DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Please note that the Patent Examiner of your application has changed. All communications should be directed to Mary Lyons, Art Unit 1645, whose telephone number is (571)272-2966.
Claim Status
3. The amendment, filed 11/18/25, has been entered. Claims 17-23, 25-32, and 38-41 are pending. Claims 1-16 and 24 are cancelled. Claims 38-41 are newly added. Claims 17, 18, 20, 21, 26, 28, 29, and 32 are amended. Claims 33-37 are missing.
4. Newly submitted claims 40 and 41 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The examined invention is drawn to a method whereas the newly submitted claims are drawn to a product. They are related as product and process of use. These inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, materially different products may be used for increasing the expression of extracellular matrix molecules of healthy skin, such as retinoids, vitamin C, and/or alpha-hydroxy acids. Further, there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: (A) separate classification thereof; (B) a separate status in the art when they are classifiable together; and/or (C) a different field of search (e.g. searching different groups/subgroups or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries); See MPEP 808.02. Furthermore, the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, (a) and/or (b).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 40 and 41 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention; See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the other invention.
5. Claims 17-23, 25-32, and 38-39 are under examination.
Withdrawal of Objections/Rejections
6. The following are withdrawn from the Office Action, filed 07/18/25:
The rejection of claims 17-23, 25 and 29-32, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, found on page 3 at paragraphs 1A and 1B, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments thereto.
The rejections of claims 17, 21, 26, 28-29, and 32, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) found on pages 3-4 at paragraphs 2-3, are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments thereto.
The rejection of claims 17-32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) found on page 4 at paragraph 4, are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments thereto.
The rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), found on page 8 at paragraph 6, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments thereto.
The rejection of claims 17-32 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 2017/0020934) found on page 9 at paragraph 7, is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments thereto.
Maintained Rejection: Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. This is a biological deposit rejection.
The invention appears to employ novel biological materials, specifically a newly isolated strain of Lactobacillus crispatus deposited under the designation CNCM I-5579. For the purpose of compact prosecution, it is noted that claim 22 does not technically required this particular strain (i.e. any strain as viable whole cells, or in a lysate form, would meet the claim limitation because of the use of the multiple “and/or” conjunctions); however, this embodiment appears to be essential. And since the biological materials are essential to the claimed invention, they must be obtainable by a repeatable method set forth in the specification or otherwise readily available to the public. If the biological materials are not so obtainable or available, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 may be satisfied by a deposit of the biological materials.
If the deposit is made under the Budapest Treaty, then an affidavit or declaration by Applicant, or a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, stating that the specific biological materials have been deposited under the Budapest Treaty and that the biological materials will be irrevocably and without restriction or condition released to the public upon the issuance of a patent, would satisfy the deposit requirement made herein. If the deposit has not been made under the Budapest Treaty, then in order to certify that the deposit meets the criteria set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.801-1.809, Applicant may provide assurance of compliance by an affidavit or declaration, or by a statement by an attorney of record over his or her signature and registration number, showing that:
(a) during the pendency of this application, access to the invention will be afforded to the Commissioner upon request;
(b) all restrictions upon availability to the public will be irrevocably removed upon granting of the patent;
(c) the deposit will be maintained in a public depository for a period of 30 years or 5 years after the last request or for the effective life of the patent, whichever is longer;
(d) a test of the viability of the biological material at the time of deposit will be made (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.807); and
(e) the deposit will be replaced if it should ever become inviable.
Applicant’s attention is directed to M.P.E.P. §2400 in general, and specifically to §2411.05, as well as to 37 C.F.R. § 1.809(d), wherein it is set forth that “the specification shall contain the accession number for the deposit, the date of the deposit, the name and address of the depository, and a description of the deposited material sufficient to specifically identify it and to permit examination.” The specification should be amended to include this information, however, Applicant is cautioned to avoid the entry of new matter into the specification by adding any other information.
Although Applicants have noted on pages 5 and 16 of the specification that the biological material was deposited according to the Treaty of Budapest, a statement that the biological materials will be irrevocably and without restriction or condition released to the public upon the issuance of a patent is additionally required.
Applicant’s Arguments and Response to Arguments
9. All of Applicant’s arguments have been considered but were not deemed persuasive; accordingly, the rejection is maintained for reasons of record. For example:
With regards to the argument that Applicant has amended the specification to include the full information about the deposit (see Remarks, page 6, last paragraph), it is noted that no amendments to the specification were submitted. Therefore, the statement is missing and the rejection is maintained.
New Rejections Necessitated by Applicant’s Amendments
New Rejection: Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
10. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
11. Claims 21, 26, 28, 29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As amended, claims 21, 26, 28, 29, and 32 are each indefinite because it is unclear which limitations are required and which are optional based on the multiple uses of “and/or” and “or not”. Thus, clarification is required to remove scope ambiguity and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. It is also noted that claim 28 recites “cscretome” (see new amendment on line 5) which appears to be a typo. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses as little as any one of the options (e.g. whole form); nevertheless clarification is required.
