`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313- 1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`
`
`
`
` F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`
`
`
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`13/150,533
`
`06/01/2011
`
`Hiroki KAIHORI
`
`MAT—10472US
`
`3216
`
`EXAMINER
`RATNERPRESTIA —
`W20” —
`”90
`52473
`PO. BOX 980
`EUSTAQUIO, CAL I
`VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482-0980
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`26 83
`
`
`
`
`NOT *ICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/ 1 1/2014
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ptocorrespondence @ratnerprestia.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 13/150,533 KAIHORI ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`CAL EUSTAQUIO its“ 2683
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 6/1/2011.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|ZI This action is non-final.
`2a)|:l This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 149 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| CIaim(s)_1-9is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'/\W¢W.LISI>I‘.0. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`iindex.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Xl The drawing(s) filed on 6/1/2011 is/are: a)lX| accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)IXI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)IZl All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.I:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) E InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date 6/1/2011.
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20140331
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/150,533
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`1.
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`2.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as
`set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious
`at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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(a) are summarized as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
`
`Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims
`
`at issue.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`Considering objective evidence present in the application
`
`indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over
`
`Letkomiller et al., U.S. 2006/0132317 in view of Rodenbeck et al., U.S. 6,535,136.
`
`On claim 1, Lekomiller cites: A wireless sensor system comprising:
`
`a first wireless sensor (figure 1 and [0027]. Sensor 112b coupled to transponder
`
`112a);
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/150,533
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`a wireless device (see above, 112a); and
`
`a proximity device connected to the wireless device ([0086] proximity sensor
`
`141), wherein the first wireless sensor includes:
`
`an ambience sensor that detects a status of an ambient environment to output
`
`ambient data depending on the detected status of the ambient environment (figure 1,
`
`and [0086] describes taking temperatures from each animal 10. The animal 10 has an
`
`ingested "bolus" sensing device, described in [0091] where includes the sensor 112b.
`
`Since the bolus is located within the animal, the environment to which the bolus sensor
`
`is located would be considered its surrounding, and therefore, sensor 112b senses its
`
`surrounding or ambient temperature);
`
`said proximity device connected to the wireless device, wherein the first wireless
`
`sensor includes:
`
`a radio-frequency (RF) transmitter coupled to the system in which a sensor
`
`sends the ambient data to the wireless sensor system (figure 1 shows a sensor 112b
`
`wirelessly coupled to control and analysis module 130 via wirelessly coupled to a
`
`transceiver 120); and
`
`a first controller that is connected to the ambience sensor, the proximity device,
`
`and the RF transmitter, wherein the wireless device includes:
`
`an RF receiver that receives the radio wave sent from the RF transmitter (figure
`
`1, transceiver 120 is the claimed “RF receiver,”);
`
`a second controller that is connected to the RF receiver and that outputs a first
`
`control signal for controlling the first controller (as above, transceiver 120 analogous to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/150,533
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`the claimed "RF receiver," which is coupled to Control and Analysis module 130. [0086]
`
`discusses reading ID code and temperatures from the previously discussed bolus, the
`
`cited “read” being analogous to the claimed “first control signal" used to control the “first
`
`controller"),
`
`Except for the claimed:
`
`a first wireless sensor configured to be driven by a battery;
`
`a radio-frequency (RF) transmitter that receives electric power supplied from the
`
`battery to send the ambient data to the wireless device with using a radio wave;
`
`a first controller that receives electric power supplied from the battery and that is
`
`connected to the ambience sensor, the magnetic sensor, and the RF transmitter,
`
`wherein the wireless device includes: an RF receiver that receives the radio wave sent
`
`from the RF transmitter; and a second controller that is connected to the RF receiver
`
`and that outputs a first control signal for controlling the first controller, and wherein the
`
`magnetic field generator includes a first coil for sending the first control signal to the first
`
`magnetic sensor with using a magnetic field.
`
`a magnetic field generator connected to the wireless device.
`
`On the excepted “a first wireless sensor configured to be driven by a battery,"
`
`Letkomiller, [0033] and [0099] discusses using electromagnetic energy to power system
`
`elements while in another embodiment, direct current as well as single phase
`
`alternating current as sources of power for the system components.
`
`A sensor 112b is shown coupled to the RFID transponder 112a, the citation meeting at
`
`the claimed "first wireless sensor". However, battery usage is not described.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/150,533
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the claimed invention to substitute battery operation as a known means of providing
`
`power to the claimed components described above.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have known/recognized that battery
`
`operated devices are known embodiments of direct current operated devices and
`
`providing such a feature allows such circuits independence from line-voltage type power
`
`supplies, allowing the battery powered device to be mobile and therefore, one of
`
`ordinary skill would have likely substituted one known embodiment of powering a
`
`wireless circuit with another known alternative embodiment of power the wireless
`
`circuitry and the results would have predicted the claimed invention. Therefore, under
`
`these circumstances, the Examiner cites this feature to be notoriously known in the art
`
`and takes Office Notice to this limitation. See MPEP 2144.03 A under “Official Notice.”
`
`On the italicized portions of the claimed: a first controller that receives electric
`
`power supplied from the battery and that is connected to the ambience sensor, the
`
`magnetic sensor, and the RF transmitter, wherein the wireless device includes: an RF
`
`receiver that receives the radio wave sent from the RF transmitter; and a second
`
`controller that is connected to the RF receiver and that outputs a first control signal for
`
`controlling the first controller, and wherein the magnetic field generator includes a first
`
`coil for sending the first control signal to the first magnetic sensor with using a magnetic
`
`field.
`
`a magnetic field generator connected to the wireless device, wherein the first
`
`wireless sensor includes:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/150,533
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`a radio-frequency (RF) transmitter coupled to the system in which a sensor
`
`sends the ambient data to the wireless sensor system (figure 1 shows a sensor 143
`
`coupled to control and analysis module 130, which is coupled to a transceiver 121 ),
`
`Letkomiller, as above, discusses using a proximity detector to initiate
`
`communications transactions between the cattle-mounted RFID tag and transceiver
`
`120, which is shown in figure 1. Furthermore, Letkomiller, figures 4 and 5, and [0084-
`
`85], discusses using magnetic flux interaction to provide a data transaction between the
`
`cattle RFID tag and transceiver 120.
`
`However, Letkomiller doesn’t include limitations: magnetic sensor, and wherein
`
`the magnetic field generator includes a first coil for sending the first control signal to the
`
`first magnetic sensor with using a magnetic field; a magnetic field generator connected
`
`to the wireless device.
`
`In the similar art of proximity detection systems, Rodenbeck, col. 6, lines 37-51,
`
`and figures 1-3, discusses using a proximity card 12 in conjunction with an entry
`
`detection system. Rodenbeck teaches, in an alternative embodiment, that the card 12
`
`includes coils that cooperate with a magnetic sensor to allow communications between
`
`the card and reader electronics 24. The interaction between the card 12 and the wake
`
`up circuit 26 provides an activation of access control electronics (which is shown on
`
`figure 3, element 150). This activation is analogous to the claimed “first control signal."
`
`The claimed "magnetic sensor, magnetic field generator, and first coil,” are discussed in
`
`the above cited structure. The cited card 12 includes coils, the interaction between the
`
`coils and the magnetic sensor analogous to the claimed "magnetic field generator."
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/150,533
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`claimed invention to modify Letkomiller's proximity detection switch using the
`
`magnetically operated card discussed in Rodenbeck to produce an RFID tag reader
`
`system in which the presence of a magnetic device causes a communications
`
`transaction between a tag and a reader. The magnetic proximity detection system
`
`discussed in Rodenbeck is a known embodiment of the proximity detection system
`
`disclosed in Letkomiller.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have known/recognized that each respective
`
`reference solves the problem of determining if a tagged object or user is present before
`
`any data transactions between the tag and corresponding reader can take place.
`
`On claim 2, Letkomiller and Rodenbeck cite: The wireless sensor system
`
`according to claim 1, wherein: the magnetic field generator can be separated from the
`
`second controller of the wireless device. See the rejection of claim 1. The limitations do
`
`not positively claim the separable function of "separating the second controller from the
`
`magnetic field generator.” Also, the claiming an ability for an element to become
`
`separated is not necessarily patentable subject matter if the reference provides a non-
`
`separable version of invention. See the “Doctrine of Making Separable,” MPEP 2144.04
`
`V.C.
