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.
Claims status
In the amendment filed on August 18, 2025, claims 10, 16 and 17 have been canceled and claims 1-5 and 9 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-9, 11-15 and 18-19 are currently pending for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9, 11-15 and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 5 recite "may be mounted". It is optional and not positive limitation.
Claim 1 recites “a the forward location” which appears to be a typographical error.
Claims 2-9 and 11-15 recite “A security system” which is supposed to be “The security system”.
Claim 13 recites “and or” which appears to be typographical error of “and/or”.
Claim 18 recites “A first device of claim 1 which is supposed to be “The first device of claim 1”.
Claim 19 recites “A second device of claim 1 which is supposed to be “The second device of claim 1”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-9, 11-15 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 9-14 of U.S. Patent 12427947 in view of Zhang (CN105835785A, see the attached machine translation).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming the same subject matter except “the first RADAR module and the second RADAR module in combination disposed to provide 360 degree object detection in an external region of the vehicle”,
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of vehicular sensing devices.
Zhang teaches a data processing method of an automobile radar system and an automobile radar (Page 1, lines 14-15 and Fig. 1, 110-120) and further teaches a first radar module facing towards an external front of the vehicle (Fig. 2, 110) and a second RADAR module mounted in a rear of the vehicle (Fig. 2, 120) and operative to detect the presence of an object exterior to the vehicle in which the first and second device may be mounted (Page 3 lines 26-27); wherein the first RADAR module and the second RADAR module in combination disposed to provide 360 degree object detection in an external region of the vehicle in which the first and second device may be mounted (Page 2 lines 46-53; As shown in FIG. 2, the radar 110 and the radar 120 are respectively disposed at the right front side and the left rear side of the vehicle body at the same height, and are blocked by the vehicle body. The effective collection range of each radar is 270 degrees, and the right front side radar 110 covers the front side of the vehicle body and On the right side, the radar 120 on the left rear side covers the rear side and the left side of the vehicle body, and two radars can cover the circumference of the vehicle body.).
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 Zhang in order to reduce the dead zone of radar acquisition (Page 1 lines 44-48).
Reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 1,
reference application claim 2 corresponds to instant claim 2,
reference application claim 3 corresponds to instant claim 3,
reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 4,
reference application claim 4 corresponds to instant claim 5,
reference application claim 5 corresponds to instant claim 6,
reference application claim 6 corresponds to instant claim 7,
reference application claim 7 corresponds to instant claim 8,
reference application claim 8, 9 corresponds to instant claim 9,
reference application claim 10 corresponds to instant claim 11,
reference application claim 11 corresponds to instant claim 12,
reference application claim 12 corresponds to instant claim 13,
reference application claim 13 corresponds to instant claim 14,
reference application claim 14 corresponds to instant claim 15,
reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 18, and
reference application claim 1 corresponds to instant claim 19.
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 9, 11 and 12 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.
Claim 9 recites “the internal area” without proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 11 is also rejected since it depends from the rejected claim 9.
Claim 12 recites “it is located”. It is not clear which element is being referred.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 18 recites “A first device of claim 1”. It appears that the dependent claim 1 is claiming only part of the whole system claim in claim 1 and therefore, fails to include all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 19 is also rejected for the same reason for claim 18. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first image capture module”, “a second image capture module” in claim 1;
“a third image capture module” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claim 1 limitation “a first image capture module”, see Paragraph [0053], camera 102;
Claim 1 limitation “a second image capture module”, see Paragraph [0060], camera 410;
Claim 1 limitation “a third image capture module”, see Paragraph [0054], camera 108.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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, 9, 13-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan et al. (Rogan: US 11,532,221) in view of Zhang (CN105835785A, see the attached machine translation) further in view of Wagner (US 2024/0210545).
Regarding Claim 1, Rogan teaches a security system for use in a vehicle (system 12), comprising:
a first device configured for mounting in a the forward location of the vehicle; a second device configured for mounting in a rear of the vehicle (Fig. 1-2, surveillance sensors 20 and Col. 6 lines 1-16; surveillance sensors 20 includes radar sensors 20c … the other surveillance sensors 20, may be arranged about a perimeter of the vehicle 10);
wherein, the first device comprises: a first image capture module facing towards an external area in front of the vehicle; a first RADAR module operative to detect the presence of an object exterior to the vehicle in which the first device may be mounted; the second device comprises: a second image capture module facing towards an external area to the rear of the vehicle; a second object detection module operative to detect the presence of an object exterior to the vehicle in which the first and second device may be mounted; (Fig. 2, 20a and 20c and Col. 6 lines 1-16; surveillance sensors 20 may include visible light image sensors 20a, infrared sensors 20b, radar sensors 20c, ultrasonic sensors 20d, and/or various types of sensors that may be suitable to detect the activity of objects passing within the local environment 14 of the vehicle 10).
Rogan does not explicitly disclose the second object detection module is a RADAR module; or wherein the first RADAR module and the second RADAR module in combination disposed to provide 360 degree object detection in an external region of the vehicle in which the first and second device may be mounted.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of vehicular sensing devices.
Zhang teaches a data processing method of an automobile radar system and an automobile radar (Page 1, lines 14-15 and Fig. 1, 110-120) and further teaches a first radar module facing towards an external front of the vehicle (Fig. 2, 110) and a second RADAR module mounted in a rear of the vehicle (Fig. 2, 120) and operative to detect the presence of an object exterior to the vehicle in which the first and second device may be mounted (Page 3 lines 26-27); wherein the first RADAR module and the second RADAR module in combination disposed to provide 360 degree object detection in an external region of the vehicle in which the first and second device may be mounted (Page 2 lines 46-53; As shown in FIG. 2, the radar 110 and the radar 120 are respectively disposed at the right front side and the left rear side of the vehicle body at the same height, and are blocked by the vehicle body. The effective collection range of each radar is 270 degrees, and the right front side radar 110 covers the front side of the vehicle body and On the right side, the radar 120 on the left rear side covers the rear side and the left side of the vehicle body, and two radars can cover the circumference of the vehicle body.).
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 Zhang in order to reduce the dead zone of radar acquisition (Page 1 lines 44-48).
Rogan does not explicitly disclose wherein, the first device and the second device are configured to couple to each other to communicate data captured on the second device to the first device.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of vehicular sensing devices.
Wagner teaches a ranging system 100 including one or more ranging devices 102, corresponding to/include/be associated with a camera (Fig. 1a and para 20-21) and further teaches wherein, the first device and the second device are configured to couple to each other to communicate data captured on the second device to the first device (Para 41, first and second devices 102a/102b may possibly be coupled (e.g., by manner of wired coupling and/or wireless coupling) to each other via a communication channel/network (e.g., Ethernet).
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 Wagner in order to synchronize the ranging devices (Wagner; para 52).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Rogan, Zhang and Wagner teaches a security system according to claim 1, wherein the first device further comprises a third image capture module facing toward the internal area of the vehicle (Rogan: Fig. 3, surveillance in the trunk bed).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Rogan, Zhang and Wagner teaches a security system according to claim 1, wherein, the data transferred between the first device and the second device is video data; and/or angular velocity and/or acceleration data; and/or motion detection data; and/or computer vision inference classification data, and/or detected security threats; and/or audio data; and/or still image data; and or temporal data (Wagner: para 52, first and second LIDAR cameras 202a/202b may possibly be synchronized by, for example, manner of Precision time protocol (PTP), in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure. It is contemplated that PTP (e.g., associable with IEEE 1588-2008 which may define a protocol enabling precise synchronization of clocks in measurement and control systems) may possibly facilitate time-based synchronization across the Ethernet).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Rogan, Zhang and Wagner teaches a security system according to claim 1, wherein a connection between the first device and second device is a wired electrical connection (Wagner: Para 41, first and second LIDAR devices 102a/102b may possibly be coupled (e.g., by manner of wired coupling and/or wireless coupling) to each other via a communication channel/network (e.g., Ethernet).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Rogan, Zhang and Wagner teaches a security system for use in a vehicle according to claim 14, wherein the wired electrical connection is an ethernet connection (Wagner: Para 41, first and second LIDAR devices 102a/102b may possibly be coupled (e.g., by manner of wired coupling and/or wireless coupling) to each other via a communication channel/network (e.g., Ethernet).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons for claim 1 above.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons for claim 1 above.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan in view of Zhang and Wagner further in view of Heinrich et al. (Heinrich: US 20240212186 A1 ).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Rogan, Zhang and Wagner teaches a security system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first RADAR module further comprises: at least one signal transmitter operative to emit an RADAR signal; and at least two RADAR receivers for each at least one RADAR transmitter operative to receive a reflection of the emitted RADAR signal; wherein the at least one RADAR transmitter and the at least two RADAR receivers for each at least one RADAR transmitter are disposed relative to each other to reduce reflection of the transmitted RADAR signal from a surface of a protective member proximal the at least one RADAR transmitter that the transmitted RADAR signal travels through.
However, the preceding limitations are known in the art of vehicular sensing devices. Henrich teaches a method for determining depth information relating to image information by an artificial neural network in a vehicle, comprising providing at least one emitter and first and second receiving sensors being spaced apart from one another (abstract) and further teaches
at least one signal transmitter operative to emit an RADAR signal; and at least two RADAR receivers for each at least one RADAR transmitter operative to receive a reflection of the emitted RADAR signal (para 28, at least one emitter designed to emit electromagnetic radiation, and at least one first and one second receiving sensor that are arranged in spaced-apart relation to one another. The first and second receiving sensors are configured to receive reflected proportions of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the emitter);
wherein the at least one RADAR transmitter and the at least two RADAR receivers for each at least one RADAR transmitter are disposed relative to each other to reduce reflection of the transmitted RADAR signal from a surface of a protective member proximal the at least one RADAR transmitter that the transmitted RADAR signal travels through (para 50, and para [0031] If the first and second receiving sensors are not each located in the projection center of an emitter, in particular of a headlight, the unequally illuminated image area can also be produced by the parallax between the respective receiving sensor and the emitter associated therewith).
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 Heinrich in order to estimate depth information on the basis of the result of evaluating the geometric information of the at least one unequally illuminated image area (Heinrich: para 28).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Rogan, Zhang, Wagner and Heinrich teaches a security system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one RADAR transmitter comprises two RADAR transmitters and the at least two RADAR receivers comprise four RADAR receivers, each of the two RADAR transmitters having a respective pair of RADAR receivers (Heinrich: Fig. 4, emitters 3 and 6 and receiving sensors 4, 5, 7, 7’ and para 57).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan in view of Zhang and Wagner further in view of Renner (US 2015/0278610).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Rogan, Zhang and Wagner teaches a security system according to claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the third image capture module of the first device is a wide-angle lens.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of vehicular imaging devices.
Renner teaches a vehicle image capture module of the first device is a wide-angle lens (Renner: para [0053] In side view cameras 120a, 120c, wide-angle lenses).
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 Renner in order to capture the wider view of the image.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogan in view of Zhang and Wagner further in view of Uliyar et al. (Uliyar: US 20200168014 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Rogan, Zhang and Wagner teaches a security system according claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first device or the second device further comprises an inertial measurement unit configured to measure angular velocity and/or acceleration of the device in which it is located.
However, the preceding limitation is known in the art of vehicle sensing devices.
Uliyar teaches a system and method of monitoring a vehicle comprising of one or more camera modules (abstract) and further teaches wherein the first device or the second device further comprises an inertial measurement unit configured to measure angular velocity and/or acceleration of the device in which it is located (Fig. 2, camera module 102 and para [0032] The sensor subunit 202 includes one or more of an inertial sensor unit 216, a location sensor 218 and one or more contextual sensors 222. The inertial sensor unit 216 includes one or more sensors, such as, an accelerometer, a magnetometer and a gyroscope where the inertial sensor unit 216 senses the combination of position, direction, orientation and velocity of the vehicle. ).
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 Uliyar in order to sense position, direction, orientation and velocity of the vehicle (Uliyar: para 32).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcome the claim objections and double patenting rejections set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior arts cited for the record but not used in Office Action, are listed in attached PTO-892.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. 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 2688
Prosecution Insights