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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e), was filed in this application after final rejection. since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17 (e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 6/11/2026 has been entered.
Claims 34, 36, 46-49 have been amended.
Claims 50-52 have been added.
Claims 34-52 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 6/11/2026 have been fully considered and discussed in the next section. Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given its broadest, reasonable interpretation.
With regard to claims 34-49 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Applicant argues that “claims are not directed to advertising as an abstraction, but the production of physical signage and customized kits for arrangement on fixtures. This is not at all similar to the types of commercial interactions exemplified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) as impermissibly abstract ideas. Producing and assembling physical signage is not reasonably akin to activities such as (i) using advertising as an exchange or currency; (ii) structuring a sales force or marketing company; (iii) using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client; or (iv) offer-based price optimization.3 Nor is signage manufacturing and assembly similar to exemplified "business relations" such as processing an application for financing a loan between parties, or processing information through a clearinghouse.4 None of these commercial interactions result in the creation of anything in a tangible form. The present claims to do not reasonably recite an interaction between commercial parties e.g. advertiser and purchaser, or merchant and buyer, and thus do not reasonably recite certain methods of organizing human activity. For at least this reason, the claims are not directed to a judicial exception (page 4/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. MPEP 2106.04 (a) requires and explains that examiners determine if a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identified the specific limitation(s) in the claim that recites the abstract idea, and (2) evaluating whether the identified specific limitations(s) fall within at least one of the three groupings of abstract ideas : Mathematical concepts MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I); Certain methods of organizing human activity MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) and Mental processes MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The Office Action clearly stated that claim 1 for instance recite the following abstract idea of “ accessing a campaign profile, wherein the campaign profile includes: available products for the campaign; graphics to be produced for each type of product; wherein the campaign profile further includes campaign specific rules, wherein the campaign specific rules include: an assignment which of the products to display at each location of the plurality of geographically distinct locations ;a number of signages to be produced for provision to each location; a dimension of each signage to be provided at each location; and the graphics to be produced with each signage; wherein the number and dimensions of the signages to be produced for any one location of the plurality of geographically distinct locations is defined by a number and type of fixtures at said location; and producing, via a physical signage production apparatus, a number and type of signage for each location of the plurality of locations according to the campaign profile, the number and type of signage produced corresponding only, in aggregate, to the number and type of signage that can be displayed at each location, and wherein the signage includes the graphics”.
The limitations as detailed above are directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis. Since analyzing data is part of the abstract idea itself, any improvement obtained by automating the analyzing of the data in an improvement to the abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matters (see SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract. That is production of physical signage and customized kits for arrangement on fixtures, Producing and assembling physical signage; signage manufacturing and assembly is indeed directed to an abstract idea, because is directed to analyzing data and determining results based on the analysis. As such, the claims as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors because they merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes). Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 34-49 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “To the extent that the claims include elements directed to an abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, they integrate such elements into a practical application with meaningful limitation on the judicial exception, in specifically recited ways. Applicant submits that the claims, as a whole, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (page 6/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. In order for the claims as a whole to transform the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2, the purported improvement must be rooted in the “additional elements” of the claim in a manner other than merely applying the abstract idea using a general-purpose computer with generic computer components.
“Additional elements” are defined as those elements of a claim that are not part of the abstract idea itself. The only “additional elements” in the claims is a “system memory” which is a general-purpose computer with generic computer components that is used as a tool to merely apply the abstract idea. As such, the “additional elements” of the claim, whether considered individually or as a whole, are incapable of transforming the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2.
The argued elements of the claims that purportedly result in the argued improvement are all part of the abstract idea itself which is merely applied using the general-purpose computer with generic computer components. Improvements of this nature are improvements rooted solely in the abstract idea itself and are considered an improvement to an abstract idea which is an improvement in ineligible subject matter (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement”; and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology”; and the SAP v Investpic decision - Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because they are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.). As such, the claim rejection of claims 34-49 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Applicant argues that “claims 34, 47, and 50 add limitations other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field: (a) Claims 34 and 50 (producing, by a physical signage production apparatus using the campaign profile, a number and type of signage for each location of the plurality of locations according to the campaign profile, the number and type of signage produced corresponding only, in aggregate, to the number and type of signage that can be displayed at each location, and wherein the signage includes the graphics); and (b) Claim 47 (using the campaign profile, assembling a number and type of physical signage for a first location of the plurality of locations into a customized kit according to the campaign profile, the number and type of physical signage produced corresponding only to the number and type of signage that can be displayed at the first location, wherein the physical signage includes the graphics) (page 7/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. Under MPEP 2106.05(d), “well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, under Judicially-recognized conventional activities such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
(a) Claims 34 and 50 (producing, by a physical signage production apparatus using the campaign profile, a number and type of signage for each location of the plurality of locations according to the campaign profile, the number and type of signage produced corresponding only, in aggregate, to the number and type of signage that can be displayed at each location, and wherein the signage includes the graphics (e.g. transmitting data to be printed out by accessing a system memory (e.g stored data); b) Claim 47 (accessing the campaign profile, assembling a number and type of physical signage for a first location of the plurality of locations into a customized kit according to the campaign profile, the number and type of physical signage produced corresponding only to the number and type of signage that can be displayed at the first location, wherein the physical signage includes the graphics ( accessing the profile information of a system memory (e.g. stored data ). As thus, claims 34,50 and 47 recite conventional activities to store, transmit gathered data. therefore, the claim rejection of claims 34-49 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained. Claim 50 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 for the same reason as claim 34.
Applicant argues that “As the Office Action implicitly acknowledges, these limitations are wholly missing from the prior art. (Office Action mailed March 11, 2026, Page 26). The Office Action characterizes the limitations as part of an abstract idea, which permits the Office Action to dismiss their unconventional nature. When properly framed as set forth above, however, producing and assembling as set for in the present claims are not part of an abstract commercial interaction. Accordingly, in combination with the other elements of the claim, these limitations represent 'an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application' (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Applicant asserts that the claims are significantly more than a judicial exception by reciting something that is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known in the industry. At least for the reasons discussed above, the Applicant respectfully submits that the independent claims 34, 47, and 50 are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Claims 35-46, 48-49, and 51-52 are likewise directed to patentable subject matter for at least this reason. Withdrawal of the rejection and allowance of the claims are respectfully requested (page 8/8)”.
Examiner disagrees. Producing and assembling as set for in the present claims are part of an abstract commercial interaction as shown above under (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Also, rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103 has no bearing or consequence on the materiality of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
As noted in the prior office action, the additional claim features of “system memory” do not amount to significantly more under the framework. The claim does not qualify under the other non-limiting non-exclusive examples. in order to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection, the technical solution to a technical problem must be rooted in the "additional elements". Additional elements are defined as those elements outside the identified abstract idea itself. As thus, the only additional elements in the claim that would be capable of overcoming the 101 are a general-purpose computer with generic computer components upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied. As such, any purported improvement in what the applicant calls a technical field is an improvement in ineligible subject matter. In order for an improvement to a technology or technological filed to overcome a 35 USC 101 rejection, the purported improvement must be rooted in the "additional elements" which in this case they are not. The claimed additional elements are merely a general purpose computer upon which an abstract idea is merely being applied which is insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2. As such Applicant's claimed solution is NOT technological and does not addresses a technological problem. Hence, Examiner maintains that the claims do not define substantially more than the abstract idea. therefore, the claim rejection of claims 34-49 rejection under USC § 101 is maintained. Claim 50 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 for the same reason as claim 34.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: Clam 35 recites the limitation of “The method of claim 35 and wherein the method further comprises the step of accessing a location profile from the system memory, wherein the location profile includes:….. Claim 35 depend on claim 35 itself instead of referring to claim 34 and depend on claim 34. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 34-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 are directed to a method which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes).
However, claims 34-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea:
accessing a campaign profile, wherein the campaign profile includes: available products for the campaign and graphics to be produced for each type of available product; wherein the campaign profile further includes campaign specific rules, wherein the campaign specific rules include:
an assignment which of the available products to display at each location of the plurality of geographically distinct locations;
a number of signages to be produced for provision to each location;
a dimension of each signage to be provided at each location; and the graphics to be produced with each signage;
wherein the number and dimensions of the signages to be produced for any one location of the plurality of geographically distinct locations is defined by a number and type of fixtures at said location; and
producing, by a physical signage production apparatus using the campaign profile, a number and type of physical signage for each location of the plurality of locations according to the campaign profile, the number and type of physical signage produced corresponding only, in aggregate, to the number and type of signage that can be displayed at each location, and wherein the physical signage includes the graphics;
The limitations as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely commercial or legal interactions because they recite advertising, marketing and sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites the additional elements of a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a memory ( system memory) ((e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components) and a database (e.g. a generic computer component).
The following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, merely perform generic computer function of processing, storing, communicating (e.g., transmitting and receiving), and displaying data and, as such, are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
accessing the campaign profile, assembling a number and type of physical signage for a first location of the plurality of locations into a customized kit according to the campaign profile, the number and type of physical signage produced corresponding only to the number and type of signage that can be displayed at the first location, wherein the physical signage includes the graphics ( accessing the profile information of a system memory (e.g. stored data ) ;
producing, by a physical signage production apparatus using the campaign profile, a number and type of signage for each location of the plurality of locations according to the campaign profile, the number and type of signage produced corresponding only, in aggregate, to the number and type of signage that can be displayed at each location, and wherein the signage includes the graphics (e.g. transmitting data to be printed out by accessing a system memory);
The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer components performing a generic computers function of processing, communicating and displaying) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and generic computer components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on one or more computers, or merely uses computers as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes)
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a system memory ( a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a database (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer component).
to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using one or more general-purpose computers and one or more generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on one or more computers, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires one or more general-purpose computer and generic computer components (as evidenced from paragraph 53 of the applicant’s specification) and the affinity v Direct TV decision which states that a database is a generic computer component); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
Finally, the following limitations, if removed from the abstract idea and considered additional elements, would be considered insignificant extra solution activity as they are directed to merely receiving, displaying, storing, and/or transmitting data (see MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(g)):
accessing the campaign profile, assembling a number and type of physical signage for a first location of the plurality of locations into a customized kit according to the campaign profile, the number and type of physical signage produced corresponding only to the number and type of signage that can be displayed at the first location, wherein the physical signage includes the graphics ( accessing the profile information of a system memory (e.g. stored data ) ;
producing, by a physical signage production apparatus using the campaign profile, a number and type of signage for each location of the plurality of locations according to the campaign profile, the number and type of signage produced corresponding only, in aggregate, to the number and type of signage that can be displayed at each location, and wherein the signage includes the graphics (e.g. transmitting data to be printed out by accessing a system memory);
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) (i.e., “PEG” Step 2B=No). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible. Same Judicial analysis is applied here to independent claims 46 and 50.
The dependent claims 35-45, 47-49, 51-52 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea and therefore only further limit the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes), does/do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and as such are “directed to” said abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2A Prong Two=Yes); and do not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 34-52 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-52 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The most relevant prior the examiner has found is:
Kamel et al, US Pub No: 2016/0364769 A1 teaches A marketing display customization system and process are described. The marketing display customization system can include a server, a plurality of databases, a network, and a user device. The marketing display customization system can be implemented to provide a database of chassis templates having one or more rules and/or constraints. The system can be implemented to create a bill of material for a marketing display by selecting one or more display items from a display item database and selecting content for one or more design elements from a design element database. The marketing display customization process can include, but is not limited to, selecting a chassis template, selecting one or more display items for the chassis template, and defining one or more design elements of the chassis template to create a marketing display.
Fugman, US Pub No: 2012/0296777 A1 teaches Dynamic signage systems are provided for a sales environment. A dynamic signage device (e.g., a tablet computer) is associated with a product, e.g., based on a location of the device and/or the product, and can present information about the product to a customer in an interactive manner. The device can automatically check for updated product information and modify its display based on the updated product information. Management of multiple dynamic signage devices can be coordinated within and across stores, and an interactive floor-map creation system incorporating dynamic signage devices can facilitate changing the associations between products and dynamic signage devices.
Bailey, US Pub No: 2007/0277413 A1 teaches A billboard apparatus is provided. The billboard apparatus includes a frame, a billboard display connected to the frame for providing information to a user, and a telephone connected to the frame in proximity to the billboard display. A method of advertising using a billboard apparatus is also provided.
While it may be obvious to combine the above mentioned inventions. However, the combination of the above mentioned inventions does not disclose the instant claimed steps of producing, by a physical signage production apparatus using the campaign profile, a number and type of signage for each location of the plurality of locations according to the campaign profile, the number and type of signage produced corresponding only, in aggregate, to the number and type of signage that can be displayed at each location, and wherein the signage includes the graphics; assembling the signage produced for each location into a custom kit associated with each location; and providing the custom kit to the associated location. Thus, the Examiner has been unable to find a prior art that discloses and performing the claimed invention in the manner claimed. As such, claims 34-52 would be allowable over the prior art if the applicant were to be able to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections identified above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Abhyankar, US Pub No: 2014/0222577 A1 teaches a campaign in a geo-spatial environment is disclosed. In one embodiment, a method includes populating each profile of a geo-spatial social network with an address data, forming a group in support of a campaign in the geo-spatial network when a particular user creates the group in support of the campaign and automatically communicating media to a physical location of a member of the group based on the address data associated with each profile of the geo-spatial network. The method may also include automatically creating the group based on a public data associated with each profile of the geo-spatial social network even prior to certain users associated with each profile registering geo-spatial social network by applying the public data to the each profile.
Roberts et al , US Pub No: 2013/0297420 A1, teaches generating customized incentives involving electronic distribution of coupons to remote personal computers based on proximity of the computer to a retail center are disclosed. A repository, such as an online service provider or a web site on the Internet, stores packages of incentive data for downloading automatically or on demand to a user's computer. A plurality of data fields is used to associate a user's location with a specific incentive.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Affaf Ahmed whose telephone number is 571-270-1835. The examiner can normally be reached on [M- R 8-6 pm ].
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached at 571-270-7537. 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 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.
/AFAF OSMAN BILAL AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights