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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/21/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minvielle (20180003687) in view of Srinivasan et al. (20180253459).
Minvielle teaches a server (par. 0086; par. 0251; par. 0326) comprising:
a transceiver (par. 0085, 0086; par. 0198; par. 0260 “receive” and “send”, i.e. definition of transceiver transmit and receive) configured to perform communication with a user terminal (par. 0198 handheld device, cellular phone, tablet computer, PDA; par. 0261) and a cooking device (par. 0260 last 9 lines; send conditioning protocols to conditioner; microwave; par. 0261) and
a processor (par. 0083 server computer; substance database ref. 550) operatively connected to the transceiver (par. 0083 server computer),
wherein the processor is configured to,
based on receiving a user-selected recipe name from the user terminal (par. 0224 lines 8-15; par. 0261), search for at least one recipe corresponding to the user-selected recipe name and the cooking device (par. 0224, 0261),
based on the searched at least one recipe comprising a defrosting step (par. 0256 frozen; par. 0195, 0224, 0261) without using the cooking device (par. 0257 type requesting; par. 0260 modified to match conditioner), change the defrosting step without using the cooking device of the searched at least one recipe to a defrosting step using the cooking device (par. 0260 modified to match conditioner),
based on the changing, determine at least one recipe (par. 0260 modified to match conditioner; par. 0224, 0261),
transmit, to the user terminal (par. 0260 sent back to send; par. 0261; par. 0180, 0198; 0255), information about the determined at least one recipe (par. 0261; par. 0198, 0255),
receive a selection of a recipe from the user terminal (par. 0261 receiving consumer input; par. 0255) based on transmitting (par. 0261; par. 0255), to the user terminal, the information about the determined at least one recipe (par. 0260-261; par. 0198, 0255) and
based on receiving the selection of a recipe from the user terminal (par. 0260-261, 0255, par. 0180; par. 0224), control the transceiver to transmit (par. 0260; par. 0224), to the user terminal (par. 0261; par. 0224 “selected by the consumer after presented”), recipe guide information corresponding to the recipe (par. 0261; par. 0224; par. 0255 conditioning protocol obtained from substance database ref. 550), and transmit, to the cooking device (par. 0261, par. 0224 conditioner ref. 570; 0261), control information corresponding to the recipe (par. 0261; par. 0224 conditioning protocol; 0261),
wherein the control information comprises time information and temperature information for an operation of the cooking device (par. 0256, 0224), the time information comprises defrosting time information corresponding to the defrosting step using the cooking device (par. 0256) and the temperature information comprises specific intensity of the heating elements (par. 0256) corresponding to the defrosting step using the cooking device (par. 0256), the defrosting time information and the defrosting temperature information being obtained based on at least one of a weight (par. 0224) or quantity of a cooking object,
wherein the cooking device comprises a thermal source (par. 0256) and is configured to defrost the cooking object corresponding to the defrosting step using the cooking device (par. 0256) and cook the cooking object corresponding to a cooking step of the recipe using the cooking device by controlling the thermal source to emit heat based on the control information (par. 0256)
Minvielle teaches conditioning protocols regarding the type of conditioner used (par. 0254, 0256) in addition to teaching a recipe database (par. 0252) and providing the user with various conditioning options for selection (par. 0195) and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of retrieved recipe adaptation using a food database (par. 0061, 0064) for a same purpose of providing the user with various conditioning options for selection (par. 0069) as taught by Srinivasan.
Srinivasan further teaches wirelessly obtaining recipe information from a food dictionary database (par. 0061) such that the “smart” or intelligent cooking devices with network interfaces, user interfaces, processors, memory and/or storage, at least one data source, and computer executable instructions executing on a processor for adapting cooking recipes between different cooking devices. For its recognized advantage of allowing a cooking appliance to utilize a recipe designed for a dissimilar cooking appliance without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe.
