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
Claims 1-2, and 8-30 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Re-claim 9, line 3, preamble recites “the computer readable medium” when it should be “the non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Re-claim 20, preamble recites “the computer readable medium” when it should be “the non-transitory computer readable medium”.
Re-claims 2, 8, 11-19, and 27-30, preamble recites “the method” when it should be “the computer-implemented method”.
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 1-2 and 8-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-2, 8 and 28-30 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; claim 9 is directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 9: The limitations “identifying, by a workflow process platform, an automation workflow process to be performed, the automation workflow process including a sequence of tasks, the tasks including at least (i) one or more human tasks configured to be performed by one or more users and (ii) one or more robotic tasks to be performed by one or more software robots”, “determining a first task specified within the automation workflow process that is to be performed”, “determining a subsequent task specified within the automation workflow process that is to be performed after the first task, wherein the subsequent task is configured, based on the process definition, to utilize at least one of the output variables from the first task as an input via the variable reference” and “evaluating a condition associated with the automation workflow process using at least one output variable, the condition including a logical comparison between a source value and a target value using a logical operator to determine a branching path of the automation workflow process”, and similar limitations of claim 9, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe, judge and evaluate and mentally identify a workflow process to be performed. Further, a person can think, observe, judge and evaluate and mentally determine/identify a task of a plurality of tasks of a workflow process to be performed, executed. Further, a person can think, observe, judge and evaluate and mentally determine/identify a next or subsequent task of a workflow process to be performed. Furthermore, a person can think, observe, judge and evaluate conditions based on comparing variables and determine a path of a workflow process. Further, the limitations “the automation workflow process being defined by a process definition that includes workflow data that designates interaction between at least a plurality of the tasks in the sequence of tasks, the workflow data denoting at least interrelations between outputs from one or more earlier tasks in the sequence of tasks and inputs of one or more subsequent tasks in the sequence of tasks, the interrelations comprising at least one variable reference that links an output variable produced by an earlier task to an input variable consumed by a subsequent task”, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation is merely automation of a standard human process or organizing human activity/fundamental business practice. For example, describes orchestrating a sequence of tasks where some robotic tasks are automated using software robots while other tasks require human intervention/input. The coordinating of workflows, tasks, human-computer interactions correspond to organizing human activity.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1 and 9 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 9: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “a workflow process platform”, “a first computing device”, “second computing device”, “software robot” and “user interface” (claim 1), “a non-transitory computer readable medium including at least computer program code tangible stored thereon”, “a first computing device”, “second computing device”, “robotic automation system”, “software robot” and “user interface” (claim 9), which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further the claims recite additional element “causing the first task to be performed on a first computing device, wherein: when the first task is a human task, a user interface is presented on the first computing device to enable user interaction, and when the first task is a robotic task, a software robot is executed to perform the robotic task” and causing the subsequent task to be performed on a second computing device based on the evaluated condition”, which are mere instructions to perform/apply the exception (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Furthermore, the claims recite additional elements “receiving an indication that the first task has completed, including one or more output variables generated by the first task” and “receiving an indication that the subsequent task has completed”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquiries set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that the claim 1 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data storage activity is WURC. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity … i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to claim 2, recites additional elements “wherein the first computing device is required to be authorized to perform the first task, wherein the second computing device is required to be authorized to perform the subsequent task, and wherein the first computing device authorized to perform the subsequent task is different than the second computing device authorized to perform the first task, but both the first and second computing devices being associated with a single enterprise” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP §2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
With regards to claim 8, recites additional element “wherein the first task is one of the one or more robotic tasks, wherein the first task is associated with a software robot specified in the process definition”, which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP §2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites addition element “wherein the causing of the first task to be performed comprises causing the identified software robot to execute on the first computing device” which are mere instructions to perform/apply the exception (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 28, recites additional abstract idea “wherein evaluating the condition associated with the automation workflow process comprises evaluating the condition using ternary logic operations that produce one of a true result, a false result, or a missing result”, which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and apply rules of a ternary logic and mentally or with pen and paper determine whether an outcome is a true result, a false result, or a missing result. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 29, recites additional abstract idea “wherein the missing result occurs when a data item referenced by the condition is unavailable for evaluation, and wherein, in response to the missing result, the automation workflow process continues without termination”, which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe, judge and evaluate, and mentally determine to continue automation workflow process when a particular data is unavailable for evaluation. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 30, recites additional abstract idea “wherein the missing result occurs when a data item referenced by the condition is unavailable for evaluation, and wherein, in response to the missing result, process flow returns to an earlier task to obtain the unavailable data item”, which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe, judge and evaluate, and determine to obtain data from an earlier task when a particular data is unavailable for evaluation. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1 Claims 10-19 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; claims 20-21 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 10 and 20: The limitations of “identifying a first human task to be included in the automation workflow process being created”, “configuring the first human task to present a user interface to a person and to capture a data input therefrom”, “identifying a first robotic task to be included in the automation workflow process being created”, “arranging the first robotic task to follow after the first human task within the automation workflow process”, “configuring the first robotic task to utilize a first software robot, and to receive as an input at least a portion of the data input that the first human task provided, wherein the configuring of the first robotic task specifies that the first robotic task being included in the automation workflow process is to execute on a particular computing device …”, and similar limitations in claim 20, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe and mentally determine or identify a human task to be included in a workflow process. For example, a person can manually, using pen and paper present an interface/paper to a user and to capture responses or data input. Further, a person can think, observe and mentally determine or identify a robotic task to be included in a workflow process. For example, a person can think, observe, evaluate and mentally/using pen a paper, arrange a first task to follow another task in a workflow process. Further, a person can think, observe and mentally configure a robotic task to receive data as input from a human task and configure the robotic task to use the data using a software robot to be executed on a particular device. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 11, recites additional abstract idea “wherein the user interface presents an electronic form on a display for the person, and the person is able to input the data input using the user interface”, which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can manually, using pen and paper present/display an interface/paper to a user and capture responses or input from user. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 12, recites additional abstract idea “identifying a first flow control condition to be included in the automation workflow process being created; and arranging the first flow control condition to follow after the first robotic task within the automation workflow process”, which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe and mentally identify/select a control condition to be included in a workflow process and arrange the control condition to follow a robotic task. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 13, recites additional abstract idea “configuring the first flow control condition to receive as a condition input at least the result produced by the first software robot” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe and configure a control condition to receive as condition input for a subsequent step an output produced by a software robot in a workflow process. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 14, recites additional abstract idea “configuring the first flow control condition to compare the condition input to another value, and to produce a comparison result” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe and mentally/with pen and paper compare a condition input with another value and produce a comparison result. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 15, recites additional abstract idea “configuring the first flow control condition to use a logical operator when comparing the condition input to another value” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe and mentally use logic to compare a condition input with another value to produce a comparison result. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 16, recites additional abstract idea “arranging the first flow control condition to cause process flow to follow either a first path or a second path dependent on the comparison result”, which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe and mentally/using pen a paper, arrange a control condition to follow a first or second based on comparison result in a workflow process. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 17, recites additional abstract idea “arranging a second human task or a second robotic task to follow the first path” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe, evaluate and mentally/using pen a paper, arrange a human task or a robotic task to follow a first path in a workflow process. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 18, recites additional abstract idea “arranging a third human task or a third robotic task to follow the second path” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe, evaluate and mentally/using pen a paper, arrange a human task or a robotic task to follow a second path in a workflow process. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 19, recites additional abstract idea “arranging process flow following the first path to return to again perform the first human task or the first robotic task”, which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe, evaluate and mentally/using pen a paper, arrange a process flow following a first path to return to a human task or robotic task in a workflow process. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 21, recites additional abstract idea “configuring the robotic task to receive as an input at least a portion of the data input that the first human task provided” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe, evaluate and mentally/using pen a paper, configure a robotic task to receive as an input a data input provided by human task, in a workflow process. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 22-25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 22-25 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 22: The limitations “wherein the particular automation workflow process is defined by a process definition that includes workflow data that designates interaction between at least a plurality of the tasks in the determined sequence, the workflow data denoting interrelations between outputs from one or more earlier tasks in the determined sequence and inputs of one or more subsequent tasks in the determined sequence, the interrelations comprising at least one variable reference that links an output variable produced by an earlier task to an input variable consumed by a subsequent task” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe and mentally/with use of pen and paper, designate interactions between tasks, including linking an output from an earlier task to an input of a later task as data dependency mapping of tasks in a workflow process. Further, the limitations “wherein at least a particular automation workflow process of the created automation workflow processes includes a determined sequence of performing a plurality of tasks, at least one of the tasks in the determined sequence being a robotic task that is performed by one of the software robots, and at least another of the tasks in the determined sequence being a human task that is performed to receive interaction with a person” and “wherein performance of the particular automation workflow process performs the tasks of the particular automation workflow process in the determined sequence, the performance including causing the one of the software robots for the robotic task to be performed and causing a user interface to be presented to the person in performing the human task”, as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation is merely automation of a standard human process or organizing human activity/fundamental business practice. For example, describes orchestrating a sequence of tasks where some robotic tasks are automated using software robots while other tasks require human intervention/input. Further, coordinating workflows, tasks, and human-computer interactions are directed to organizing human activity.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1 and 9 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 22: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “a data store a data store configured to store a plurality of software robots, the software robots providing automated interaction with one or more software programs operating on one or more computing devices”, “a workflow process platform including one or more processors configured to (i) create automation workflow processes, and (ii) perform automation workflow processes that have been created”, “software robot”, “user interface”, “one or more computing devices”, which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquiries set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that the claim 1 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regards to claim 23, recites additional abstract ideas “determine a first task within the particular automation workflow process that is to be performed”, ”determining a particular computing device that is to perform the first task based on the particular automation workflow process”, “determine a subsequent task within the particular automation workflow process that is to be performed after the first task”, “determining another computing device that is to perform the subsequent task based on the particular automation workflow process”, which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe, judge and evaluate and mentally determine a first task to be performed/executed in a workflow process. Further, a person can think, observe, judge and evaluate and mentally select/identify a device to perform a task in a workflow process. Further, a person can think, observe, judge and evaluate and mentally determine a next task to be performed/executed in a workflow process. Further, a person can think, observe, judge and evaluate and mentally select/identify another device to perform a next task in a workflow process. The claim recites additional element “cause the first task to be performed on the particular computing device” and “cause the subsequent task to be performed on the another computing device”, which are mere instructions to perform/apply the exception (See MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Furthermore, the claims recite additional elements “receive an indication that the first task has completed” and “receive an indication that the subsequent task has completed” which is merely a recitation of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 24, recites additional abstract ideas “identify a first task to be included in the automation workflow process being created”, “identify a second task to be included in the automation workflow process being created” and “arrange the second task to follow after the first task within the automation workflow process”, which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe and mentally select/identify a first task and second task to be included in a workflow process. For example, a person can think, observe, evaluate and mentally/using pen and paper, arrange a task to follow another task in a workflow process. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 25, recites additional abstract idea “configure the first task to present a user interface to a person and to capture a data input therefrom” and “configure the second task to perform a first software robot, and to receive as an input at least a portion of the data input that the first task provided” which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can manually and/or using pen and paper present an interface/paper to a user and capture user input/response. Further, a person can think, observe, evaluate and mentally/using pen a paper, configure a task to receive data as input from another task and configure the task to use the data using a software robot. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
With regards to claim 26, recites subject matter similar to that of claim 10 directed to a method and is rejected under the same rationale.
With regards to claim 27, recites additional abstract idea “wherein the configuring of the first human task further configures the user interface to capture a data input from the person”, which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can manually and/or using pen and paper present an interface/paper to a user and capture user input/response. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1-2, and 8-30 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 20, 22, 26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection for claims 1-2, and 8-30 under 35 U.S.C. 101 (abstract idea) is set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 20220410398 A1 teaches method for robotic process automation (RPA) using speech recognition.
U.S. Pub. No. 20210129325 A1 teaches robotic process automation (RPA) tasks for operating on data within a productivity program.
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 Willy W. Huaracha whose telephone number is (571) 270-5510. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached on (571) 272-3338. 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.
/WH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights