`
`V i$ T {a
`
`A
`
`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
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/316,687
`
`12/06/2016
`
`JUNJI MINATO
`
`PIPMB-56974
`
`1751
`
`759°
`52°“
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`
`””7””
`
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44114-3108
`
`TAN~R1CHARD
`
`2842
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/17/2019
`
`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):
`
`patdoeket@pearne.eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/316,687
`Examiner
`RICHARD TAN
`
`Applicant(s)
`MINATO, JUNJI
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`2842
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 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 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f 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).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on June 10,2019.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a). This action is FINAL.
`
`2b) C] This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] 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 Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—4 and 9—12 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) fl is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) 1—4 and 9—12 is/are rejected.
`
`E] Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[:1 Claim(s)
`9
`* 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
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.'sp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10):] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11):] The drawing(s) filed on
`
`is/are: a)C] accepted or b)Ej 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)C] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)CI All
`
`b)C] Some**
`
`c)CI None of the:
`
`1C] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2C] 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)
`
`1) C] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) D Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190912
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Applicant’s arguments/amendments filed June 10, 2019 have been fully
`
`considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection. Claims 5-8 had been
`
`canceled.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`2.
`
`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.
`
`3.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 3
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1-3, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Sato et al. (2011/0049991) (hereinafter “Sato”) in view of Peterson et al.
`
`(2008/0157594) (“Peterson”), Hisashi Hamaya (JP 2009-095232) (hereinafter
`
`“Hamaya”) and Applicant admitted prior art shown in Application’s Fig.1 and 2
`
`(hereinafter “AAPA”).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a power supply device (Fig.1 or 21, plefi
`
`refer to the whole references for detailed) comprising: a first unidirectional converter (4
`
`or 50) that converts power to be supplied from an input power supply (71) to a first
`
`converted power by switching, and supplies the first converted power to a power
`
`storage device (40 (or) combination of 20, 34, 37, 40 and 41; please consider both
`
`situation) in a single direction; a second unidirectional converter (9 or 51) that converts,
`
`by switching, the first converted power to be supplied from the first unidirectional
`
`converter or power to be supplied from the power storage device to a second converted
`
`power (power at terminal T2), and supplies the second converted power to a load
`
`device (72) in a single direction; a capacitor (7 and/or 8) is connected in between the
`
`first unidirectional converter and the second unidirectional converter; and wherein a
`
`branch point (N1, N2 or N3) at which a power line from the first unidirectional converter
`
`to the power storage device intersects a power line from the second unidirectional
`
`converter to the power storage device is closer to the first unidirectional converter than
`
`to the power storage device; wherein the capacitor is provided between the first
`
`unidirectional converter and the power storage device, and between the power storage
`
`device and the second unidirectional converter, wherein a first terminal of the capacitor
`
`(for example — a first terminal of 7, which is connected to N1) is directly coupled to the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 4
`
`branch point, and a second terminal of the capacitor (for example - another terminal of
`
`7, which is connected to N2) is coupled to the power storage device (40 (or)
`
`combination of 20, 34, 37, 40 and 41; please consider both situation); wherein the
`
`power supply device is configured to operate in: a first state in which the first
`
`unidirectional converter (4 or 50) supplies the first converted power to the power storage
`
`device (40); a second state in which the second unidirectional converter (9 or 51)
`
`converts the power to be supplied from the power storage device to the load (72); and a
`
`third state in which the first unidirectional converter (4 or 50) converts the power to be
`
`supplied from the input power supply (71) and the second unidirectional converter (9 or
`
`51) converts the first converted power to be supplied from the first unidirectional
`
`converter to the load.
`
`Sato doesn’t explicitly disclose the capacitor (7 and/or 8) is a noise filter that
`
`reduces noise; and doesn’t disclose a shield that covers the first unidirectional
`
`converter, the second unidirectional converter, and the noise filter, and blocks
`
`electromagnetic noise; and wherein the power supply device is configured to operate in
`
`a first state in which the first unidirectional converter supplies the first converted power
`
`to the power storage device and the second unidirectional converter does not operate; a
`
`second state in which the first unidirectional converter does not operate and the second
`
`unidirectional converter converts the power to be supplied from the power storage
`
`device to the load.
`
`For supporting purpose, Peterson discloses an example of a capacitor (45 in Fig.
`
`1 or 2) function as a noise filter that reduces noise (1) 22) generated in an AC-DC
`
`converter (42) and a DC-AC inverter (46).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 5
`
`Hamaya discloses an example of a shield (42) that covers a first converter (01 1-
`
`016 or 34), a second converter (Q21 -Q26 or 36), and the noise filter (Cf ), and blocks
`
`electromagnetic noise (11 24).
`
`AAPA discloses a power supply device (AAPA’s Fig.2) is configured to operate
`
`in: a first state (first state arrow line between Power Supply and Power Storage Device
`
`in AAPA’s Fig.2) in which the first unidirectional converter (1, 2 and/or 3 in Fig.2)
`
`supplies the first converted power to the power storage device (Power Storage Device)
`
`and the second unidirectional converter (7) does not operate (since the first state arrow
`
`line shows only 1 operates, but not 7 during the first state); a second state (second state
`
`arrow line between Power Storage Device and Load Device) in which the first
`
`unidirectional converter does not operate (since the second state arrow line shows only
`
`7 operates, but not 1 during the second state) and the second unidirectional converter
`
`(7) converts the power to be supplied from the power storage device to the load (Load
`
`Device); and a third state (third state arrow line between Power Supply and Load
`
`Device) in which the first unidirectional converter converts the power to be supplied from
`
`the input power supply and the second unidirectional converter converts the first
`
`converted power to be supplied from the first unidirectional converter to the load.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize Sato with the teaching of
`
`Peterson that the capacitor is a noise filter to reduce noise generated in the first
`
`unidirectional converter and the second unidirectional converter (or) modify to provide a
`
`noise filter to reduce noise generated in the first unidirectional converter and the second
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 6
`
`unidirectional converter; and to modify Sato with the teaching of Hamaya and AAPA to
`
`provide a shield that covers the first unidirectional converter, the second unidirectional
`
`converter, and the noise filter, and blocks electromagnetic noise; and wherein the power
`
`supply device is configured to operate in a first state in which the first unidirectional
`
`converter supplies the first converted power to the power storage device and the
`
`second unidirectional converter does not operate; a second state in which the first
`
`unidirectional converter does not operate and the second unidirectional converter
`
`converts the power to be supplied from the power storage device to the load. The
`
`suggestion/motivation would have been to shield electromagnetic radiation as
`
`suggested by Hamaya (also by 11 in AAPA’s Fig.2) and control the function of the first
`
`unidirectional converter and the second unidirectional converter as taught by AAPA
`
`(Note: where using of DC-DC converter in place of DC-AC converter for the second
`
`unidirectional converter taught by Sato would have been a mere design choice
`
`depending on type of power supply required by the load device).
`
`Regarding claim 2, Sato in view of Peterson, Hamaya and AAPA is used to
`
`reject claim 1 above.
`
`Sato discloses wherein the capacitor (7 and/or 8) is interposed on a current path
`
`between the first unidirectional converter (4 or 50) and the power storage device (40),
`
`and the capacitor is not interposed on a current path between the first unidirectional
`
`converter and the second unidirectional converter (9 or 51).
`
`As explained in claim 1 above, Sato doesn’t explicitly disclose the capacitor is a
`
`noise filter.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 7
`
`For supporting purpose, Peterson discloses an example of a capacitor (45 in Fig.
`
`1 or 2) function as a noise filter that reduces noise (1) 22) generated in an AC-DC
`
`converter (42) and a DC-AC inverter (46).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize Sato with the teaching of
`
`Peterson that the capacitor (Sato’s capacitor 7) is a noise filter (or) modify to provide a
`
`noise filter in between the first unidirectional converter and the second unidirectional
`
`converter.
`
`Regarding claim 3, Sato in view of Peterson, Hamaya and AAPA is used to
`
`reject claim 1 above.