Thus since both teach recipe database, since Minvielle teaches providing the user with various conditioning options for selection (par. 0195) and since Minvielle teaches the actual claimed changing of the defrosting step based on the searched at least one recipe comprising a defrosting step (par. 0256 frozen; par. 0195, 0224, 0261) without using the cooking device (par. 0257 type requesting; par. 0260 modified to match conditioner), change the defrosting step without using the cooking device of the searched at least one recipe to a defrosting step using the cooking device (par. 0260 modified to match conditioner). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the recipe comprising a different defrosting method and base the change of a same defrosting step, using natural defrosting or thawing in running water, i.e. different recipe step. Thus achieving a same defrosting protocols depending on the type of device, including defrosting at a specific intensity for a given amount of time depending on the conditioner (par. 0256) and cooking by heating elements at a certain output or temperature for time span (par. 0256) and the advantage of intelligent cooking devices allowing a cooking appliance to utilize a recipe designed for a dissimilar cooking appliance without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe as taught by Srinivasan (par. 0053).
In addition, though silent to recognizing a recipe limited by a same defrosting step, using natural defrosting or thawing in running water. Importantly, Minvielle teaches the determining variables including food type and food weight required to achieve the constant, i.e. defrosting. Srinivasan teaches allowing a cooking appliance to utilize a recipe designed for a dissimilar cooking appliance without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe (par. 0053). Though silent to a recipe retrieved by defrosting using natural defrosting or thawing in running water, it is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found within the four comers of the reference(s) themselves. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... theexplicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case to achieve the objective of both of substituting a first method of heating with that of another according to a desired food type and food weight without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe as taught by Srinivasan (par. 0053) and desired by Minvielle.
Though silent to the control information comprising a defrosting temperature, Minvielle teaches defrosting and conditioning protocols regarding the type of conditioner used (par. 0254, 0256) in addition to teaching a recipe database (par. 0252) and providing the user with various conditioning options for selection (par. 0195).
Thus since Minvielle teaches defrosting, since Minvielle teaches defrosting protocols depending on the type of device, including defrosting at a specific intensity for a given amount of time depending on the conditioner (par. 0256) and cooking by heating elements at a certain output or temperature for time span (par. 0256). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach defrosting temperatures in the alternative to a certain output as taught by Minvielle (par. 0256) for its art recognized purpose of defrosting for a given amount of time depending on the conditioner (par. 0256) and the advantage of allowing a cooking appliance to utilize a recipe designed for a dissimilar cooking appliance without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe as taught by Srinivasan (par. 0053) and Minvielle (par. 0256).
With respect to Independent claim 11, a method of controlling a server (par. 0086; par. 0251; par. 0326) comprising a transceiver (par. 0085, 0086; par. 0198; par. 0260 “receive” and “send”, i.e. definition of transceiver transmit and receive) for performing communication with a user terminal (par. 0198 handheld device, cellular phone, tablet computer, PDA; par. 0261) and a cooking device (par. 0260 last 9 lines; send conditioning protocols to conditioner; microwave; par. 0261)
the method comprising:
based on receiving a user-selected recipe name from the user terminal (par. 0224 lines 8-15; par. 0261), search for at least one recipe corresponding to the user-selected recipe name and the cooking device (par. 0224, 0261),
based on the searched at least one recipe comprising a defrosting step (par. 0256 frozen; par. 0195, 0224, 0261) without using the cooking device (par. 0257 type requesting; par. 0260 modified to match conditioner), change the defrosting step without using the cooking device of the searched at least one recipe to a defrosting step using the cooking device (par. 0260 modified to match conditioner),
based on the changing, determine at least one recipe (par. 0260 modified to match conditioner; par. 0224, 0261),
transmit, to the user terminal (par. 0260 sent back to send; par. 0261; par. 0180, 0198; 0255), information about the determined at least one recipe (par. 0261; par. 0198, 0255),
receive a selection of a recipe from the user terminal (par. 0261 receiving consumer input; par. 0255) based on transmitting (par. 0261; par. 0255), to the user terminal, the information about the determined at least one recipe (par. 0260-261; par. 0198, 0255) and
based on receiving the selection of a recipe from the user terminal (par. 0260-261, 0255, par. 0180; par. 0224), control the transceiver to transmit (par. 0260; par. 0224), to the user terminal (par. 0261; par. 0224 “selected by the consumer after presented”), recipe guide information corresponding to the recipe (par. 0261; par. 0224; par. 0255 conditioning protocol obtained from substance database ref. 550), and transmit, to the cooking device (par. 0261, par. 0224 conditioner ref. 570; 0261), control information corresponding to the recipe (par. 0261; par. 0224 conditioning protocol; 0261),
wherein the control information comprises time information and temperature information for an operation of the cooking device (par. 0256, 0224), the time information comprises defrosting time information corresponding to the defrosting step using the cooking device (par. 0256) and the temperature information comprises specific intensity of the heating elements (par. 0256) corresponding to the defrosting step using the cooking device (par. 0256), the defrosting time information and the defrosting temperature information being obtained based on at least one of a weight (par. 0224) or quantity of a cooking object,
wherein the cooking device comprises a thermal source (par. 0256) and is configured to defrost the cooking object corresponding to the defrosting step using the cooking device (par. 0256) and cook the cooking object corresponding to a cooking step of the recipe using the cooking device by controlling the thermal source to emit heat based on the control information (par. 0256)
Minvielle teaches conditioning protocols regarding the type of conditioner used (par. 0254, 0256) in addition to teaching a recipe database (par. 0252) and providing the user with various conditioning options for selection (par. 0195) and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of retrieved recipe adaptation using a food database (par. 0061, 0064) for a same purpose of providing the user with various conditioning options for selection (par. 0069) as taught by Srinivasan.
Srinivasan further teaches wirelessly obtaining recipe information from a food dictionary database (par. 0061) such that the “smart” or intelligent cooking devices with network interfaces, user interfaces, processors, memory and/or storage, at least one data source, and computer executable instructions executing on a processor for adapting cooking recipes between different cooking devices. For its recognized advantage of allowing a cooking appliance to utilize a recipe designed for a dissimilar cooking appliance without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe (par. 0053).
Thus since both teach recipe database, since Minvielle teaches providing the user with various conditioning options for selection (par. 0195) and since Minvielle teaches the actual claimed changing of the defrosting step based on the searched at least one recipe comprising a defrosting step (par. 0256 frozen; par. 0195, 0224, 0261) without using the cooking device (par. 0257 type requesting; par. 0260 modified to match conditioner), change the defrosting step without using the cooking device of the searched at least one recipe to a defrosting step using the cooking device (par. 0260 modified to match conditioner). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the recipe comprising a different defrosting method and base the change of a same defrosting step, using natural defrosting or thawing in running water, i.e. different recipe step. Thus achieving a same defrosting protocols depending on the type of device, including defrosting at a specific intensity for a given amount of time depending on the conditioner (par. 0256) and cooking by heating elements at a certain output or temperature for time span (par. 0256) and the advantage of intelligent cooking devices allowing a cooking appliance to utilize a recipe designed for a dissimilar cooking appliance without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe as taught by Srinivasan (par. 0053).
In addition, though silent to recognizing a recipe limited by a same defrosting step, using natural defrosting or thawing in running water. Importantly, Minvielle teaches the determining variables including food type and food weight required to achieve the constant, i.e. defrosting. Srinivasan teaches allowing a cooking appliance to utilize a recipe designed for a dissimilar cooking appliance without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe (par. 0053). Though silent to a recipe retrieved by defrosting using natural defrosting or thawing in running water, it is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found within the four comers of the reference(s) themselves. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... theexplicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case to achieve the objective of both of substituting a first method of heating with that of another according to a desired food type and food weight without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe as taught by Srinivasan (par. 0053) and desired by Minvielle.
Though silent to the control information comprising a defrosting temperature, Minvielle teaches defrosting and conditioning protocols regarding the type of conditioner used (par. 0254, 0256) in addition to teaching a recipe database (par. 0252) and providing the user with various conditioning options for selection (par. 0195).
Thus since Minvielle teaches defrosting, since Minvielle teaches defrosting protocols depending on the type of device, including defrosting at a specific intensity for a given amount of time depending on the conditioner (par. 0256) and cooking by heating elements at a certain output or temperature for time span (par. 0256). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to teach defrosting temperatures in the alternative to a certain output as taught by Minvielle (par. 0256) for its art recognized purpose of defrosting for a given amount of time depending on the conditioner (par. 0256) and the advantage of allowing a cooking appliance to utilize a recipe designed for a dissimilar cooking appliance without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe as taught by Srinivasan (par. 0053) and Minvielle (par. 0256).
Claims 2 and 12, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the at least one recipe based on the cooking device (par. 0224 microwave; par. 0257 type), the cooking object that is available (par. 0224 turkey; par. 0226), and the user-selected recipe name (par. 0224; par. 0170, 0180 types or categories; par. 0261).
Claims 5 and 15, wherein the at least one recipe comprises at least one of a recipe with a shortest cooking time (par. 0227 minimize N; maximize usage, finish same time; par. 0259), a recipe focused on taste (par. 0255, 0261, 0265, 0269), or a recipe focused on a condition of the cooking object (par. 0255, 0261, 0265, 0269).
With respect to claim 6, wherein the cooking device comprises a plurality of cooking devices (par. 0260), and wherein the processor is further configured to control the transceiver to transmit the control information to at least one of the plurality of cooking devices (par. 0261).
Claim 7, wherein the processor is further configured to, based on at least one of a type of the recipe (par. 0198 conditioning parameters to defrost; par. 0204 based on weight/ingredient; par. 0226 dynamic information identifier; par. 0256) or a type of the cooking object on hand (par. 0257, 0260), determine a cooking device to perform the defrosting step of the recipe among the plurality of cooking devices (par. 0223 cooking unit suggested; par. 0198 relative information identifier; par. 0256 frozen or chilled determine; par. 0257).
Claim 8, wherein the recipe guide information comprises information about an operation order between the plurality of cooking devices (par. 0224) and information about a user action (par. 0224).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minvielle (20180003687) in view of Srinivasan et al. (20180253459) and Buehler (20050193901).
Minvielle teaches server controlled cooking and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of food preparation coordinated by a central server as taught by Buehler (par. 0451).
Buehler further teaches the control system which coordinates food recipes by a server further comprises a cleaning system, including a dish washer (par. 0386, 0490) for the art recognized purpose of providing a solution to the limitation of the prior art devices that they only handle a small portion of the tasks involved in preparing food including requiring the manual cleanup (par. 0007) by a device that can be used at home or in a restaurant, that operates almost completely autonomously, that can prepare a wide variety of dishes, and that can also clean itself as taught by Buehler (par. 0008)
Thus since Minvielle teaches operational control of different appliances by a server, since Minvielle teaches modules which are linked by the server (par. 0083-0086) since Buehler the control system which coordinates food recipes by a server further comprises a cleaning system, including a dish washer (par. 0386, 0490). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further incorporate known modules such as in the instant case a washing mode, including a dish washer (par. 0386, 0490), based on the selected recipe as taught by Buehler for its art recognized purpose of providing additional increased convenience to the user by being able to automatically wash dishes after the meal as taught by Buehler (par. 0386, 0490).
Buehler further teaches known cooking control systems are lacking a dishware storage system (par. 0155) which includes the cleaning system, and the advantage of further providing a functioning module (par. 0155). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further incorporate known modules such as in the instant case a washing mode, including a dish washer (par. 0386, 0490), based on the selected recipe as taught by Buehler, into the server controlled appliance functions as taught by Minvielle thus providing the art recognized purpose of providing a solution to the limitation of the prior art devices that they only handle a small portion of the tasks involved in preparing food including requiring the manual cleanup (par. 0007) by a device that can prepare a wide variety of dishes, and that can also clean itself as taught by Buehler (par. 0008).
Response to Arguments
Applicants amendments directed to a type of specific defrosting and cooking, and particularity of machine including control information based on a change of a defrosting step thus integrated into practical application overcomes the 101 rejection.
With respect to applicants urging directed to Minvielle and applicants urging Minvielle is silent to starting from a recipe using no cooking device to defrost. Importantly, the urged starting from a recipe using no cooking device to defrost is merely a recipe option relative a constant, i.e. frozen as taught by Minvielle requiring a defrosting step (par. 0256). The option urged does not affect the defrosting or obtaining of a result since the food type and weight and determined type of cooking device dictate the claimed conditions to arrive at a same end point. In addition Minvielle teaches input that the food is actually frozen (par. 0256) and determined defrosting protocols specific to such.
The urged “starting from a recipe using no cooking device to defrost” is akin to the teaching of Sirivasan of computer executable instructions executing on a processor for adapting cooking recipes between different cooking devices. For its recognized advantage of allowing a cooking appliance to utilize a recipe designed for a dissimilar cooking appliance without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe.
Importantly and as claimed, Minvielle, teaches every step of every cooking protocol is designed to use a cooking device (microwave, convection oven, grill, etc.). The system merely matches, adjusts, or selects an existing device-based protocol to the available device's capabilities,” i.e. match defrosting step to available device's capabilities.
In addition, though silent to recognizing a recipe limited by a same defrosting step, using natural defrosting or thawing in running water. Importantly, Minvielle teaches the determining variables including food type and food weight required to achieve the constant, i.e. defrosting. Srinivasan teaches allowing a cooking appliance to utilize a recipe designed for a dissimilar cooking appliance without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe (par. 0053). Though silent to a recipe retrieved by defrosting using natural defrosting or thawing in running water, it is not necessary that suggestion or motivation be found within the four comers of the reference(s) themselves. "The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of... the
explicit content of issued patents." KSR Int'l. Co. v. Teleflex lnc., 550 U.S. 398, 419. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR, 550 U.S. at 416., The question to be asked is "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
In addition, a conclusion of obviousness can be made from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). Such as in the instant case to achieve the objective of both of substituting a first method of heating with that of another according to a desired food type and food weight without the need for a user to manually adapt the recipe as taught by Srinivasan (par. 0053) and desired by Minvielle.
With respect to Buehler, importantly Minvielle teaches operational control of different appliances by a server. Minvielle teaches modules which are linked by the server (par. 0083-0086). Buehler teaches a same control system which coordinates food recipes by a server further comprises a cleaning system, including a dish washer (par. 0386, 0490).
Though urged technical challenges of integrating dishwasher control into a recipe based cooking system. Importantly the urged system does not actually require any food perfection or dish washing. Merely a transceiver for transmitting a washing based on a selected recipe. Buehler teaches a same control system which coordinates food recipes by a server further comprises a cleaning system, including a dish washer (par. 0386, 0490), where it is noted a washing mode based on a selected recipe encompasses a selected recipe requiring a washing mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further incorporate known modules such as in the instant case a washing mode, including a dish washer (par. 0386, 0490), based on the selected recipe as taught by Buehler for its art recognized purpose of providing additional increased convenience to the user by being able to automatically wash dishes after the meal as taught by Buehler (par. 0386, 0490).
Buehler further teaches known cooking control systems are lacking a dishware storage system (par. 0155) which includes the cleaning system, and the advantage of further providing a functioning module (par. 0155). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further incorporate known modules such as in the instant case a washing mode, including a dish washer (par. 0386, 0490), based on the selected recipe as taught by Buehler, into the server controlled appliance functions as taught by Minvielle thus providing the art recognized purpose of providing a solution to the limitation of the prior art devices that they only handle a small portion of the tasks involved in preparing food including requiring the manual cleanup (par. 0007) by a device that can prepare a wide variety of dishes, and that can also clean itself as taught by Buehler (par. 0008).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20170188741 directed to server controlled cooking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/STEVEN N LEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
