Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the communication(s) received 7/19/2019.
As per the claims filed 12/19/2018:
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 18 is/are independent claims.
Specification Objections
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In summary, the specification failed to provide antecedent basis for the limitations of claims 16 and 20. Upon further review of the specification, the Examiner could not find proper antecedent basis for the relocating limitations of claim 16 and the boundary falloff condition and grouping limitations of claim 20.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10157028. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Below is a table of correspondence between the rejected claims:
Instant Application
10157028
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
18
19
18
20
18
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §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.
Claim 20 is 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.
In summary, claim 20 recites “monitoring a boundary of the GUI to detect a falloff condition in which the graphical representation of the value of the selected tag extends beyond the boundary”. Claim 20 depends on claim 19 which depends on claim 18. It is unclear to which of the GUI element the claim refers to, according to claim 18, there are at least three GUI panels, the claim does not specify whether the panels are considered individual elements with boundaries or if the boundaries are only present on the overall GUI. Additionally, the claim does not define what a falloff condition is and the specification failed to provide antecedent basis for the term. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the claimed limitations as displaying via the GUI a graphical representation of the visualization.
Note Regarding AIA Status
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.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9-10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steven Cotugno et al (US Patent No. 6198480, Published: 03/6/2001)(hereinafter: Cotugno) in view of Kenneth S. Plache et al. (US PG Pub No. 20130124575; Published: 03/16/2013)(hereinafter: Plache).
Claim 1:
As per independent claim 1, Cotugno discloses a system comprising:
a local historian system coupled to a remote display device over a communication network, wherein the local historian system is configured to receive a selection of at least one tag of a plurality of tags from the remote display device over the communication network [[col 2, L 52-64] workstation communicates with storage system over a communication network. [Col 4, lines 9-24] tag browser allows user to select at least one tag] and
wherein the local historian system includes: a computer-readable storage medium storing the plurality of tags, wherein each tag represents an attribute of a continuous process [[col 4, lines 9-24] tag dictionary enables a user of an automation program to view the parameters(attributes) of tags associated with sensing devices controlled by other automation program], and wherein one or more metadata values stored on the computer-readable storage medium describe each tag [[Col 4, L 62-66] The tag browser is designed to display tag parameters capable of being monitored or controlled by the automation program. For example, the tag parameters "Tagname", "Tag Type" and "Alarm Group" are displayed by the tag browser];
Cotugno discloses searching, filtering and selecting tags based on parameters entered by the user. Cotugno failed to specifically disclose, but Plache, in the same field of automation control and visualization discloses a processor configured to execute processor-executable instructions stored on the computer-readable storage medium, said processor-executable instructions including instructions to contextualize the selected tag based on the metadata values describing the selected tag [¶ [0065]-- The programming terminal 46 may be used to generate a tag in the HMI 26 that references the measurement data 45 from the control/monitoring device 30 and meta-data 47 (e.g., from a stored type definition), and store the referenced data in a tag database (e.g., database 49) of the HMI 26. ¶ [0078]--the HMI 26 may access the generated meta-data 47 in order to provide (block 214) an HMI visualization of the tag. That is, the meta-data 47 may include information about how to display a visualization graphic (e.g., gauge graphic 190 of FIG. 7) of the tag on an HMI screen]. Meta-data includes instructions to contextualize the selected tag. and
wherein the local historian system is further configured to transmit the contextualized tag to the remote display device over the communication network [¶ [0057-0058], Run time environment runs as a web environment, transmitting visualizations to remote devices, data may be directly accessed over the server via a networked client device.].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary the art at the time of filing to modify the tag search and historian system of Cotugno to include instructions to contextualize the selected tag based on the metadata values describing the selected tag and to transmit the contextualized tag to the remote display device over the communication network as disclosed by Plache. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow a web browser to simulate an application running on the design platform without requiring a piece of software for a related processor, thus offering speed and flexibility, ¶ [0058].
Claim 2:
As per claim 2, which depends on claim 1, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above. Additionally, Cotugno and Plache disclose wherein said processor-executable instructions further include instructions to contextualize the selected tag based on the number of selected tags. Plache, [¶ [0071]-- FIG. 7 illustrates a graphic 188 for displaying measurement data 45 and associated meta-data 47 relating to a tank agitator. The associated meta-data 47 may allow a user to create such graphic elements (e.g., graphic 188) simply by calling the corresponding instance tag. That is, a user may bring up the illustrated graphic 188 by calling an "M101" instance tag]. The selected tag is contextualized.
Claim 6:
As per claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Cotugno and Plache disclose wherein said local historian system is further configured to provide tags to the remote display device via a guided search experience. Cotugno [See figs 7-11, 15-16, historian system provides tags via menus].
Claim 9:
As per independent claim 9, it recites the method being executed by the system of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Claim 10:
As per claim 10, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Claim 14:
As per claim 14, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 above.
Claims 3-5, 8, 11-13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotugno and Plache in view of David W. Farchmin et al. (US PG Pub No. 20140225895; Published: 08/14/2014)(hereinafter: Farchmin).
Claim 3:
As per claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Cotugno and Plache disclose transmitting the visualization via a network to display on a client device. However, Cotugno and Plache failed to specifically disclose wherein said remote display device is configured to display a graphical representation of a value of the attribute based on a property of the remote display device.
Farchmin, in the same field of visualization display via a network discloses this limitation in that [¶ [0034]-- The visualization component 120 can output data to a plurality of disparate devices to display such data to a user(s). Such data can be formatted to accommodate various aspects of the device that receives such data and/or the user viewing the data…data can be sent to a desktop monitor with a particular size and resolution capability. Display of such data can be modified based on other data and/or display constraints related to disparate processes associated with the monitor. In another example, the same data can be transmitted to a handheld PC with a different (e.g., smaller) screen size, resolution, processes, etc., ¶ [0069]].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the remote display teachings of Cotugno and Plache to configure the graphical representation of the data based on a property of the remote display device as disclosed by Farchmin. The motivation for doing so would have been to properly display the visualization data across client devices, thus guaranteeing data integrity.
Claim 4:
As per claim 4, which depends on claim 3, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above. Additionally, Cotugno, Plache and Farchmin discloses wherein said property is a form factor of the remote display device. Farchmin [¶[0068]-- visual formatting properties associated with the data are determined. Such visual formatting properties can relate to the manner in which data is presented to a user such as the screen location…¶ [0069]-- size of the screen (e.g., 3'', 8'', 14'', 15'', 17'', 20'', etc.) and screen resolution (e.g., 640.times.480, 800.times.600, 1024.times.768 and 1280.times.1024, etc.) can affect the appearance of visually formatted data. Thus, identically visually formatted data can be presented differently to a user if such data is sent to disparate devices with disparate display parameters].
Claim 5:
As per claim 5, which depends on claim 3, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above. Additionally, Cotugno, Plache and Farchmin discloses wherein said property is an area of a graphical user interface of the remote display device. Farchmin [¶[0068]-- visual formatting properties associated with the data are determined. Such visual formatting properties can relate to the manner in which data is presented to a user such as the screen location…¶ [0069]-- size of the screen (e.g., 3'', 8'', 14'', 15'', 17'', 20'', etc.) and screen resolution (e.g., 640.times.480, 800.times.600, 1024.times.768 and 1280.times.1024, etc.) can affect the appearance of visually formatted data. Thus, identically visually formatted data can be presented differently to a user if such data is sent to disparate devices with disparate display parameters].
Claim 8:
As per claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Cotugno and Plache disclosed the contextualized tags as a graphic element, see Plache figs 7-8. Cotugno and Plache failed to specifically disclose wherein the remote display device is configured to display the contextualized tags as at least one of a bar chart, a line chart, a scatter plot, and a time in state chart.
Farchmin, in the same field of visualization display via a network discloses this limitation in that [¶ [0031]-- data can be displayed in various levels of detail and illustrated utilizing graphics such as bar graphs, dials, pie charts, and the like. Various external visual aids can be associated with the data and displayed in place of or along side the data to provide context for the information, such as bitmaps, vector based graphics, etc].
number='10'Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tag visualization teachings of Cotugno and Plache to display the contextualized tags as at least one of a bar chart, a line chart, a scatter plot, and a time in state chart as disclosed by Farchmin. The motivation for doing so would have been augment the visualizations of Cotugno and Plache, providing the user more options at the time of visualizing data thus facilitating simple to complex viewing of data.
Claim 11:
As per claim 11, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Claim 12:
As per claim 12, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claim 13:
As per claim 13, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Claim 17:
As per claim 17, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Claims 7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotugno and Plache in view of Elliott Middleton et al. (US PG Pub No. 20090198648; Published: 08/06/2009)(hereinafter: Middleton).
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Cotugno and Plache disclose wherein said processor-executable instructions further include instructions to contextualize the selected tag, see claim 1 above. Cotugno and Plache failed to specifically disclose based on a time duration selection received from the remote display device.
Middleton, in the same field of retrieving and visualizing tag data discloses this limitation in that [¶ [0013]-- The database client also includes a data retrieval component that receives a query for tag data from the database server. The query specifies a tag to which the retrieval style is applicable, and a time span for which data associated with the tag is to be provided by the database server. ¶ [0148]- a method for applying the retrieval styles to a query for tag data specifying a time period, attention is briefly directed to FIG. 8 that depicts an exemplary graphical trend client display for visually rending the results returned by the historian 100 in response to the trend client's query].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tag contextualization teachings of Cotugno and Plache to contextualize the selected tag based on a time duration selection as disclosed by Middleton. The motivation for doing so would have been to control a time duration to retrieve data thus insulating users from having to examine excessive amounts of data.
Claim 15:
As per claim 15, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Claims 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotugno in view of Plache further in view of Wonderware InTouch (InTouch HMI Tag Viewer Guide, Published: 10/9/2013) (hereinafter: InTouch).
Claim 16:
As per claim 16, which depends on claim 9, Cotugno and Plache failed to specifically disclose automatically relocating the graphical representation of the value of the attribute of the selected tag in response to a selection of another tag of the plurality of tags; and displaying the automatically relocated graphical representation.
InTouch, in the same field of tag searching and visualization discloses these limitations in that [Page 11, the watch window at the bottom displays the run0time values of tags you want to monitor. Page 18, You can use the watch window to view the value of tags at run time. You can create additional watch windows to group relevant tags together. Page 19, You can add tags to a watch window to monitor their values at run time. You can add up to 2000 tags. See page 19 adding separators]. Thus InTouch discloses selecting and viewing the graphical representation of the value of the attribute of selected tags and displaying the plurality of tags. InTouch also suggests the user being able to group and modify the tags in the watch window.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tag browser of Cotugno and Plache to relocate the graphical representation of the value of the attribute of the selected tag in response to a selection number='11'of another tag of the plurality of tags; and display the automatically relocated graphical representation as disclosed by InTouch. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an external application that allows you to watch and monitor tags and modify tag values at run time, [page 7].
Claims 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotugno in view of Wonderware InTouch (InTouch HMI Tag Viewer Guide, Published: 10/9/2013) (hereinafter: InTouch).
Claim 18:
As per independent claim 18, Cotugno discloses a method of providing metadata values of a tag stored in a historian system, comprising:
receiving a search query via a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display device [[Col 5, Lines 50-55], filter the tags presented by display on the basis of user-defined selection criteria]
searching a historian system for one or more tags stored thereon, wherein each tag is defined by a plurality of metadata attributes, wherein the historian system and the display device are connected by a communication network [[col 2, L 52-64] workstation communicates with storage system over a communication network. [Col 4, lines 9-24] tag browser allows user to select at least one tag. [col 4, lines 9-24] tag dictionary enables a user of an automation program to view the parameters(attributes) of tags associated with sensing devices controlled by other automation program].
number='12'receiving a plurality of the tags stored on the historian system via the communication network, wherein each received tag has a value for at least one of the plurality of metadata attributes that at least in part matches the search query [[col 5, lines 52-65] selection criteria in the form of a regular expression serves to define a set of tags to be retrieved by the tag browser from available tag sources. In response to such a user-defined regular expression, the tag browser generates a Non-Deterministic Finite Automation ("NFA") designed to accept names of tags ("tagnames") comporting with the regular expression].
Cotugno failed to specifically disclose the remaining limitations of claim 18.
InTouch, in the same field of tag searching and visualization discloses
displaying a first panel via the GUI, said first panel including a graphical representation of each of a plurality of groups, wherein each group corresponds to one of the plurality of metadata attributes, wherein each group of the plurality of groups includes a plurality of subgroups, [Page 11, navigating the tag viewer, tag viewer window shows a first panel (the left panel on the image) that shows a plurality of groups corresponding to metadata attributes (displays the tags in a hierarchical structure based on their alarm groups), groups are hierarchical, which suggests subgroups] wherein each subgroup includes a plurality of received tags each having a value for a common metadata attribute [page 11, the left pane displays a plurality of tags] that at least in part matches the search query [page 11, see search box above left pane. Page 15, performing a quick search by entering tag name on the search box above left pane, InTouch suggests that the left pane will display the search results].
number='13'displaying via the GUI a graphical representation of each subgroup on the first panel [page 11, the GUI displays the tags in the subgroups] receiving via the GUI a selection of the graphical representation of one of the subgroups displayed on the first panel; displaying a second panel via the GUI, said second panel including a graphical representation of each of the plurality of received tags comprising the selected subgroup [page 11, the right pane displays the list of all available field for the tag or alarm group selected on the left pane]
receiving via the GUI a selection of the graphical representation of one of the plurality of tags displayed on the second panel [page 19, On the right pane, right-click any dotfield and click Add to Watch. The dotfield is added to the watch window.] and
displaying a third panel via the GUI, said third panel including a graphical representation of the value of each of the plurality of metadata attributes of the selected tag [page 11, The watch window at the bottom, which displays the run-timevalues of tags that you want to monitor].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tag browser of Cotugno to display a first panel including a graphical representation of each of a plurality of groups including a plurality of subgroups, wherein each subgroup includes a plurality of received tags each having a value for a common metadata attribute that at least in part matches the search query; receive via the GUI a selection of the graphical representation of one of the subgroups displayed on the first panel; display a second panel via the GUI, said second panel including a graphical representation of each of the plurality of received tags comprising number='14'the selected subgroup; receive via the GUI a selection of the graphical representation of one of the plurality of tags displayed on the second panel and display a third panel via the GUI, said third panel including a graphical representation of the value of each of the plurality of metadata attributes of the selected tag as disclosed by InTouch. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide an external application that allows you to watch and monitor tags and modify tag values at run time, [page 7].
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotugno and InTouch in view of Stephan Jou et al. (US PG Pub No. 20030071814; Published: 4/17/2003)(hereinafter: Jou).
Claim 19:
As per claim 19, which depends on claim 18, Cotugno and InTouch disclose the user selecting a tag to visualize. However, Cotugno and InTouch failed to specifically disclose further comprising: dynamically determining an optimal visualization scheme for the selected tag based on the plurality of metadata attributes of the selected tag; and displaying, via the GUI, a graphical representation of a value of the selected tag based on the optimal visualization scheme.
Jou, in the same field of data visualization discloses these limitations in that [[0046]-- Based on the user input, the Wizard generates a number of candidate visualizations, which are then presented to the user for selection in descending order of preference. The Wizard's guidance in creating a visualization can be obtained regardless of the starting visualization element, i.e., whether a sheet, scene, panel, or number='15'chart….This results in the candidate visualizations being updated correspondingly and may changed their order of preference, ¶ [0047], The score number, which attempts to assess numerically how well a given candidate visualization visualizes the request, is a combination of chart scores (individual scores assigned to each chart within the candidate visualization, providing a measure of how well a particular chart visualizes the data items assigned to it) and penalties, which are heuristics penalizing unused panels, inappropriately assigned data items, etc. The list of candidate visualizations is then arranged in descending order of the assigned scores and presented to the user for selection]. Thus, the system selects an optimal visualization scheme based on a number of scores, including how well a particular chart presents the selected data.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the data selection and visualization teachings of Cotugno and InTouch to dynamically determine an optimal visualization scheme for the selected data based on the plurality of metadata attributes of the data; and to display, via the GUI, a graphical representation of a value of the selected tag based on the optimal visualization scheme as disclosed by Jou. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide to the user the best possible visualization based on the selected data, thus increasing the meaningfulness of the displayed visualizations.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotugno and InTouch in view of Plache.
Claim 20:
number='16'As per claim 20, (see 112 rejections above) which depends on claim 19, Cotugno and InTouch failed to specifically disclose further comprising: monitoring a boundary of the GUI to detect a falloff condition in which the graphical representation of the value of the selected tag extends beyond the boundary; grouping the graphical representation of the value of the selected tag with a graphical representation of a value of at least one other selected tag in the falloff condition; and displaying, via the GUI, a graphical representation of the group.
Plache in the same field of automation control and visualization discloses ¶ [0078]--the HMI 26 may access the generated meta-data 47 in order to provide (block 214) an HMI visualization of the tag. That is, the meta-data 47 may include information about how to display a visualization graphic (e.g., gauge graphic 190 of FIG. 7) of the tag on an HMI screen].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary the art at the time of filing to modify the tag search and historian system of Cotugno and InTouch to include instructions to display a graphical representation of the visualization as disclosed by Plache. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow a web browser to simulate an application running on the design platform without requiring a piece of software for a related processor, thus offering speed and flexibility, ¶ [0058].
Conclusion
number='17'The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (571)272-3644. 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.
number='18'/HOWARD CORTES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights