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
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 04/29/2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 16-20 have been amended.
Claims 21-26 have been added.
Claims 10-15 have been canceled.
Claims 1-9, 16-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 04/29/2026 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 1 and 10 rejection under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph, applicant has amended the claims, by deleting the limitation of "in response to the mobile device scanning the customized QR code.". Therefore, the claim rejection of claims 1,10 under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph, is withdrawn.
With regard to claims 1-9, 16-26 rejection under 35 USC § 101:
Step 2A
Applicant argues that “The rejection asserts that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, specifically, a method of organizing human activity, which is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites additional elements that are generic components. Under Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the claim must be considered as a whole. Specifically, the whole claim should be evaluated as to whether it integrates any asserted judicial exception into a practical application. While claim 1 might indeed recite generic hardware components, it also recites features detailing how these hardware components are configured to perform particular and practical technical tasks intended to provide the technical benefit of providing enhanced technical functionality to a user. As described with multiple examples in the specification, this enhanced functionality may provide particular and practical technical advantages to presenters and attendees at tradeshows, such as providing for a device that generates product or service pin pages and corresponding customized QR codes on the fly, in response to user inputs. Accordingly, since the claim as a whole is directed to a practical application providing a technical benefit, it cannot be said to be directed to a judicial exception (page 2/6)”.
First, the applicant appears to also be confusing the requirements under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or Step 2b with the requirements under Step 2a, Prong 1. Step 2a, Prong 1 does not require any consideration regarding the claims as a whole. Under Step 2a, Prong 1, an examiner is to identify which, if any, limitations of the claim recite an abstract idea; identify those limitation; and identify the category and subcategory of abstract idea those limitations recite. There is no requirement under Step 2a, Prong 1 to consider the claim as a whole. In fact, it requires the opposite because the “additional elements” of the claim cannot be considered under Step 2a, Prong 1. The consideration of the “additional elements” of the claim can only occur under Step 2a, Prong 2 and/or Step 2b. As such, the applicant’s arguments with regard to the claims as a whole not reciting an abstract idea under Step 2a, Prong 1 are not convincing and the rejections have been maintained.
Assuming the applicant is, instead, intending to argue that the claims as a whole transform the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2a, Prong 2 because it recites a improvement in technological telemetry and an improved analytics mechanism, the examiner disagrees.
In order for a claim to overcome a rejection 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 are a computer system comprising a data store 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 limitations 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 applicant’s argument is not convincing and the rejections of claims 1-9, 16-26 under 35 USC § 101have been maintained.
Step 2B
Applicant argues that “Even if, arguendo, it can be said that the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then under Step 2B analysis it is seen that the claims include additional elements that amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Claim 1, for example, recites a platform management terminal that receives first and second user inputs and generates a pin page for a product or service based on the first user input, generates a customized QR code based on the second user input, and associates the pin page to the customized QR code such that scanning the customized QR code enables access to the pin page. Furthermore, claim 1 recites that the second user input includes a customization selection of at least one of a shape for the QR code, a color scheme for the QR code, a module type for the QR code, a logo for inclusion in the QR code, an image for inclusion in the QR code, and a text for inclusion with the QR code, where that selection defines the generation of the customized QR code. These features are significantly more than some generic organizing of human activity. It is hard to see what human activity these features could be said to be organizing (page 3/6)”.
Examiner disagrees. A platform management terminal that receives first and second user inputs and generates a pin page for a product or service based on the first user input, generates a customized QR code based on the second user input, and associates the pin page to the customized QR code such that scanning the customized QR code enables access to the pin page and/ or the second user input includes a customization selection of at least one of a shape for the QR code, a color scheme for the QR code, a module type for the QR code, a logo for inclusion in the QR code, an image for inclusion in the QR code, and a text for inclusion with the QR code, where that selection defines the generation of the customized QR code is 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.
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).
As thus, the claims of the instant invention have been identified as "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". The Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines indicate that "advertising, marketing or sales related activities" is a subcategory of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities". There is no requirement that the activities be performed by a human. Instead, it is organizing human activities. Therefore, all the above steps identified above, are merely gather data, analyze the data, determine results based on the analysis, generate tailored content based on the results, and transmit the tailored content, which are part of the abstract idea itself irrespective of whether they are performed by a computer or performed by a human being. Thus, the applicant's arguments are moot.
Under Step 2B, the claim is also analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. Although additional elements are recited, representative claim 1 merely invokes such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer is not indicative of integration into a practical application. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e. computer) being applied on a general purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As such, an 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.
The instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, representative claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). “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. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) ” .
As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of representative claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). 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 1-9, 16-26 rejection under USC § 101 is maintained.
With regard to claims 1-9, 16-26 rejection under 35 USC § 102 (a) (1), Applicant’s arguments are considered, and the claim rejection of claims 1-9, 16-26 rejection under 35 USC § 102 (a) (1) is withdrawn.
Claim rejection under 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 17-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6,17-22 recite the terms “first user , second user (claims 1, 16, 21) and a third user ( claims 2-6, 17-20 and 22)”. The specification teaches “ The pin page platform may enable anyone (e.g., even users without a pin page platform account) to view pin pages after scanning customized QR codes. Users with a pin page platform account may also be able to create a user profile, display a user profile place to other users on the platform, become connected with the user profiles of other users (also referred to herein as "connected users"), create private and public social network groups, message and forward pin pages to connected users, and more. The pin page platform may also enable users to create pin pages, associate pin pages with customized QR codes, instantly edit or modify pin pages, push update messages to users that have "liked", "favorited", or "saved" the pin pages, and so on. These and other features are described below in greater detail with reference to the figures that follow [ 28]”.
The specification does not teach first user , second user as in (claims 1, 16, 21) and a third user as in ( claims 2-6, 17-20 and 22).
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 16-26 are directed to a system and 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 1-9, 16-26 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:
receive, a first user input for creating a pin page;
create, the pin page associated with a product or service, based on the first user input;
receive a second user input, for creating a customized quick response (QR) code, the second user input including a customization selection of at least one of a shape for the QR code, a color scheme for the QR code, a module type for the QR code, a logo for inclusion in the QR code, an image for inclusion in the QR code, and a text for inclusion with the QR code;
create, based on the received second user input, the customized QR code comprising a QR code pattern characterized by the customization selection; and
associate the pin page with the customized QR code such that scanning the customized QR code enables access to the pin page;
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 non-transitory memory and configured to execute software instructions such as QR, a terminal, one or more processors, module, memory and a device (e.g. a general purpose computer with generic computer components) and a database 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.
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)):
receive, via an input device coupled to the processor, a first user input for creating a pin page;
receive a second user input, via the input device, for creating a customized quick response (QR) code, the second user input including a customization selection of at least one of a shape for the QR code, a color scheme for the QR code, a module type for the QR code, a logo for inclusion in the QR code, an image for inclusion in the QR code, and a text for inclusion with the QR code;
More 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. Specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer with one or more hardware processors coupled to a non-transitory memory and configured to execute software instructions, and 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 paragraphs 31-32, 93, 95-96 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)):
receive, via an input device coupled to the processor, a first user input for creating a pin page;
receive a second user input, via the input device, for creating a customized quick response (QR) code, the second user input including a customization selection of at least one of a shape for the QR code, a color scheme for the QR code, a module type for the QR code, a logo for inclusion in the QR code, an image for inclusion in the QR code, and a text for inclusion with the QR code;
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 10 and 16.
The dependent claims 2-9, 17-20 and 22-26 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the platform management creating pin page, which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 2-4, 6, 17-20, 23); further limiting the platform management module which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 7 and 25); further limiting the platform management module where the pin page is shared which is considered part of the abstract idea which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claims 5 and 19); further limiting the platform management terminal is a mobile which is considered part of the abstract idea (Claim 8); further liming customization selection, which is part of the abstract idea ( claims 9, 26); further limiting monitoring, which is part of the abstract idea ( claim 24),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 1-9, 16-26 are not patent eligible.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 16-26 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:
Cansizoglu, US Pat No: 11,568,446 B1 teaches The media preview system receives media content from one or more client devices, generates a preview of the media content, associates a coded image with the preview within a database associated with the media preview system, detects scans of the coded image from client devices, and causes display of the preview at the client devices in response to detecting the scan.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure.
Morel et al, US Pub No: 2015/0006672A1, teaches Techniques for automatically transmitting user profile data over a network are provided. In one technique, a browser displays a form and a QR code (or other form of encoded data) on a webpage. A mobile application scans the QR code, which causes the mobile application to identify user profile data (that may be stored locally with respect to the mobile application) and send the user profile data to a Campaign server. The Campaign server causes the form that is displayed by the browser to be filled in with the user profile data. The browser than transmits the filled-in form to a partner server that provides the webpage. In another technique, a mobile application scans a QR code, which may be displayed on a flyer, a poster, a computer screen, or a television screen. The mobile application identifies and transmits user profile data to a Campaign server. Smith et al, US Pub No: 2014/0129344 A1, teaches Branded persona advertisement.
Smith et al, US Pub No: 2014/0129344 A1, teaches A user captures an image of a retail product with a smartphone. Product recommendations associated with the retail product are provided to the smartphone. One claim recites a method comprising: receiving first imagery captured by a smartphone camera, the first imagery representing a first retail product located at a retail location, and presenting the first imagery on a screen of the smartphone; providing the first imagery to a processor to produce fingerprint data therefrom, the fingerprint data being utilized to identify the first retail product; receiving second imagery representing a second retail product, identified as a product recommendation associated with the first retail product, the second imagery being sourced from a source different than the smartphone camera; presenting, on the screen of the smartphone, the second imagery; receiving user input via a touch screen of the smartphone; as a consequence of said user input, initiating an action. Of course, a great variety of other claims, features and arrangements are also detailed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 files within TWO MONTHS from 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 mailing date of this final.
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 [ Mon-Thursday 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