`
`“in re Duiherg, 2.89 F.2d 5-??? 523 129 USPQ 343, 849 (CCPA 19:31} (The elaimed etrtseture, a
`lipstiek holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap -s
`“press fitted” and therefere het mehuelty remevabte. The court held that “it it were eehsldered desirable
`fer any reaseh t0 ehteih access t0 the end at {the prier art‘s} helder te which the cap is applied. it W’Ouid
`be ebvieue t0 metre the cap remevable fer that purpose.”)."
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/150,533
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`On claim 3, Letkomiller cites: The wireless sensor system according to claim 1,
`
`wherein the wireless sensor system further includes a second wireless sensor that
`
`sends a signal to the wireless device with using a radio wave, wherein the second
`
`controller of the wireless device outputs a second control signal for controlling the
`
`second wireless sensor.
`
`[0086] cites a scenario in which two cattle successively pass
`
`through the system. The second control signal is analogous to the cited second animal
`
`10 traversing through the system after the first animal has its data acquired.
`
`Except for the claimed: wherein the magnetic field generator further includes a
`
`second coil for sending the second control signal to the second wireless sensor with
`
`using a magnetic field.
`
`Letkomiller and Rodenbeck, as in the rejection of claim 1, discusses at least one
`
`magnetically detected badge where a badge cooperates with a wake up circuit to cause
`
`communications to take place between the badge and the reader electronics 24 (see
`
`figure 1 of Rodenbeck). As discussed above, Letkomiller discusses having a plurality of
`
`cattle traverse through the reader system shown in figure 1, and when modified using
`
`Rodenbeck, as in the rejection of claim 1, at least one magnetic generator featuring one
`
`coil, is expressed in the wake up circuit 26. However, no second coil is cited in either
`
`citation.
`
`However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the claimed invention to modify Letkomiller and Rodenbeck to produce a magnetically
`
`triggered tag reader system where the claimed "second coil" is functionally met.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/150,533
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`The references teach an integrated system where a single coil possesses the
`
`ability of transacting data with a plurality of sensors while the invention uses a plurality
`
`of coils to provide the same or similar function.
`
`In short, the references provide a
`
`structure in which a single coil provides the same or similar function as a set of coils
`
`found in the invention.
`
`In short, this is meets the Doctrine of Making Separable. See
`
`the rejection of claim 2 above which describes this doctrine. Furthermore, the claiming
`
`of additional coils is also seen as falling under the doctrine of "Duplication of Parts,"
`
`MPEP 2144.04 Vl. B. Under In re Harza, the court held that while "the reference did not
`
`disclose a plurality of ribs...[the] mere duplication of parts has no patentable
`
`significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” Adding an extra coil to
`
`initiate communications between a reader and a second RFID tag is considered a
`
`"duplication" of coils.
`
`In an alternative argument, Letkomiller and Rodenbeck do not disclose
`
`expressly cite the claimed "second coil". At the time the invention was made, it would
`
`have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a single coil magnetic
`
`generator to obtain from two different RFID tags such that the claimed limitations are
`
`met. Applicant has not disclosed that providing a second coil provides an advantage, is
`
`used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`furthermore would have expected applicants invention to perform equally well with using
`
`a single magnetic field coil because the purpose of having a magnetic generator coil, is
`
`to obtain information from one or more RFID tags through determining if the RFID
`
`tags/badges are proximate to the coil. Providing a plurality of coils would be providing
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/150,533
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`reading to a plurality of different RFID tag/sensors, a feature already shown where a
`
`single coil would suffice to meet this function. Therefore it would have been obvious to
`
`one of ordinary skill in this art to modify Letkomiller and Rodenbeck to obtain the
`
`invention as specified in claim.
`
`On claim 4, Letkomiller cites except: The wireless sensor system according to
`
`claim 3, wherein the magnetic field generator sequentially and periodically sends the
`
`first control signal and the second control signal at a predetermined time interval to the
`
`first wireless sensor and the second wireless sensor, respectively, with using a
`
`magnetic field. Letkomiller, as in the rejection of claim 3, cites a situation in which a
`
`plurality of cattle traverse a reader station. However, Letkomiller does not recite the
`
`excepted claim limitations.
`
`In the same art of proximity identification systems, Rodenbeck, figures 2 and 3
`
`and col. 7, lines 41-67 and col. 8, lines 1-12, discusses an embodiment in which a
`
`proximity card identification system sends out a card detection function 126 every 250
`
`milliseconds. This would satisfy the claimed “periodically.” It can also be determined
`
`that different personnel each equipped with his own magnetically operated badge would
`
`line up one after another to have his respective identification read by the system. This
`
`would satisfy the claimed "sequentially" sending first and second control signals to the
`
`identification system.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`claimed invention to substitute the known identification features found in Letkomiller
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/150,533
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`using the similar embodiments discussed in Rodenbeck to produce an RFID tag reader
`
`system in which the presence of a set of magnetic devices causes communications
`
`transactions between a set of sensor equipped tags and a reader. The magnetic
`
`proximity detection system discussed in Rodenbeck is a known embodiment of the
`
`proximity detection system disclosed in Letkomiller and one of ordinary skill would have
`
`substituted one feature for the other to produce the claimed invention.
`
`On claim 9, Letkomiller cites: The wireless sensor system according to claim 1,
`
`wherein the ambient environment detected by the ambience sensor includes a
`
`temperature. Figure 1 and [0028] includes measuring ambient temperature.
`
`Alternatively, see the explanation of the “bolus” in the rejection of claim 1.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over
`
`Letkomiller et al., U.S. 2006/0132317 in view of Rodenbeck et al., U.S. 6,535,136 and
`
`Kates, U.S. 2006/0267756.
`
`On claim 5, Letkomiller and Rodenbeck cite except: The wireless sensor system
`
`according to claim 1, wherein: the first controller of the first wireless sensor stores
`
`correction data for correcting the ambient data, and wherein the RF transmitter of the
`
`first wireless sensor sends the corrected ambient data with using the radio wave.
`
`Letkomiller and Rodenbeck, as in the rejection of claim 1, include at least a sensor
`
`where ambient temperature is detected. Furthermore, Letkomiller, [0035], cites using
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/150,533
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`an ASIC equipped PCB where the ASIC includes memory and processing elements.
`
`However, neither cites the excepted claim limitations.
`
`In the same art of sensor systems, Kates, Abstract and [0007], cites a feature in
`
`which a sensor controller performs calibration procedures to provide a sensor that has
`
`correct output.
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`claimed invention to modify Letkomiller and Rodenbeck’s sensor using the ambient
`
`temperature calibration feature where a first wireless sensor includes correcting data for
`
`correcting ambient temperature.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have known/recognized that sensors are
`
`known to fall out of providing accurate information due to normal wear, tear, and usage
`
`and a mechanism to correct for this is used to keep a sensor maintained for providing
`
`accurate data.
`
`On claim 6, Letkomiller, Rodenbeck, and Kates cite: The wireless sensor system
`
`according to claim 5, wherein: the correction data can be written in the first controller of
`
`the first wireless sensor. See the rejection of claim 5 in which a calibration feature is
`
`provided above and the corrected data is stored in the memory described above.
`
`Furthermore, claiming that a device "can" do something or has the ability to perform a
`
`certain function does not positively claim the accompanying function.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/150,533
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`On claim 7, Letkomiller, Rodenbeck, and Kates cite: The wireless sensor system
`
`according to claim 6, wherein: the correction data can be read from the first controller of
`
`the first wireless sensor. See the rejection of claim 5. Also, claiming that a device "can"
`
`do something or has the ability to perform a certain function does not positively claim
`
`the accompanying function.
`
`On claim 8, Letkomiller, Rodenbeck, and Kates cite: The wireless sensor system
`
`according to claim 5, wherein: the correction data can be read from the first controller of
`
`the first wireless sensor. See the rejection of claim 5. Also, claiming that a device "can"
`
`do something or has the ability to perform a certain function does not positively claim
`
`the accompanying function.
`
`Prior Art
`
`5.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant's disclosure: Marneweck et al., U.S. 2002/0175806 recites an electronic tag
`
`binary method where, depending on the proximity of a tag, badge, transponder, or the
`
`like to the reader, the reader generates a low frequency magnetic field which activates
`
`the above proximate items to communicate with the reader, the relevant passages
`
`found in the Abstract and [0034].
`
`Conclusion
`
`6.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to CAL EUSTAQUIO whose telephone number is (571)
`
`270-7229. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon -Thu 9:00 Am-5:30Pm. |f
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/150,533
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2683
`
`attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Brian Zimmerman whose telephone number is (571) 272-3059. 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.usgtogov.
`
`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.
`
`/C. E./
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2683
`
`/BR|AN ZIMMERMAN/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683
`
`