`
`Sato discloses the capacitor (7 and/or 8) as explained in clam 1 above, wherein a
`
`current capacity of the capacitor is higher than any of a first maximum value of a current
`
`that flow from the first unidirectional converter and a second maximum value of a
`
`current that flow to the second unidirectional converter, and is lower than the total value
`
`of the first maximum value and the second maximum value (because the capacitor 7 is
`
`in between the first unidirectional converter and the second unidirectional converter thus
`
`a current capacity of the capacitor (7 and/or 8) would be sufficient to withstand the
`
`transferring of power between the first unidirectional converter and the second
`
`unidirectional converter).
`
`Sato doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein a current capacity of the noise filter is
`
`higher than any of a first maximum value of a current that flows from the first
`
`unidirectional converter and a second maximum value of a current that flows to the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 8
`
`second unidirectional converter, and is lower than the total value of the first maximum
`
`value and the second maximum value.
`
`For supporting purpose, Peterson discloses an example of a capacitor (45 in Fig.
`
`1 or 2) function as a noise filter that reduces noise (1) 22).
`
`As would have been recognize by one of ordinary skill in the art, setting
`
`parameters such as current capacity of the noise filter (Sato’s capacitor 7) is higher than
`
`any of a first maximum value of a current that flows from the first unidirectional
`
`converter and a second maximum value of a current that flows to the second
`
`unidirectional converter, and is lower than the total value of the first maximum value and
`
`the second maximum value would have been done merely as a design choice and in
`
`order to optimize the operation of the power supply. (Please note MPEP 2144.05:
`
`“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
`
`inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re
`
`Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
`
`Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
`
`the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato in view of Hamaya and
`
`AAPA with the teaching of Peterson to provide wherein a current capacity of the noise
`
`filter is higher than any of a first maximum value of a current that flows from the first
`
`unidirectional converter and a second maximum value of a current that flows to the
`
`second unidirectional converter, and is lower than the total value of the first maximum
`
`value and the second maximum value since such a selection is in fact arrived by a
`
`normal design procedures depending on power rating of the battery and/or the first and
`
`second unidirectional converter.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 9
`
`Regarding claim 10, Sato in view of Peterson, Hamaya and AAPA is used to
`
`reject claim 1 above.
`
`Sato discloses a first line filter (1) coupled between the input power supply (71)
`
`and the first unidirectional converter (4 or 50); and a second line filter (12) coupled
`
`between the second unidirectional converter (9 or 51) and the load device (72).
`
`Sato doesn’t disclose wherein the shield covers the first line filter and the second
`
`line filter.
`
`AAPA discloses an example of the shield (11 in Fig.2) covers the first line filter
`
`(4) and the second line filter (8).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato in view of Peterson and
`
`Hamaya with the teaching of AAPA to provide the shield covers the first line filter and
`
`the second line filter. The suggestion/motivation would have been to cover power supply
`
`components with a shield.
`
`Regarding claim 12, Sato in view of Peterson, Hamaya and AAPA is used to
`
`reject claim 1 above.
`
`Sato doesn’t disclose the shield does not cover the power storage device and the
`
`electrical component.
`
`AAPA discloses the shield (11 in Fig.2) does not cover the power storage device
`
`(POWER STORAGE DEVICE in Fig.2) and the electrical component (LOAD DEVICE).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato in view of Peterson and
`
`Hamaya with the teaching of AAPA to provide the shield does not cover the power
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 10
`
`storage device and the electrical component. The suggestion/motivation would have
`
`been to cover power supply components with a shield.
`
`5.
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Sato et al. (2011/0049991) (hereinafter “Sato”) in view of Peterson et al.
`
`(2008/0157594) (“Peterson”), Hisashi Hamaya (JP 2009-095232) (hereinafter
`
`“Hamaya”), Applicant admitted prior art shown in Application’s Fig.1 and 2 (hereinafter
`
`“AAPA”) and Park et al. (2012/0166013) (“Park”).
`
`Regarding claim 4, Sato in view of Peterson, Hamaya and AAPA is used to
`
`reject claim 1 above.
`
`Sato doesn’t disclose wherein the noise filter has a common mode choke coil.
`
`Park discloses an example of a noise filter which has a common mode choke coil
`
`(choke coil of DC noise filter shown in Fig.1A; Note: Application’s Fig.4 shows similar
`
`noise filter circuit).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato in view of Peterson, Hamaya
`
`and AAPA with the teaching of Park to use a noise filter with a common mode choke
`
`coil. The suggestion/motivation would have been to choose noise filter depending on
`
`particular power and/or output provided by the battery or the converter as examples
`
`shown in Sato and Park.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Sato et al. (2011/0049991) (hereinafter “Sato”) in view of Peterson et al.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 11
`
`(2008/0157594) (“Peterson”), Hisashi Hamaya (JP 2009-095232) (hereinafter
`
`“Hamaya”), Applicant admitted prior art shown in Application’s Fig.1 and 2 (hereinafter
`
`“AAPA”) and Ang (8,860,363).
`
`Regarding claim 9, Sato in view of Peterson, Hamaya and AAPA is used to
`
`reject claim 1 above.
`
`Sato discloses the input power supply is an AC power supply (71 ), the first
`
`unidirectional converter is configured of an AC-DC converter (4 or 50; 1) 6).
`
`Sato doesn’t disclose wherein the power supply device is mounted to a vehicle,
`
`the input power supply is an AC power supply outside the vehicle; the first unidirectional
`
`converter is configured of an AC-DC converter and a DC-DC converter; and the second
`
`unidirectional converter is configured of a DC-DC converter.
`
`Ang discloses an example of wherein the power supply device (100 in Fig.1) is
`
`mounted to a vehicle (column 5, line 62-66), the input power supply (260) is an AC
`
`power supply outside the vehicle; a first converter (200) is configured of an AC-DC
`
`converter and a DC-DC converter; and the second unidirectional converter (170) is
`
`configured of a DC-DC converter.
`
`AAPA discloses an example of a first unidirectional converter (1 in AAPA’s Fig.2)
`
`is configured of an AC-DC converter and DC-DC converter.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato in view of Peterson and
`
`Hamaya with the teaching of Ang and AAPA to provide wherein the power supply
`
`device is mounted to a vehicle, the input power supply is an AC power supply outside
`
`the vehicle; the first unidirectional converter is configured of an AC-DC converter and a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 12
`
`DC-DC converter; and the second unidirectional converter is configured of a DC-DC
`
`converter. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use the power supply device
`
`in a vehicle to supply power to the battery as taught by Ang and AAPA; and use a AC-
`
`DC converter and a DC-DC converter in place of the AC-DC converter of Sato would
`
`have been obvious design choice since which doesn’t change the feature of AC-DC
`
`converter of Sato to convert AC to DC; and use a DC-DC converter in place of the DC-
`
`AC converter of Sato to provide power to DC load as taught by Ang.
`
`Regarding claim 11, Sato in view of Peterson, Hamaya and AAPA is used to
`
`reject claim 1 above.
`
`Sato doesn’t disclose wherein the power supply device is mounted to a vehicle
`
`which mounts an electrical component that does not belong to the power supply device.
`
`Ang discloses an example of wherein the power supply device (power supply
`
`device formed by at least 110, 120 and 200 in Fig.1) is mounted to a vehicle (column 5,
`
`line 62-66) which mounts an electrical component (190; column 9, line 36-38) that does
`
`not belong to the power supply device.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
`
`effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato in view of Peterson, Hamaya
`
`and AAPA with the teaching of Ang to provide wherein the power supply device is
`
`mounted to a vehicle which mounts an electrical component that does not belong to the
`
`power supply device. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use the power
`
`supply device in a vehicle to supply power to the electrical components of the vehicle.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 13
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
`
`§ 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
`
`CFR1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571 )270-
`
`7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
`
`lf attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Robert Pascal can be reached on 571-272—1769. 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 PAlR or Public PAlR.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/316,687
`Art Unit: 2842
`
`Page 14
`
`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 -272-1 000.
`
`/ Richard Tan/
`
`Primary Examiner 2842
`
`