New Rejection: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
13. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
14. Claims 17-23, 25-32 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Malfa et al. 2020 (EP 3 682 890 A1).
Malfa teaches therapeutic and prophylactic methods for skin and mucosa of humans comprising topical application of a nutraceutical or cosmetic composition comprising inactivated whole cells of Lactobacillus crispatus (e.g. [0001, 0011-12, 0021, 0025-27, 0061-62]; meeting limitations found in instant claims 17, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, and 32). Malfa teaches application to the oral mucosa (e.g. [0051]; also meeting limitations found in instant claims 17, 26 and 29). Malfa teaches the compositions can be formulated as a cosmetic for use on the face and body [0049]; meeting limitations found in instant claims 17, 26, 27 and 29). Malfa teaches the use of one or more excipients (e.g. [0051]; meeting limitations found in instant claims 25, 28, 30 and 31). Malfa provides an example having 100 mg of Lactobacillus bacteria per 2354 mg of composition per capsule (i.e. 4% by weight; see Example 1; meeting limitations found in instant claims 25 and 31).
With regards to the limitations “… for maintaining and/or increasing the expression of extracellular matrix molecules of healthy skin and/or healthy mucous membranes” in claims 17 and 26; and “…in which the extracellular matrix molecules of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes are chosen from collagen fibers of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes, and/or elastic fibers of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes” in claim 18; and “…for maintaining and/or increasing the expression of type I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, XII, XIII, XIV, XVI, XVII, XXIV and/or XXIX collagens” in claim 19; and “…for maintaining and/or increasing the biomechanical properties of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes” in claim 20; and “…for treating and/or preventing pathologies of the skin and/or mucous membranes involving a decrease in the amount and/or expression of extracellular matrix molecules of the skin and/or mucous membranes and/or a decrease in the amount and/or expression of collagens and/or elastic fibers of the skin and/or mucous membranes, and/or a decrease in the biomechanical properties of the skin and/or mucous membranes” in claim 29; and “…wherein increasing the biomechanical properties of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes is increasing the firmness and/or elasticity and/or density of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes” in newly added claim 38 and “… wherein a decrease in the biomechanical properties of the skin and/or the mucous membrane is a decrease in the firmness of the skin and/or the mucous membranes, and/or a decrease in the elasticity of the skin and/or the mucous membranes, and/or a decrease in the density of the skin and/or the mucous membranes” in newly added claim 39; it is noted that none of these limitations add a positively recited step to the method per se and therefore each has been interpreted as an expression of an intended result of the only positively recited method step (i.e. administering a composition comprising Lactobacillus crispatus; see MPEP 2111.04). In addition, MPEP 2112.02 states when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the "use" is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978) (Claims 1 and 6, directed to a method of effecting nonaddictive analgesia (pain reduction) in animals, were found to be anticipated by the applied prior art which disclosed the same compounds for effecting analgesia but which was silent as to addiction. The court upheld the rejection and stated that the applicants had merely found a new property of the compound and such a discovery did not constitute a new use. See also In re Tomlinson, 363 F.2d 928, 150 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1966) "While the references do not show a specific recognition of that result, its discovery by appellants is tantamount only to finding a property in the old composition." 363 F.2d at 934, 150 USPQ at 628 (emphasis in original)).
Accordingly, Malfa anticipates the invention as claimed.
New Rejection: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
15. Claims 17-23, 29-30, 32 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. 2010 (US 2010/0151026).
Liu teaches preventative methods for protecting against infections from occurring (i.e. nutraceutical processes for healthy skin; pathologies of the skin) comprising administering compositions comprising pharmaceutically acceptable carriers and 108 to 109 Lactobacillus crispatus whole cells to mucosal surfaces including the epithelial linings of the reproductive tract (i.e. part of the body), nasal and oral cavity surfaces (i.e. topical; e.g. [0015-18, 0029-0034, 0037-0040]; and Liu claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 13; meeting limitations found in instant claims 17, 21, 22, 29, 30, and 32). Liu also teaches compositions in a freeze-dried (i.e. inactivated) form with more than 20% viability, with and without culture media (e.g. [0043-0050]; meeting limitations found in instant claims 21, 23, 29, and 32).
