DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) were submitted on 07/29/2024, 12/04/2024, 01/23/2025, 06/30/2025, 12/11/2025, 02/12/2026 and 04/21/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: “Time-based wireless network identification in a wireless local area network”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 1 recites, “a plurality of User Equipment devices, UEs, a Wireless Access Point, WAP, and a Wireless Local Area Network, WLAN, provided by means of the WAP,” (line 2-3). It is suggested to replace it with “a plurality of User Equipment (UEs), a Wireless Access Point (WAP), and a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) provided by means of the WAP,” for more clarity. Claims 2-3 and 16-18 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites, “the broadcast network identifier” (line 11). It is suggested to replace it with “the broadcasted network identifier” for more clarity. Claims 3, 12, 16 and 18 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites, “processing, by means of the UE associated with the identified timeslot,” (line 13). It is suggested to replace it with “processing, by means of a corresponding UE of the plurality of UEs associated with the identified timeslot,” for more clarity. Claims 2 and 16 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites, “determining a current time, and from said determination identifying, from the associated timeslots, a timeslot within which the current time coincides;” (lines 7-8). It is suggested to replace it with “determining a current time; from said determination, identifying, from the associated timeslots, a timeslot within which the current time coincides;” for more clarity. Claims 2 and 16-17 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 4 recites, “A method according to claim 1,” (line 1). It is suggested to replace it with “The method according to claim 1,” for more clarity. Claims 5-14 are objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 5 recites, “providing at least one association of a timeslot with, at least, one of the plurality of UEs to said UE/s,” (lines 2-3). It is suggested to replace it with “providing at least one association of at least one timeslot with at least one of the plurality of UEs to said UE,” for more clarity.
Claim 9 recites, “-- for the UE/s” (line 2). It is suggested to replace it with “-- for the UE” for more clarity.
Claim 10 recites, “without the, or each, UE connecting, or being connected, to the, or any, WLAN.” (line 2) It is suggested to replace it with “without the UE being connected to the WLAN.” for more clarity.
Claim 16 recites, “each comprising a controller;” (line 2) It is suggested to replace it with “each of which comprising a controller;” for more clarity.
Claim 16 recites, “by the wireless transceiver;” (line 4) It is suggested to replace it with “by the wireless transceiver; and” for more clarity.
Claim 16 recites, “a unique timeslot;” (lines 6-7) It is suggested to replace it with “a unique timeslot; and”, for more clarity.
Claim 17 recites, “each controller is configured to” (line 14). It is suggested to replace it with “the controller of a corresponding UE of the plurality of UEs is configured to”, for more clarity.
Claim 17 recites, “a unique timeslot;” (line 5) It is suggested to replace it with “a unique timeslot; and”, for more clarity.
Claims 4-15 are also objected to since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the objected claims, as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) is/are directed to a signal per se, claimed as such wave forms.
Claim 15 recites, “a computer-readable carrier information medium comprising a computer program,” (line 1).
The applicant fails inclusively and specifically provide antecedent basic to limit the specific statutory embodiments, “the computer-readable carrier information medium” belongs to the intrinsic non-statutory embodiments such as carrier signal, radio wave, light wave, and transmission medium/media.
Note that signal claims are not directed to a process since they do not cover an act or series of acts. No part of the signal is a mechanical “device” or “part.” A propagating electromagnetic signal is not a “machine” as that term is used in § 101. Signals, standing alone, are not “manufacture[s]” under the meaning of that term in § 101. A signal comprising a fluctuation in electric potential or in electromagnetic fields is not a “chemical union,” nor a gas, fluid, powder, or solid. Signals are not “composition[s] of matter.” Thus, a transitory, propagating signal is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter. (see In re Nuijten, 500 F. 3d 1346 1356 n.7 (Fed. Cir 2007).
In view of the above analysis, claim 15 is ineligible for patent protection as failing to be limited to embodiments which fall within a statutory category.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNew et al (US Publication No. 2005/0286456 A1) in view of Park et al (US Patent No. 5,159,331 A).
Regarding claim 1, McNew discloses, a method of operating a wireless telecommunications network, said network comprising a plurality of User Equipment devices, UEs, a Wireless Access Point, WAP, and a Wireless Local Area Network, WLAN, provided by means of the WAP [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0021, a method of operating an IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network comprising stations, an AP, and a WLAN], the method comprising the steps of:
broadcasting, by means of the WAP, for the WLAN, a network identifier comprising the item of information . . . [¶0021 and ¶0027, the AP periodically broadcasts a beacon comprising SSID field];
identifying, by means of each of the UEs, the broadcast network identifier [¶0021 and ¶0027, the beacon comprising the SSID field is received/identified by each station; further see FIG. 4 and ¶0028, the first subfield 402 is the SSID string, the second subfield 404 indicates the end of the SSID string, and the third subfield 406 is the application-specific data string]; and
subsequently processing, by means of the UE . . . , the identified network identifier, such that said UE derives the item of information allocated to said UE [¶0021 and 0026-0028, “by implementing a NBS Processor in an AP and a NBS Parser in stations, the AP can broadcast application-specific data while the stations can automatically act upon the receipt of the broadcast”; note that each station receives the broadcasted application-specific data to be parsed and thus acted automatically].
Although McNew discloses, “broadcasting, by means of the WAP, for the WLAN, a network identifier comprising the item of information . . . ; identifying, by means of each of the UEs, the broadcast network identifier; and subsequently processing, by means of the UE . . . , the identified network identifier, such that said UE derives the item of information allocated to said UE” as set forth above, McNew does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), associating, against each of the plurality of UEs, an item of information and a unique timeslot; determining a current time, and from said determination identifying, from the associated timeslots, a timeslot within which the current time coincides; . . . the item of information associated with the identified timeslot; . . . by means of the UE associated with the identified timeslot, the identified network identifier, such that said UE derives the item of information allocated to said UE.
However, Park discloses,
associating, against each of the plurality of UEs, an item of information and a unique timeslot [column 2, line 62 to column 3, line 13, each receiver 24 in the Gaskill system 10 is associated with at least one time slot 22 and is programmed to monitor and capture a message packet transmitted during its associated time slot 22];
determining a current time, and from said determination identifying, from the associated timeslots, a timeslot within which the current time coincides [column 2, line 62 to column 3, line 13, the Gaskill system 10 must . . . identify the time slot 22 associated with the desired receiver 24, and transmit as a message packet the page message during the associated time slot 22; note that it requires the Gaskill system 10 determines a current time and identifying the time slot 22 within which the current time coincides];
broadcasting information associated with the identified timeslot [column 2, line 62 to column 3, line 13, the Gaskill system 10 must . . . identify the time slot 22 associated with the desired receiver 24, and transmit as a message packet the page message during the associated time slot 22 ; further see “ each message may be broadcast a fixed number of times to improve its probability of receipt”];
. . . the item of information associated with the identified timeslot [column 2, line 62 to column 3, line 13, transmit as a message packet the page message during the associated time slot 22; note that the page message associated with the time slot 22];
. . . by means of the UE associated with the identified timeslot [column 2, line 62 to column 3, line 13, Each receiver 24 in the Gaskill system 10 is associated with at least one time slot 22 and is programmed to monitor and capture a message packet transmitted during its associated time slot 22 . . . transmit as a message packet the page message during the associated time slot 22; note that each receiver is associated with a time slot (e.g., 22)].
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 McNew with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Park 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 Park into the system of McNew would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., efficiently identifying UE-specific information and avoiding unnecessary monitoring or signaling, 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 2, claim 2 is merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a WAP, but recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features. Thus, claim 2 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 is merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a UE, but recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features. Thus, claim 3 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, McNew in view of Park discloses, a method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
McNew does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Park discloses, wherein only the UE associated with the identified timeslot performs the processing, and wherein only said UE derives the item of information [column 2, line 62 to column 3, line 13, each receiver 24 in the Gaskill system 10 is associated with at least one time slot 22 and is programmed to monitor and capture a message packet transmitted during its associated time slot 22; further see column 3, line 14-15, each receiver 24 stores the most recent page messages received. Each receiver 24 includes a display 26 for viewing stored messages and a control button 28 for operation of stored message recall and viewing procedures].
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 Park in the system of McNew for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, McNew in view of Park discloses, discloses, a method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
McNew discloses, wherein each item of information associated with each of the UEs is different [¶0039-0043, the application-specific data associated with each station is different; e.g., “traffic”, “police” and “gap”].
Regarding claim 7, McNew in view of Park discloses, a method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
McNew discloses, wherein the network identifier comprises the item of information in an encoded form [¶0028, the SSID string is an ASCII character string, the SSID End sign is the NULL character and the application-specific data string is an encrypted character string; further see ¶0032, if encoding is needed, the process goes to block 624 and the data is encoded accordingly].
Regarding claim 9, McNew in view of Park discloses, a method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
McNew discloses, wherein the item of information comprises an instruction for the UE/s [¶0021 and ¶0031, the application execution module may be displaying the data string, or automatically launching a specific application based on the data string; further see, ¶0040-0043, “traffic”, “police” and “gap on which each station act accordingly].
Regarding claim 10, McNew in view of Park discloses, a method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
McNew discloses, wherein the method is performed without the UE connecting, or being connected, to the WLAN [¶0026, In various scenarios, it is desirable to automatically launch or execute an application, either with or without a network connection. . . . As another example, an AP installed in a particular shop broadcasts its commercial message; any pass-by station can receive it without establishing a network connection].
Regarding claim 11, McNew in view of Park discloses, a method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
McNew discloses, wherein the network identifier is a Service Set Identifier [¶0021, the system permits transmission of application-specific data through a specific field in a beacon frame, the Service Set Identity (SSID)].
Regarding claim 12, McNew in view of Park discloses, a method according to claim 1 and particularly, “the item of information associated with the identified timeslot” as set forth above.
McNew discloses, encrypting the item of information . . . [¶0028, the application-specific data string is an encrypted character string; further see ¶0033, if encryption is needed, the process goes to block 634 and the data is encrypted accordingly], thereby to generate a ciphertext [see portions of ¶0028 and ¶0033, note that the encrypted data string is considered as the claimed ciphertext], wherein the broadcast network identifier comprises said ciphertext [¶0028, the first subfield 402 is the SSID string, the second subfield 404 indicates the end of the SSID string, and the third subfield 406 is the application-specific data string; further see ¶0028, the application-specific data string is encrypted; which is considered claimed ciphertext], and
wherein the UE associated with the identified timeslot performing processing of the network identifier [see supra rejections as set forth above in claim 1] comprises said UE decrypting the network identifier thereby to derive the item of information [FIG. 8; its related descriptions; ¶0036, if yes, the process goes to block 814 and the data is decrypted accordingly].
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a computer-readable carrier medium, but recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features.
Thus, claim 15 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, McNew discloses, a wireless telecommunications network [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0021 and ¶0029-0030, IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network] comprising:
a plurality of User Equipment devices, UEs [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0021 and ¶0029-0030, multiple reception stations], each comprising a controller [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0021 and ¶0029-0030; note that every wireless station has at least one controller];
a Wireless Access Point, WAP [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0021 and ¶0029-0030, transmission station 500 or an AP], comprising a wireless transceiver [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0021 and ¶0029-0030; note that every wireless device has at least one wireless transceiver];
a Wireless Local Area Network, WLAN, provided by the wireless transceiver [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0021 and ¶0029-0030; the WLAN provided by the wireless transceiver];
at least one processor [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0021 and ¶0029-0030; note that every network has at least one device with at least one processor].
Since claim 16 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, McNew discloses, a Wireless Access Point, WAP [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0021 and ¶0029-0030, transmission station 500 or an AP], comprising:
a wireless transceiver [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0021 and ¶0029-0030; note that every wireless device has at least one wireless transceiver];
a receiver [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0021 and ¶0029-0030; note that every wireless device has at least one receiver];
a processor [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0021 and ¶0029-0030; note that every wireless device has at least one processor].
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 18, McNew discloses, User Equipment, UE, for operating within a wireless telecommunications network [FIG. 5; its related descriptions; ¶0021 and ¶0029-0030, each reception of the multiple reception stations for operating within IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network].
Since claim 18 recites similar features to claim 1 without additional features, claim 18 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNew et al (US Publication No. 2005/0286456 A1) in view of Park et al (US Patent No. 5,159,331 A) and further in view of Senarath et al (US Publication No. 2011/0177821 A1).
Regarding claim 5, McNew in view of Park discloses, a method according to claim 1 and particularly, “the processing of the identified network identifier “as set forth above.
McNew does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Park discloses, wherein the processing . . . is performed only in response to the UE associated with the identified timeslot determining that the current time is within the timeslot associated with said UE [column 2, line 62 to column 3, line 13, each receiver 24 in the Gaskill system 10 is associated with at least one time slot 22 and is programmed to monitor and capture a message packet transmitted during its associated time slot 22; further see column 3, line 14-15, each receiver 24 stores the most recent page messages received. Each receiver 24 includes a display 26 for viewing stored messages and a control button 28 for operation of stored message recall and viewing procedures].
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 Park in the system of McNew for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Further, McNew in view of Park does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Senarath discloses, providing at least one association of a timeslot with, at least, one of the plurality of UEs to said UE/s [see abstract and ¶0005, a method of operating a base station configured to operate with user devices includes transmitting an assignment for the at least one further slot to the first user device].
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 McNew in view of Park with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Senarath 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 Senarath into the system of McNew in view of Park would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., improving scheduling efficiency by reducing signaling collisions and unnecessary wake-up, 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)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNew et al (US Publication No. 2005/0286456 A1) in view of Park et al (US Patent No. 5,159,331 A) and further in view of Jakobsson et al (US Publication No. 2021/0258421 A1).
Regarding claim 8, McNew in view of Park discloses, a method according to Claim 7 as set forth above.
McNew in view of Park does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Jakobsson discloses, wherein the encoded form is a one-time code [¶0076, when the one time code is received (e.g., encoded in the Caller ID or ANI and extracted by the relying party), the relying party can uniquely identify the account associated with the user/device and mark the code as used].
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 McNew in view of Park with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Jakobsson 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 Jakobsson into the system of McNew in view of Park would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., improving user privacy by making the transmitted identifier temporary and difficult to track across transmissions, 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)).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNew et al (US Publication No. 2005/0286456 A1) in view of Park et al (US Patent No. 5,159,331 A) and further in view of Brander et al (US Publication No. 2015/0350251 A1).
Regarding claim 13, McNew in view of Park discloses, a method according to Claim 12 as set forth above.
McNew in view of Park does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Brander discloses, wherein the decryption is performed using a decryption key common to all of the plurality of UEs [¶0075, the default policy can have encryption based on an encryption/decryption key stored on the mobile device 10 at the time of manufacture, which is common to all mobile devices 10 of a particular type. .
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 McNew in view of Park with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Brander 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 Brander into the system of McNew in view of Park would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., reducing signaling and key management overhead, 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)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNew et al (US Publication No. 2005/0286456 A1) in view of Park et al (US Patent No. 5,159,331 A) and further in view of Matsuo et al (US Publication No. 2008/0317250 A1).
Regarding claim 14, McNew in view of Park discloses, a method according to Claim 12 as set forth above.
McNew in view of Park does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Matsuo discloses, wherein the decryption is performed using a decryption key that is unique to the, or each, UE [¶0281, by generating encoded contents data using a unique encoding key between each pair of terminal apparatus 2, and decoding the encoded contents data using the unique decoding key, it is possible to maintain higher security].
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 Matsuo in the system of McNew in view of Park in order to cause the system to be able to maintain higher security among users associated with terminal apparatuses [e.g., ¶0281 of Matsuo].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coffey et al (US Publication No. 2018/0027586) [¶0035]
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.
If 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
Prosecution Insights