at least in part on capability information received from the . . . node [¶0096, the legacy UE 115l or the new UE 115n may transmit capability information of the respective UE 115 to BS 105. The UE 115 may transmit the capability information in the unicast or directed groupcast transmissions. Based on the capability of the UE 115, BS 105 may determine the legacy or new signaling configuration and transmit the RRC signaling that includes the legacy or the new signaling configuration to UE 115].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Zorgul in view of Motlagh with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Phuyal to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Phuyal into the system of Zorgul in view of Motlagh would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enable to minimize signaling overhead and latency while overall system robustness, such a modification (or application) would have involved 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 claim 24, claim 24 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 9.
Claims 10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zorgul et al (WO 2022/081624 A1) in view of Motlagh et al (US Publication No. 2025/0374235 A1) and further in view of Hahn et al (US Publication No. 2024/0215005 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Zorgul in view of Motlagh discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above.
Zorgul in view of Motlagh does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Hahn discloses, wherein the clutter Doppler measurement information comprises: an indication of a frequency band with which the RF sensing procedure was performed [¶0010, identifying a first frequency corresponding to a best measurement result among the measurement results for the first sensing signal; and identifying the first frequency band correspodning to the first frequency; note that the measurement results included in the first feedback signal comprises an indication of a first frequency band (corresponding to the first frequency); further note that the first frequency is the one with the sensing procedure was performed].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Zorgul in view of Motlagh with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Hahn to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Hahn into the system of Zorgul in view of Motlagh would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., improving robustness and accuracy of RF sensing, such a modification (or application) would have involved 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 claim 25, claim 25 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 10.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Zorgul is cited in an IDS by the applicant.
2 Since Motlagh is relying on PCT publication (WO 2024/047514 A1) (see attached) to claim a priority date 08/28/2023, Motlagh is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 12/05/2023.
Prosecution Insights