With regards to the limitations “… for maintaining and/or increasing the expression of extracellular matrix molecules of healthy skin and/or healthy mucous membranes” in claim 17; and “…in which the extracellular matrix molecules of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes are chosen from collagen fibers of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes, and/or elastic fibers of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes” in claim 18; and “…for maintaining and/or increasing the expression of type I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, XII, XIII, XIV, XVI, XVII, XXIV and/or XXIX collagens” in claim 19; and “…for maintaining and/or increasing the biomechanical properties of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes” in claim 20; and “…for treating and/or preventing pathologies of the skin and/or mucous membranes involving a decrease in the amount and/or expression of extracellular matrix molecules of the skin and/or mucous membranes and/or a decrease in the amount and/or expression of collagens and/or elastic fibers of the skin and/or mucous membranes, and/or a decrease in the biomechanical properties of the skin and/or mucous membranes” in claim 29; and “…wherein increasing the biomechanical properties of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes is increasing the firmness and/or elasticity and/or density of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes” in newly added claim 38 and “… wherein a decrease in the biomechanical properties of the skin and/or the mucous membrane is a decrease in the firmness of the skin and/or the mucous membranes, and/or a decrease in the elasticity of the skin and/or the mucous membranes, and/or a decrease in the density of the skin and/or the mucous membranes” in newly added claim 39; it is noted that none of these limitations add a positively recited step to the method per se and therefore each has been interpreted as an expression of an intended result of the only positively recited method step (i.e. administering a composition comprising Lactobacillus crispatus; see MPEP 2111.04). In addition, MPEP 2112.02 states when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the "use" is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978) (Claims 1 and 6, directed to a method of effecting nonaddictive analgesia (pain reduction) in animals, were found to be anticipated by the applied prior art which disclosed the same compounds for effecting analgesia but which was silent as to addiction. The court upheld the rejection and stated that the applicants had merely found a new property of the compound and such a discovery did not constitute a new use. See also In re Tomlinson, 363 F.2d 928, 150 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1966) "While the references do not show a specific recognition of that result, its discovery by appellants is tantamount only to finding a property in the old composition." 363 F.2d at 934, 150 USPQ at 628 (emphasis in original)).
Accordingly, Lui anticipates the invention as claimed.
New Rejection: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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, 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.
17. The factual inquiries 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.
18. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
19. Claims 17-23, 25-32 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. 2010 (US 2010/0151026).
Liu teaches preventative methods for protecting against infections from occurring (i.e. nutraceutical processes for healthy skin; also pathologies of the skin) comprising administering compositions comprising pharmaceutically acceptable carriers and 108 to 109 Lactobacillus crispatus whole cells to mucosal surfaces including the epithelial linings of the reproductive tract (i.e. part of the body), nasal and oral cavity surfaces (i.e. topical; e.g. [0015-18, 0029-0034, 0037-0040]; and Liu claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 13; meeting limitations found in instant claims 17, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 32). Liu also teaches compositions in a freeze-dried (i.e. inactivated) form with more than 20% viability, with and without culture media (e.g. [0043-0050]; meeting limitations found in claims 21, 23, 26, 28, 29, and 32).
With regards to the limitations “… for maintaining and/or increasing the expression of extracellular matrix molecules of healthy skin and/or healthy mucous membranes” in claims 17 and 26; and “…in which the extracellular matrix molecules of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes are chosen from collagen fibers of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes, and/or elastic fibers of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes” in claim 18; and “…for maintaining and/or increasing the expression of type I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, XII, XIII, XIV, XVI, XVII, XXIV and/or XXIX collagens” in claim 19; and “…for maintaining and/or increasing the biomechanical properties of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes” in claim 20; and “…for treating and/or preventing pathologies of the skin and/or mucous membranes involving a decrease in the amount and/or expression of extracellular matrix molecules of the skin and/or mucous membranes and/or a decrease in the amount and/or expression of collagens and/or elastic fibers of the skin and/or mucous membranes, and/or a decrease in the biomechanical properties of the skin and/or mucous membranes” in claim 29; and “…wherein increasing the biomechanical properties of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes is increasing the firmness and/or elasticity and/or density of healthy skin and/or the healthy mucous membranes” in newly added claim 38 and “… wherein a decrease in the biomechanical properties of the skin and/or the mucous membrane is a decrease in the firmness of the skin and/or the mucous membranes, and/or a decrease in the elasticity of the skin and/or the mucous membranes, and/or a decrease in the density of the skin and/or the mucous membranes” in newly added claim 39; it is noted that none of these limitations add a positively recited step to the method per se and therefore each has been interpreted as an expression of an intended result of the only positively recited method step (i.e. administering a composition comprising Lactobacillus crispatus; see MPEP 2111.04). In addition, MPEP 2112.02 states when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the "use" is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978) (Claims 1 and 6, directed to a method of effecting nonaddictive analgesia (pain reduction) in animals, were found to be anticipated by the applied prior art which disclosed the same compounds for effecting analgesia but which was silent as to addiction. The court upheld the rejection and stated that the applicants had merely found a new property of the compound and such a discovery did not constitute a new use. See also In re Tomlinson, 363 F.2d 928, 150 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1966) "While the references do not show a specific recognition of that result, its discovery by appellants is tantamount only to finding a property in the old composition." 363 F.2d at 934, 150 USPQ at 628 (emphasis in original)).
Therefore the difference between the prior art and the invention is the relative concentration of Lactobacillus found in dependent claims 25 and 31.
However, MPEP 2144.05 states differences in concentration and temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For additional cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997)." In the instant case, it is the Office’s position that the concentration of the Lactobacillus crispatus bacteria is a results-effective variable and thus there is motivation for one of ordinary skill to optimize it through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05II(B)).
Accordingly, the claims are unpatentable over Liu.
Conclusion
20. No claims are allowed.
21. 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).
22. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 action.
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY MAILLE LYONS whose telephone number is (571)272-2966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am to 5 pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http: //www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dan Kolker can be reached on (571)-272-3181. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
24. 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.
/MARY MAILLE LYONS/Examiner, Art Unit 1645
March 10, 2026