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 (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.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s original submittal made on 07/14/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “columnar”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,360,158 and 158’ hereinafter. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to the following:
(19/268,571) Claim 1. A method of determining a security of an interconnect, comprising: transmitting a light from a light source through an interconnect between a first device and second device, the interconnect including at least one conductive pathway aligned along a direction between the first device and the second device; recording a first optical signature of the conductive pathway based on the light received at an optical detector upon passing through the interconnect at a first time; recording a second optical signature of the conductive pathway based on the light received at an optical detector upon passing through the interconnect at a second time; and validating the second optical signature against the first optical signature to determine the security of the interconnect.; maps to (158’) A method of determining a security of an interconnect between a first device and a second device, comprising: transmitting a light at a first time from a light source embedded within the first device through the interconnect, the interconnect including a bonding material between the first device and the second device and at least one electrically conductive pathway passing from the first device to the second device through the bonding material, the at least one electrically conductive pathway suitable for transmission of an electrical signal from the first device to the second device, wherein the light source is embedded in the first device, wherein the light passes through the bonding material and interacts with the at least one electrically conductive pathway within the bonding material to create a first spatial pattern of light and shadow; receiving the first spatial pattern of light and shadow at an optical detector; recording the first spatial pattern of light and shadow as a first optical signature of the conductive pathway; transmitting the light from the light source through the bonding material at a second time to interact with the at least one electrically conductive pathway to create a second spatial pattern of light and shadow; recording the second spatial pattern of light and shadow as a second optical signature of the conductive pathway; and comparing the second optical signature to the first optical signature to determine the security of the interconnect.
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 2, 9 and 16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The examiner contends that the metes and bound of applicant's claim limitation(s) elements of, " non-deterministic arrangement within a columnar volume ", cannot be readily determined. The examiner notes that the claim language of, " non-deterministic arrangement within a columnar volume", creates uncertainty about what is being claimed.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0226637 and Sanchez hereinafter) in view of Shaw et al. (US Patent No. 11,388,493 and Shaw hereinafter).
As to claim 1, Sanchez teaches a method of determining a security of an interconnect, comprising:
transmitting a light from a light source through an interconnect between a first device and second device (i.e., …teaches in the Abstract the following: “A method includes conforming an arrangement of an optical fiber to an object to detect tampering with the object when the optical fiber arrangement is changed, measuring an optical signature of the optical fiber arrangement in a first measurement, measuring the optical signature of the optical fiber arrangement at a time after the first measurement in a second measurement, and comparing the first and second measurements to detect tampering with the object from a change in the optical fiber arrangement.”),
the interconnect including at least one conductive pathway aligned along a direction between the first device and the second device (i.e., …figure 1 illustrates a interconnect with a conductive pathway. …teaches in the Abstract the following: “A method includes conforming an arrangement of an optical fiber to an object to detect tampering with the object when the optical fiber arrangement is changed, measuring an optical signature of the optical fiber arrangement in a first measurement, measuring the optical signature of the optical fiber arrangement at a time after the first measurement in a second measurement, and comparing the first and second measurements to detect tampering with the object from a change in the optical fiber arrangement.”);
recording a first optical signature of the conductive pathway based on the light received at an optical detector upon passing through the interconnect at a first time (i.e., …teaches in the Abstract the following: “… measuring an optical signature of the optical fiber arrangement in a first measurement, measuring the optical signature of the optical fiber arrangement at a time after the first measurement in a second measurement, and comparing the first and second measurements to detect tampering with the object from a change in the optical fiber arrangement.”);
recording a second optical signature of the conductive pathway based on the light received at an optical detector upon passing through the interconnect at a second time (i.e., …teaches in the Abstract the following: “… measuring an optical signature of the optical fiber arrangement in a first measurement, measuring the optical signature of the optical fiber arrangement at a time after the first measurement in a second measurement, and comparing the first and second measurements to detect tampering with the object from a change in the optical fiber arrangement.”);
and validating the second optical signature against the first optical signature to
The system of Sanchez does not expressly teach: “determine the security of the interconnect”.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Shaw.
Shaw teaches in col. 5 lines 40-65 the following: “determining that a change in a fingerprint for the optical links is of such a character or degree as to indicate that the optical link or switching path has been tampered with, signature and path analysis module 114 operates to flag the path as having failed the validation. Here, signal and path analysis module 114 may operate to generate an error indication that can be provided to a error management system for all-photonics network 100 that can provide a work ticket for a network administrator to physically verify the interconnections between the nodes and the optical links, or to take other actions to isolate and repair the path. Network controller 110 acts to halt the data flows over the failed path to ensure that the data flows are not in any way compromised and remain secure, and acts to validate a new path as needed or desired. Here, the establishment and maintenance of the path may be provided in accordance with a service level agreement (SLA) with the user of the path, and so there may be contractual obligations to ensure a level of security for the data flows.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Sanchez with the teachings of Shaw by having their system comprise an enhanced connection analyzation process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means of characterizing a connection, wherein the enhanced connection analyzation process helps facilitate security and makes it easier to analyze connections.
As to claim 2, the system of Sanchez and Shaw as applied to claim 1 above teaches tampering detection, specifically Sanchez teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the at least one conductive pathway includes an electrically conductive column aligned between the first device and second device (i.e., …figure 1 illustrates a electrically conductive column),
the electrically conductive column including conductive particles having a non- deterministic arrangement within a columnar volume extending from the first device to the second device (i.e., …figure 1 illustrates a electrically conductive column between two devices.),
wherein the first optical signature and the second optical signature include the effects of the non-deterministic arrangement (i.e., …figure 1 illustrates a electrically conductive column between two devices.).
As to claims 8 and 15, Sanchez teaches a signal security detection system, comprising:
an interconnect between a first device and second device (i.e., …figure 1 illustrates a electrical interconnect between devices.),
the interconnect having at least one conductive pathway aligned along a direction between the first device and the second device (i.e., …figure 1 illustrates a electrical interconnect between devices);
and a light source for transmitting a light through the interconnect device (i.e., …figure 1 illustrates a light source);
an optical detector for receiving the light passing through the interconnect device (i.e., …figure 1 illustrates a optical detector);
and a processor configured to:
record a first optical signature of the interconnect based on the light received at the optical detector at a first time (i.e., …teaches in the Abstract the following: “A method includes conforming an arrangement of an optical fiber to an object to detect tampering with the object when the optical fiber arrangement is changed, measuring an optical signature of the optical fiber arrangement in a first measurement, measuring the optical signature of the optical fiber arrangement at a time after the first measurement in a second measurement, and comparing the first and second measurements to detect tampering with the object from a change in the optical fiber arrangement. In another embodiment, an optical shield includes an optical fiber arranged to detect tampering with an object resulting from a change in the optical fiber arrangement and an optical fiber carrier coupled to the optical fiber for conforming the optical fiber arrangement to the object.”);
record a second optical signature of the interconnect based on the light received at the optical detector at a second time (i.e., …teaches in the Abstract the following: “A method includes conforming an arrangement of an optical fiber to an object to detect tampering with the object when the optical fiber arrangement is changed, measuring an optical signature of the optical fiber arrangement in a first measurement, measuring the optical signature of the optical fiber arrangement at a time after the first measurement in a second measurement, and comparing the first and second measurements to detect tampering with the object from a change in the optical fiber arrangement. In another embodiment, an optical shield includes an optical fiber arranged to detect tampering with an object resulting from a change in the optical fiber arrangement and an optical fiber carrier coupled to the optical fiber for conforming the optical fiber arrangement to the object.”);
and validate the second optical signature against the first optical signature to determine a security of the interconnect (i.e., …teaches in the Abstract the following: “A method includes conforming an arrangement of an optical fiber to an object to detect tampering with the object when the optical fiber arrangement is changed, measuring an optical signature of the optical fiber arrangement in a first measurement, measuring the optical signature of the optical fiber arrangement at a time after the first measurement in a second measurement, and comparing the first and second measurements to detect tampering with the object from a change in the optical fiber arrangement. In another embodiment, an optical shield includes an optical fiber arranged to detect tampering with an object resulting from a change in the optical fiber arrangement and an optical fiber carrier coupled to the optical fiber for conforming the optical fiber arrangement to the object.”).
As to claims 9 and 16, the system of Sanchez and Shaw as applied to claim 8 above teaches tampering detection, specifically Sanchez teaches a signal security detection system of claim 8, wherein the at least one conductive pathway includes an electrically conductive column aligned between the first device and second device (i.e., …figure 1 illustrates a electrically conductive column),
the conductive column including conductive particles having a non-deterministic arrangement within a columnar volume extending from the first device to the second device (i.e., …figure 1 illustrates a electrically conductive column),
wherein the first optical signature and the second optical signature include the effects of the non-deterministic arrangement (i.e., …figure 1 illustrates a electrically conductive column).
As to claim 17, the system of Sanchez and Shaw as applied to claim 15 above teaches tampering detection, specifically Sanchez teaches a electrical system of claim 15, wherein the light source is embedded within the first device and the optical detector is embedded within one of the first device and the second device (i.e., ..illustrates a light source and detector associated with respective devices).
Claim(s) 3-6, 10-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Shaw as applied claims 1, 8 and 15 above and further in view of Berding et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2022/0051953 and Berding hereinafter).
As to claims 3 and 10, the system of Sanchez and Shaw as applied to claim 1 above teaches tampering detection, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a method of claim 1, wherein the conductive pathway is formed within a bonding material between the first device and the second device, further comprising illuminating the bonding material with a light to record at least one of the first optical signature and the second optical signature.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Berding.
Berding teaches in par. 0028 the following: “the first layer deposited on the device can include a first sense material deposited on a first portion of the device and a second sense material deposited on a second portion of the device. A second layer can be deposited on the first layer, where the second layer has a thickness of approximately 10 nm. During an etch process at a processing chamber, an optical detection component can detect a first optical signature associated with the first sense material at approximately 1 second after the etch process is initiated. The optical detection component can detect a second optical signature associated with the second sense material at approximately 2 seconds after the etch process is initiated. Based on the thickness of the second layer and the measured time periods, a first etch rate associated with the first portion of the device can be determined to be 10 nm/s, while a second etch rate associated with the first portion of the device can be determined to be 5 nm/s. In response to determining a difference between the first etch rate and the second etch rate exceed a difference threshold, it can be determined that etching is not performed uniformly across the surface of a device at the processing chamber. As such, an optimized set of etch parameter settings can be determined to cause the etch rate associated with the first portion of the device to approximately match the etch rate associated with the second portion of the device.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Sanchez and Shaw with the teachings of Berding by having their system comprise a enhanced optical signature measuring process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to determine uniformity, wherein the enhanced optical signature measuring process helps facilitate integrity and makes it easier to determine a measurement difference.
As to claims 4 and 11, the system of Sanchez and Shaw and as applied to claim 3 above teaches tampering detection, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a method of claim 3, further comprising illuminating the bonding material using a light source embedded within the first device and recording the at least one of the first optical signature and the second optical signature at an optical detector embedded within the first device.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Berding.
Berding teaches in par. 0028 the following: “the first layer deposited on the device can include a first sense material deposited on a first portion of the device and a second sense material deposited on a second portion of the device. A second layer can be deposited on the first layer, where the second layer has a thickness of approximately 10 nm. During an etch process at a processing chamber, an optical detection component can detect a first optical signature associated with the first sense material at approximately 1 second after the etch process is initiated. The optical detection component can detect a second optical signature associated with the second sense material at approximately 2 seconds after the etch process is initiated. Based on the thickness of the second layer and the measured time periods, a first etch rate associated with the first portion of the device can be determined to be 10 nm/s, while a second etch rate associated with the first portion of the device can be determined to be 5 nm/s. In response to determining a difference between the first etch rate and the second etch rate exceed a difference threshold, it can be determined that etching is not performed uniformly across the surface of a device at the processing chamber. As such, an optimized set of etch parameter settings can be determined to cause the etch rate associated with the first portion of the device to approximately match the etch rate associated with the second portion of the device.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Sanchez and Shaw with the teachings of Berding by having their system comprise a enhanced optical signature measuring process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to determine uniformity, wherein the enhanced optical signature measuring process helps facilitate integrity and makes it easier to determine a measurement difference.
As to claims 5 and 12, the system of Sanchez and Shaw as applied to claim 3 above teaches tampering detection, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a method of claim 3, further comprising illuminating the bonding material using a light source embedded within the first device and recording the at least one of the first optical signature and the second optical signature at an optical detector embedded within the second device.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Berding.
Berding teaches in par. 0028 the following: “the first layer deposited on the device can include a first sense material deposited on a first portion of the device and a second sense material deposited on a second portion of the device. A second layer can be deposited on the first layer, where the second layer has a thickness of approximately 10 nm. During an etch process at a processing chamber, an optical detection component can detect a first optical signature associated with the first sense material at approximately 1 second after the etch process is initiated. The optical detection component can detect a second optical signature associated with the second sense material at approximately 2 seconds after the etch process is initiated. Based on the thickness of the second layer and the measured time periods, a first etch rate associated with the first portion of the device can be determined to be 10 nm/s, while a second etch rate associated with the first portion of the device can be determined to be 5 nm/s. In response to determining a difference between the first etch rate and the second etch rate exceed a difference threshold, it can be determined that etching is not performed uniformly across the surface of a device at the processing chamber. As such, an optimized set of etch parameter settings can be determined to cause the etch rate associated with the first portion of the device to approximately match the etch rate associated with the second portion of the device.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Sanchez and Shaw with the teachings of Berding by having their system comprise a enhanced optical signature measuring process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to determine uniformity, wherein the enhanced optical signature measuring process helps facilitate integrity and makes it easier to determine a measurement difference.
As to claims 6, 13 and 18, the system of Sanchez and Shaw as applied to claim 4 above teaches tampering detection, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a method of claim 4, wherein the light source generates a light within at least one of a visible band and an infrared band.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Berding.
Berding teaches in par. 0044 the following: “The sense material can also be a metallic material, such as a copper-based material or a tungsten-based material. In some embodiments, the sense material can be any materials that emit photons having a wavelength of between approximately 200 nanometers (nm) (i.e., ultra-violet photons) and approximately 1100 nm (i.e., near infra-red photons)”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Sanchez with the teachings of Berding by having their system comprise a enhanced optical signature measuring process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to determine uniformity, wherein the enhanced optical signature measuring process helps facilitate integrity and makes it easier to determine a measurement difference.
As to claim 19, the system of Sanchez and Shaw as applied to claim 15 above teaches tampering detection, specifically neither reference expressly teaches an electrical system of claim 15, wherein the at least one conductive pathway is included within a bonding material between the first device and the second device.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Berding.
Berding teaches in par. 0028 the following: “the first layer deposited on the device can include a first sense material deposited on a first portion of the device and a second sense material deposited on a second portion of the device. A second layer can be deposited on the first layer, where the second layer has a thickness of approximately 10 nm. During an etch process at a processing chamber, an optical detection component can detect a first optical signature associated with the first sense material at approximately 1 second after the etch process is initiated. The optical detection component can detect a second optical signature associated with the second sense material at approximately 2 seconds after the etch process is initiated. Based on the thickness of the second layer and the measured time periods, a first etch rate associated with the first portion of the device can be determined to be 10 nm/s, while a second etch rate associated with the first portion of the device can be determined to be 5 nm/s. In response to determining a difference between the first etch rate and the second etch rate exceed a difference threshold, it can be determined that etching is not performed uniformly across the surface of a device at the processing chamber. As such, an optimized set of etch parameter settings can be determined to cause the etch rate associated with the first portion of the device to approximately match the etch rate associated with the second portion of the device.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Sanchez and Shaw with the teachings of Berding by having their system comprise a enhanced optical signature measuring process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to determine uniformity, wherein the enhanced optical signature measuring process helps facilitate integrity and makes it easier to determine a measurement difference.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanchez in view of Shaw as applied claims 1, 8 and 15 above and further in view of Walt (WO 0016101).
As to claims 7, 14 and 20, the system of Sanchez and Shaw as applied to claim 1 above teaches tampering detection, specifically neither reference expressly teaches a method of claim 1, further comprising forming the interconnect with a dye disposed at a selected location in the interconnect, wherein the first optical signature and the second optical signature include the effects of the dye.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Walt.
Walt teaches in par. 0044 the following: “…additional encoding parameters can be added, such as microsphere size For example, the use of different size beads may also allow the reuse of sets of optical signatures, that is, it is possible to use microspheres of different sizes to expand the encoding dimensions of the microspheres Optical fiber arrays can be fabricated containing pixels with different fiber diameters or cross-sections, alternatively, two or more fiber optic bundles, each with different cross-sections of the individual fibers, can be added together to form a larger bundle, or, fiber optic bundles with fiber of the same size cross-sections can be used, but just with different sized beads With different diameters, the largest wells can be filled with the largest microspheres and then moving onto progressively smaller microspheres in the smaller wells until all size wells are then filled In this manner, the same dye ratio could be used to encode microspheres of different sizes thereby expanding the number of different oligonucleotide sequences or chemical functionalities present in the array Although outlined for fiber optic substrates, this as well as the other methods outlined herein can be used with other substrates and with other attachment modalities as well In a preferred embodiment, the coding and decoding is accomplished by sequential loading of the microspheres into the array As outlined above for spatial coding, in this embodiment, the optical signatures can be "reused ' In this embodiment, the library of microspheres each comprising a different bioactive agent (or the subpopulations each comprise a different bioactive agent), is divided into a plurality of sublibraries, for example, depending on the size of the desired array and the number of unique tags, 10 sublibraries each comprising roughly 10% of the total library may be made, with each sublibrary comprising roughly the same unique tags Then, the first sublibrary is added to the fiber optic bundle comprising the wells, and the location of each bioactive agent is determined, using its optical signature The second sublibrary is then added, and the location of each optical signature is again determined The signal in this case will comprise the "first" optical signature and the "second" optical signature, by comparing the two matrices the location of each bead in each sublibrary can be determined Similarly, adding the third, fourth, etc sublibraries sequentially will allow the array to be filled”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of Sanchez and Shaw with the teachings of Walt by having their system comprise a enhanced optical signature generation process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to generate unique optical signatures, wherein the enhanced optical signature generation process helps facilitate signature uniqueness and makes it easier to determine signal uniqueness.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN F WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3826.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. 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.
/BRYAN F WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights