DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's amendments and remarks, filed on 06/22/2026, are acknowledged. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9, 12-22, 25, 26 are presently under examination.
Claims 10, 11, 23, 24 are cancelled.
Priority
The instant application claims the benefit of priority to Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 63/060,775, filed August 4, 2020. Accordingly, this is the effective filing date of the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
This rejection is modified in view of applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-9, 12-22, 25, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, in determining what concept the claim is “directed to,” we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)) (Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim contains an “‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’” the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 82). In so doing, we thus consider whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine and conventional in the field” (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019).
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.(Guidance Step 2B). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-56.
Step 1
The instantly claimed invention (claims 1, 14, being representative) requires performing a series of process steps. As such, the claim falls into one of the four statutory categories.
A. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
The Revised Guidance instructs us first to determine whether any judicial exception to patent eligibility is recited in the claim. The Revised Guidance identifies three judicially-excepted groupings identified by the courts as abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human behavior such as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental processes. In this case, the following limitations constitute the abstract idea for the following reasons:
determining, via one or more processors, an activity level of the animal during the first predefined time period based on the movement data of the animal during the first predetermined time period and a resting energy requirement (RER)…as adjusted by a product of a gait coefficient and a distance…;
determining, via one or more processors, a caloric requirement of the animal during a second predetermined time period, the caloric requirement of the animal being based on the activity level of the animal during the first predetermined time period and the animal characteristic data of the animal;
generating, via the one or more processors, a feeding plan for the animal based on the caloric requirement of the animal during the second predetermined time period, the feeding plan comprising one or more subset caloric requirements to be provided to the animal during the second predetermined time period;
Mental Processes
Under MPEP §2111, during patent examination, claims must be interpreted in their broadest reasonable manner consistent with the specification. This means that examiners consider the claim language in light of the specification as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art, ensuring that the claims are not unduly narrowed by implicit limitations not explicitly recited in the claim (37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)).
Under the BRI, the recited acts of “determining” set forth or describe manipulating and/or analyzing data (which scientists can perform using their brains or a pencil and paper). In addition, the specification describes processes for analyzing sequence data that clearly use algorithms and/or mathematical functions for performing at least some of the above functions [0020-0023, 0052, 0078-80]. As such, these steps encompass a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), section III.
Under the BRI, the recited act of “generating” a feeding plan sets forth or describes an evaluation, judgment, or opinion (which scientists can perform using their brains or a pencil and paper). As such, these steps encompass a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), section III.
Mathematical Concept
In addition, the above steps for “determining” activity level and RER are expressed as a function of different parameters, e.g. based on movement data, based on activity level and therefore require a mathematical relationship. Notably, the grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, as words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula. A review of the specification also clearly teaches calculating the above features using mathematical equations [0020, 0078-80]. Similar to the ineligible claims at issue for In re: Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, 991 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the instant claims are written effectively as a method for mathematically manipulating or relating data to ascertain additional data. As such, this step recites a mathematical concept. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Section I. [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES].
B. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Having made that determination, under the 2019 Guidance, the examiner next determines whether there are additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea(s) that integrate them into a practical application. Besides the abstract idea, the claim(s) recite the following additional steps/elements:
receiving, via one or more processors, animal characteristic data relating to an animal;
receiving, via a sensor, movement data of the animal for a first predetermined time period, wherein the movement data comprises…;
causing the caloric requirement of the animal during the second predetermined time period to be displayed via a display device.
With regards to the above receiving steps, these steps are generically recited and merely obtain data for use by the abstract idea (i.e. data collection). Therefore, these steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity and are not indicative of an integration into a practical application. Similarly, the “causing” step is generically recited and results in displaying information. Accordingly, this information also amounts to extra-solution activity and is not indicative of an integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
With regards to the one or more processors, sensors, and display device, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and thus can be viewed as nothing more than generic elements for obtaining data for use by the abstract idea and/or an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO]
C. Guidance Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above, the non-abstract steps/elements amount to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, applicant’s own specification teaches a plurality of sensors and devices for obtaining animal data were routine and conventional in the art [0033-0038]. In addition, to the extent that applicant is asserting the claimed sensors are “real-time” sensors, Halachmi et al. (Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 2019. 7:403–25) teaches application of real-time methods and sensors to improve animal well-being and production. Therefore, even upon reconsideration, there is nothing unconventional with regards to the above non-abstract elements/steps. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(Part II). Thus, the independent claim(s) as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible. [Step 2B: NO].
D. Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-9, 12, 13,15-22, 25, 26, have also been considered under the two-part analysis but do not include additional steps/elements appended to the judicial exception that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) for the following reasons. Regarding claim(s) 7, 12, 20, 26, these claims further limit the specificity of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these claims are also directed to an abstract idea for reasons set forth above (Step 2A, prong 1). Regarding claim(s) 2-6, 8, 9, 13, 15-19, 21-22, 25, these claims further limit the specificity of the type of device of the nature of the data being used for analysis by the abstract idea. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above (Step 2A analysis), the subject matter of these claims amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity that is not indicative of an integration into a practical application, or generic elements for obtaining data for use by the abstract idea and/or an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For these reasons, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/30/2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant argues that the claimed method is not directed to a mental process, as a human observer cannot continuously perceive real-time sensor measurements, determine amounts of time, a calculate a product of a gait coefficient and a distance traveled. In response, Applicant appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the two-prong inquiry necessary for patentability. In the context of the flowchart in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A Prong Two determines whether:
• The claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, in which case the claim is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis.
• The claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application, in which case the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an inventive concept). See MPEP § 2106.05 for discussion of Step 2B.
With regards to Step 2A, prong 1, the examiner has interpreted the “determining” and “generating” steps as part of the abstract idea and has provided explicit reasoning as to why these limitations encompass a mental process and/or mathematical concept. Absent any evidence to the contrary, the examiner maintains these steps are nominally recited and embrace activities that can be reasonably performed by the mind of a scientist (Step 2A, prong 1). In addition, contrary to applicant’s assertion, the examiner did not interpret the “receiving” step as part of the abstract idea (mental process). With regards to Step 2A, prong 2, one of the relevant considerations for evaluating whether the “additional steps/elements” appended to the abstract idea (i.e. the non-abstract steps) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application is determining if these steps/elements result in insignificant extra-solution activity. In this case, it was determined that the receiving and causing steps/elements result in insignificant extra-solution activity and do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A, prong 2 analysis). With regards to Step 2B, the examiner has also provided clear and sufficient reasons as to why the “receiving” and “causing” steps appended steps/elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
Applicant additionally argues that the generating step recites an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. In response, the recited act of “generating” a feeding plan sets forth or describes an evaluation, judgment, or opinion (which scientists can perform using their brains or a pencil and paper). As such, the examiner maintains that this step encompasses a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), section III.
Applicant additionally argues that the claimed invention improves the technology by “solving the specific challenge of calculating pet caloric requirements” by decomposing sensor-based animal movement using specific physical subcomponents. In response, it is noted at the outset that the instant claims do not recite any limitations directed to “decomposing” animal movement, i.e. applicant is arguing features that are not presently claimed. To the extent that applicant is arguing that the claimed invention provides an improvement to the technology, neither the claims nor the specification provides any objective evidence of an improvement to the technology or an unconventional technical solution realized by the claims over the prior art. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a). There is also nothing in the specification to suggest that there is anything unconventional with regards to how the data is being “received” or displayed, or with regards to the sensors and processor being used (Step 2A, prong 1, and Step 2B analysis). Therefore, applicant is essentially arguing that the improvement is entirely in the realm of abstract ideas. However, it is well established that the abstract idea alone cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As such, the claims do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. In summary, the claimed invention is directed to obtaining data (using conventional sensors), calculating various parameters (using one or more processors), and displaying a caloric requirement of an animal (using a display device) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (since nothing is being done with the data). For these reasons, the examiner maintains that he has carefully applied the two-step analysis and the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
This is a written description rejection.
Claims 1-9, 12-22, 25, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. To satisfy the written-description requirement, the specification must describe every element of the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the inventor possessed the claimed invention at the time of filing. Vas-Cath, 935 F.3d at 1563; see also Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that “the inventor invented the claimed invention”). Whether the specification shows that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention is not a single, simple determination, but rather is a factual determination reached by considering a number of factors. Factors to be considered in determining whether there is sufficient evidence of possession include: A) Partial structure; B) Physical and/or chemical properties; C) Functional characteristics; D) Known or disclosed correlation between structure and function; E) Method of making; and F) Combinations of A-E. See also MPEP 2163 and the 2011 Supplementary Guidelines to analysis under 35 USC 112 (Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations).
Based on a consideration of the above factors, the level of skill and knowledge in the art, and the specification, the instant claims fail to meet the written description requirement for the following reasons:
Claims 1 and 14 recite, inter alia, generating, via the one or more processors, a feeding plan for the animal based on the caloric requirement of the animal during the second predetermined time period, the feeding plan comprising one or more subset caloric requirements to be provided to the animal during the second predetermined time period; and causing the caloric requirement of the animal during the second predetermined time period to be displayed via a display device.
Regarding issues of written description support stemming even from the original claims and original disclosure, the MPEP states: "Original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed" (See MPEP 2161.01.I (e.g. 6th para.), 2163.I and 2163.I.A).
In this case, the claimed “generating” step is not limited to any particular acts, algorithms, or operations to generate a “feeding plan” as claimed. In order to practice the claimed invention, one of skill in the art must use a suitably programmed computer to combine different types of data (movement data, RER data, distance data, and gait coefficients) to generate a caloric requirement and then analyze the data to produce a “feeding plan” comprising caloric requirements. Notably, the claims are not limited to any particular “caloric requirements” (e.g. types of food, vitamins, or minerals), any particular time periods (just generic first and second time periods), or any particular outcome to be addressed by the feeding plan (e.g. treating a particular disease or health condition, reducing weight, increasing energy, etc.), i.e. the claims encompass providing caloric requirement advise for literally any and every situation over any time period. As such, there must be an explanation of how the processor performs the specialized claimed functions to arrive at a ‘feeding plan’ result. In addition, there must be a correlation between the caloric requirement data for the dog or cat, a feeding plan, and a particular outcome. A review of the specification fails to provide any evidence that applicant had knowledge of a such correlations given the full scope of what is being claimed, or any specific algorithms or technical details that show how a feeding plan is generated given the full scope of what is being claimed. As a result, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would know what type of caloric requirements to include in the feeding plan and when they should be administered. Such information is not trivial, as supported by the following prior art.
Barreto et al. (Pet Animal Activity Assessment Using 3D Accelerometry, Thesis, University of Coimbra, 2017, pp.1-135) provides computational methods for assessing animal activity [Section 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2]. In particular, Barreto teaches that caloric requirements are highly variable based on the type of animal, RER values, and type of health issue/problem being addressed [Section 2.2.1, 2.2.2.]. Barreto, unlike the claimed method/system, also teaches specification algorithms for arriving at decisions [Section 2.4.1], specific functional requirements for their system [Section 4.1 and Table 4.1], and specific nutritional needs for dogs that include a mixture of different nutrients at specified amounts [page 56].
Nestec et al. (WO/2010033197) teaches a method and dispensing system for providing nutritional products to animals [Abstract]. In particular, Nestic teaches a processor is configured using one or more algorithms that determine how much nutritional product to dispense and when to dispense it from the dispensing device based upon various types of data received from an activity monitoring device (e.g. heart rate, activity, weight, height, zoometric data, and combinations thereof) [0007, 0018, 0039].
The specification’s general disclosure of descriptions of possible data, possible values, possible applied algorithms, and possible outcomes do not amount to sufficient technical specificity given the scope of what is claimed. At best, the specification states that “Upon receiving the caloric requirements, the receiver may provide the required number of calories to the animal. The results of providing the required calories may be received and/or stored for a determination of the success of the animal being fed the required number of calories. Depending on how successful the required number of calories is in reducing health disorders (e.g., obesity), the amount of calories required for the animal may be reduced, increased, or may remain the same” [0083]. However, this does not provide a sufficient disclosure for generating a “feeding plan” based on caloric requirements during a predetermined time period as claimed. As such, it is unclear how one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to correlate the various combination of parameters encompassed by the claims, and how to judge said information in order to achieve the desired result (of a generating a feeding plan). Accordingly, the disclosure is insufficient as it does not provide any significant details with regards to how to select an appropriate “feeding plan” given the full scope of what is encompassed by the claimed.
For the reasons discussed above, the disclosure fails to link specific algorithms, structures or step-by-step instructions to the specialized functions and therefore the claims lack sufficient written description given the scope of what is being claimed. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §2161.01- §2163.07(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/22/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the modified rejection, as set forth above.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 112, 2nd Paragraph
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 1-9, 12-22, 25, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims that depend directly or indirectly from claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are also rejected due to said dependency.
Claims 1 and 14 recite “determining…an activity level of the animal during the first predefined time period based on the movement data of the animal during the first predetermined time period and using a resting energy requirement (RER)…as adjusted by a product of a gait coefficient and a distance travelled by the animal while moving at that gait”. The above limitation is problematic for the following reasons.
(1) The determining step is “based on” movement data and requires “using a resting energy requirement (RER)”. In this case, it is unclear what positive process limitation is/are intended by the “using” phrase, which suggests additional RER calculations but does not explicitly require them. Applicant is reminded that claim scope is not limited by claim language that “suggests” but does not limit a claim to a particular function. See MPEP 2111.04. Applicant is also reminded that a claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. See MPEP § 2173.05(q). In other words, there is no previous positive process step that provides, calculates, or determines a “resting energy requirement” or a “gait coefficient” so it is unclear how this information has been obtained and in what way it is being used. Therefore, it is unclear what computational techniques are included or excluded by the claim language such that one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to avoid infringement. As a result, there is also lack of antecedent basis for “using a resting energy requirement (RER)” since the claimed “determining” step is relying upon information that has not been previously introduced. Notably, the specification does provide an equation for calculating calories exerted (E) as a function of RER + (GxD) and suggests that “GxD” is an “activity factor” [0080]. However, this is not commensurate in scope with what is being claimed (since ‘calories exerted’ is not equivalent to ‘activity level’). MPEP 2111.01. Clarification is requested via amendment.
(2) The phrase “using a resting energy requirement (RER)…as adjusted by a product of a gait coefficient and a distance travelled…” is problematic because it is noted with particularity that the “movement data” (obtained in the receiving step) comprises at least one of a speed, distance traveled, or steps taken. As such, the claim encompasses the embodiment where the movement data received is speed, i.e. distance traveled data and steps taking data are not required. Therefore, in this embodiment, it is unclear in what way the “using” step is achieved (since the information for adjusting RAR will be missing and since the claim does not account for traveling distances “while moving” at a particular gait). As a result, the claim also appears to be missing essential subject matter. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/22/2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons. Applicant argues that there is sufficient antecedent basis for the determining a “resting energy requirement” or a “gait coefficient” because the structural parameters of “RER” and the “gait coefficient” are introduced withing the “determining” step as internal process constraints that detail how the processor evaluates the movement data. In response, it is unclear what is meant by “internal process constraints” and not such limitations are presently claimed. As such, this argument is not persuasive because applicant is arguing limitations that are not being claimed. Moreover, while a review of the specification does disclose two different equations associated with RER [0078, 0079]. These are not commensurate in scope with what is being claimed and it is improper to import narrowing limitations into the claims. MPEP 2111.01. For the above reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 CFR 1.136(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 PABLO S WHALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4425. The examiner can normally be reached between 1pm-9pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anita Coope can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/PABLO S WHALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights