DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a final office action in response to the application filed 2/3/2026.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 30, 32, 33 and 40, cancellation of Claim 27 and addition of Claim 41.
Examiner Note: Examiner notes that the currently submitted amended Claim 30 and 40 are missing limitations that were present in the original submission. See the Claim Objections below.
Examiner withdraws the objections to the Specification in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The applicant's claim for benefit of provisional application US 63214150 filed 23 June 2021, US 63/144450 filed 1 February 2021, and a 371 of PCT/US22/14780 filed 1 February 2022 have been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-26 and 28-41 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues: (1) Referencing BASCOM, Applicant asserts that “…the present claims 1-21 and 23-41 provide a specific technical solution of the abstract idea, if in fact an abstract idea exists, and thus are patent-eligible and allowable over the section 101 rejections. As was… in Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., 1….the present claims 1- 21 and 23-41 describe how to achieve the result, through a detailed series of processing steps, not merely what result to achieve. Under Contour IP, this is a specific technological means, not an abstract idea… Applicants respectfully note that the current claims and application are therefore an ideal example of "an improvement to other technology or technical field" as a useful, novel and non- obvious invention providing a method and system for computing correct income of a security using undistributed income… this is not an abstract application. It is a highly practical one…” (Applicant’s response, 26-27). (2) Applicant further argues that “… embodiments of this invention are not a fundamental economic practice or principle. Moreover, embodiments of this invention in fact solve not just one or two, but three long-standing problems that have never been resolved previously to this invention. The Applicants hereby co-file with this Reply an Information Disclosure Statement including two articles by reputable sources (an article published by New York Times on January 27, 2023 titled, "Your Investment Lost Money Last Year. So Why the Big Tax Bill?," and also a 2003 article by Motley Fool) attesting to the problem. The non-existence of an equitable prior art payment system for financial distributions is precisely the conclusion the Motley Fool article comes to in 2003, and this is exactly the point of the New York Times article that came out more recently. Co-inventor Jeremy Roseberry was referenced in two quotations from the New York Times article about a long-standing problem to which the current invention provides a solution. It documents the precise problem that has not been solved prior to this invention that embodiments of our invention solve, namely, to quote the article, "if you bought a fund shortly before it passed along taxable distributions in late December, you will have a tax liability for the fund's activity over the entire year even for the months when you did not own the fund." Motley Fool is also explaining the prior art last holder of record system. Until the current invention, no one knew how to ensure that investors buying securities would not pay more for the security than the actual value of the security. Secondly, until the current invention, no one knew how to ensure that the purchasers of the security would not face an unfair tax bill causing these investors to lose money….” (Applicant’s response, 27-28). (3) Applicant also references the Bahr Memo and “…observe that the Office Action does not appear to include detailed analysis of the character of the claims as stipulated by Enfish and other corroborating precedents….” (Applicant’s response, 29) Applicant then asserts that like the invention in McRO (which per Applicant “…arguably teaching nothing more than software or other technology running on a general purpose computer are patent-eligible and not abstract. These inventions are not "fundamental economic practices," but potentially patentable improvements over the prior art in the technology….” (Applicant’s response, 29-30) Applicant additionally asserts that Desjardins requires “….that examiners "must not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality that meaningful technological limitations are dismissed or considered as mere generic computer components."…” (Applicant’s response 30). Referencing Berkheimer, Applicant asserts that the Office Action’s citation of the specification paragraphs [19-23] is not sufficient as Berkheimer evidence because “…the Applicants do not have any statement that these elements are well-known, routine, or conventional….” (Applicant’s response 30) Applicant further asserts “… The current application cannot reasonably be described as relating to a "fundamental economic practice or principle," since it does not relate to "an economic practice or principle," abstract or concrete, fundamental or non-fundamental…”. (Applicant’s response 30) (4) Applicant then references the Kim Memo noting that the memo stated that the “ …claims must be evaluated as a whole … the appropriate standard is the preponderance of the evidence…” (Applicant’s response, 31-32). Applicant further asserts that “…, this August 4, 2025 Memorandum is specifically targeted at Technology Centers 2100, 26600, and 3600, which of course includes Art Uni 3691….”(Applicant’s response, 31-32). Applicant further asserts that the December 2025 memo “ that the words “or a technical field” were added to the …(MPEP) …dated December 5, 2025…. and thus after the Office Action was issued in this case. Given the new language in the MPEP, respectfully, the patentability of the Applicants' invention is even clearer than it was previously and its concrete, non-abstract nature that goes well beyond "apply it" is also much more apparent even than previously….” (Applicant’s response, 32). (5) Applicant, then referencing DDR and BASCOM, asserts that the recited invention is not “apply it” but rather a “technological solution to a technological problem…” “…or where a non-conventional arrangement of components provides a technology-based solution overcoming prior disadvantages…” and that the instant recited invention “…is exactly the case here:… Under the clarified framework, and subsequent to December 5, 2025, these recited mechanisms cannot be dismissed as "insignificant extra-solution activity….”(Applicant’s response, 32-33) (6) Referencing the Squires Dec 2025 memo, applicant asserts that “…Our invention as outlined in our specification and claims makes revolutionary advancements over "the state of the art at the time of filing"…..the claims are directed to a method and system for computing correct income of a security using undistributed income….The invention provides a "specific technique to solve a technological problem arising" in the prior art last holder of record payment system….improves upon the current prior art payment system…at least two substantial disadvantages that the invention avoids. First, under the current payment system, tens of millions of investors will during the coming week (or any week) purchase income-producing securities that are artificially overvalued, the artificial overvaluation now being addressable and fixable using embodiments of the invention…. current invention also provides an improvement to a second disadvantage of the current last holder of record system, fixing the defect of the last holder of record system whereby security-owning investors that who sell securities before the end of the payment period receive no distribution. Using embodiments of the invention, such investors will receive a non-zero distribution. Accordingly, the current invention and claims resolve long-standing problems that have never previously been successfully resolved….” (Applicant’s response, 33-34). (7) Applicant additionally asserts that the claims provide a “particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome” “…because they do not claim “accurate pricing” or “equitable distribution” in the abstract…” (Applicant’s response, 34-35) (8) Applicant lastly concludes that the “…Claims 1-21 and 23-41 Are Patentable Subject Matter…the current application and claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, rather being directed to solving a previously unsolved dilemma in the world financial system….payment systems for income-generating securities that do not fairly distribute income in correct proportion to different investors' respective investments, leading to overvalued securities. …. A result is not being claimed but rather specific computer systems, steps and methods that obtain this result. The technological problem being solved is inequities in the current last holder of record payment system… the current claims and application comprise "an improvement to other technology or technical field" providing a method and system for computing correct income of a security using undistributed income….Accordingly, the current application is not abstract but rather is exceedingly practical…” (Applicant’s response, 35) .
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that no non-patent literature submissions have been included on or with any submitted IDS. (Applicant’s response 2) Additionally, the Examiner notes the pending claims per this instant amendment are 1-26 and 28-41. (Applicant’s response 1-8) Also the “ or technical field” language of the Dec 2025 memo is not new; as it is also in the June 25, 2014 Hirshfeld Memorandum entitled “Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court
Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. “ (Applicant’s argument 4) Applicant’s own argument characterizes the claims as solving the problem of “…inequities in the current last holder of record payment system…” which are solved by “…providing a method and system for computing correct income of a security using undistributed income….”. This is not a technological problem rather it is a business problem/challenge that is being solved in the recited invention using mathematical concepts. At most, this is an improvement to the abstract idea. A novel abstract idea is still an abstract idea. A particular abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Applicant’s invention does not improve technology; rather, it uses generic computing elements (as cited previously and below and described in the specification at a high level of generality to solve a business problem using mathematical concepts (i.e. a subject matter grouping) to provide “investors “ with a “non-zero distribution “ of income which also falls into the subject matter grouping of methods of organizing human activity [fundamental economic practices and (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)] (See also MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) Specification,[19-20] system …can be constructed… cloud-based …alternatively…using physical components …Figure 1….cloud based system sold by Amazon Web Services…[21-22] system…server…computer code… user device… desktop computer, a notebook computer, a tablet, a mobile telephone, a smart watch ….network…network connection… network, the cloud, a wired connection and another connection… a wired network, a wireless network and another network… [23] server… login module suitable for use by the user device ..to log into the server…. User interface (not shown) suitable for used by the user device to interface the server… Internet connection, …wired connection… [24-28] system database…security database …distribution database…external data… storage …configured to store data…) The description in the Specification of these additional technological elements at a high level of generality and for their use in a well-known, routine and conventional manner to solve an income distribution problem using mathematical concepts is literally “apply it.” (See MPEP 2106.05 (f)) Unlike the patent eligible claims of McRO, no technology is improved in the instant recited invention; rather as Applicant argues the invention is directed to “…ensure that the purchasers of the security would not face an unfair tax bill causing these investors to lose money…” As stated above this is an abstract idea. (Applicant’s argument 1-8 ) As such Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 30 and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities: Previously submitted claim 30 included the limitation of “ …. the system further comprising storage configured to store one or more of the user data, the computed correct income, the undistributed income, and the computed distribution index, wherein … to … the user data … ; ..”; previously submitted Claim 40 included the limitation of “ … wherein the… is further configured to store both the computed correct income and the undistributed income, wherein the… is further configured to … to … both the computed correct income and the undistributed income, wherein the… further configured to export both the computed correct income and the undistributed income to one or more of the user device and an intermediary authorized by the user, wherein the intermediary comprises one or more of an accountant, a tax advisor, a broker-dealer, and a custodian, wherein the security distributes one or more distribution types, wherein the distribution types are selected from a list comprising: income, cash, a short-term capital gain, a long-term capital gain, a special cash distribution, and a return of capital…” These limitations are missing from the submitted amendments, no indication of deletion of these recitations is indicated in the submitted claims. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner will interpret the claims as including the missing limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-26, and 28-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method and the system of computing correct income of a security using undistributed income (Specification 3) . In the instant case, Claim 30-39 is directed to a process. Claims 1-29 and 40 are directed to a system.
(2a) Prong 1: Computing correct income is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: (Mathematical concepts, methods of organizing human activity [fundamental economic practices and (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
A … for computing correct income to a user on a first distribution received after a purchase of a security using undistributed income, comprising:
a … to control … further configured to compute, the correct income to the user on the first distribution received after the purchase of the security, the … to … user data usable … the user data comprising user purchase data regarding a purchase of the security by the user, the user data further comprising information on whether the security is still owned at the end of a first payment period after the purchase of the security;
a … comprising one or more of security data usable … and distribution data usable… is further configured to compute, , using one or more of the retrieved user data, the security data, and the distribution data, the security's correct income to the user on the first distribution after the purchase of the security where the security is still owned at the end of the first payment period after the purchase,
wherein computing the correct income comprises:
if the security is a stock, the correct income equals zero;
if the security is an investment fund:
computing the undistributed income as a product of a number of shares purchased (S), a total distribution per share (D), and an elapsed percentage of the payment period; and
calculating the correct income by first calculating a product of the number of shares purchased (S) and the total distribution per share (D), and then subtracting the undistributed income;
… … one or more of the user data, the computed correct income, the undistributed income, and a distribution index, wherein the server is further configured to… the user data from the … wherein… … … the … the one or more of the computed correct income and the undistributed income.
30. A method for computing correct income to a user on a first distribution received after a purchase of a security using undistributed income, comprising:
using … control … to compute, the correct income to the user on the first distribution received after the purchase of the security, … further configured to … user data usable … the user data comprising user purchase data regarding a purchase of the security by the user, the user data further comprising information on whether the security is still owned at the end of a first payment period after the purchase of the security, … comprising one or more of security data usable … and distribution data usable … …, …, the user data;
computing, …, using one or more of the retrieved user data, the security data, and the distribution data, the security's correct income to the user on the first distribution after the purchase of the security where the security is still owned at the end of the first payment period after the purchase, using an equation:
wherein computing the correct income comprises:
if the security is a stock, the correct income equals zero;
if the security is an investment fund:
computing the undistributed income as a product of a number of shares purchased (S), a total distribution per share (D), and an elapsed percentage of the payment period; and
calculating the correct income by first calculating a product of the number of shares purchased (S) and the total distribution per share (D), and then subtracting the undistributed income;
the system further comprising storage configured to store one or more of the user data, the computed correct income, the undistributed income, and the computed distribution index, wherein … to … the user data … ; and
…, ……, one or more of the computed correct income and the undistributed income.
40. A … for computing correct income to a user on a first distribution received after a purchase of a security using undistributed income, comprising:
… the… further configured to compute, the correct income to the user on the first distribution received after the purchase of the security, the… further configured to … user data usable …, the user data comprising user purchase data regarding a purchase of the security by the user, the user data further comprising information on whether the security is still owned at the end of a first payment period after the purchase of the security;
… comprises both a security … and a distribution… wherein the security … comprises security data, the security data comprising a list of income- producing securities for a tax jurisdiction of interest, the security data further comprising a tag identifying a security type to be processed, wherein t… wherein the distribution … comprises distribution data regarding a security distribution, wherein the distribution … further comprises historical security data, wherein the historical security data comprises data on historical security distributions, wherein the distribution … is configured to obtain distribution data from an external data source;
a user … operated by the user, the user … operably connected to the… wherein … a login … suitable for use by the user … to log into the …, wherein … following a successful… … the user data from the user … through the user i…, wherein … o compute, using the retrieved user data, the security data, and the distribution data, the security's correct income to the user on the first distribution after the purchase of the security where the security is still owned at the end of the first payment period after the purchase,
wherein computing the correct income comprises:
if the security is a stock, the correct income equals zero;
if the security is an investment fund:
computing the undistributed income as a product of a number of shares purchased (S), a total distribution per share (D), and an elapsed percentage of the payment period; and
calculating the correct income by first calculating a product of the number of shares purchased (S) and the total distribution per share (D), and then subtracting the undistributed income;
wherein the… is further configured to store both the computed correct income and the undistributed income, wherein the… is further configured to … to … both the computed correct income and the undistributed income, wherein the… further configured to export both the computed correct income and the undistributed income to one or more of the user device and an intermediary authorized by the user, wherein the intermediary comprises one or more of an accountant, a tax advisor, a broker-dealer, and a custodian, wherein the security distributes one or more distribution types, wherein the distribution types are selected from a list comprising: income, cash, a short-term capital gain, a long-term capital gain, a special cash distribution, and a return of capital;
… configured to … one or more of the user data, the computed correct income, the undistributed income, and the computed distribution index, wherein the … is further configured to … the user data …; wherein the … is further configured to compute a correct income for each distribution type from the security, wherein the … … to the … the correct incomes computed for each distribution type; and
…
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: (Mathematical concepts and methods of organizing human activity) .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of using… to compute, ..computing…, …computing… calculating… and the mathematical concept of:
wherein computing the correct income comprises:
if the security is a stock, the correct income equals zero;
if the security is an investment fund:
computing the undistributed income as a product of a number of shares purchased (S), a total distribution per share (D), and an elapsed percentage of the payment period; and
calculating the correct income by first calculating a product of the number of shares purchased (S) and the total distribution per share (D), and then subtracting the undistributed income;
do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. storing, retrieving, transmitting…) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use ( See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) .
(2b) In the instant case, Claim 30-39 are directed to a process. Claims 1-26, and 28-29 and 40 are directed to a system.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (system, database, server, network connection, cloud, wired connection, module, device, user interface, storage, data source) merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) Specification,[19-20] system …can be constructed… cloud-based …alternatively…using physical components …Figure 1….cloud based system sold by Amazon Web Services…[21-22] system…server…computer code… user device… desktop computer, a notebook computer, a tablet, a mobile telephone, a smart watch ….network…network connection… network, the cloud, a wired connection and another connection… a wired network, a wireless network and another network… [23] server… login module suitable for use by the user device ..to log into the server…. User interface (not shown) suitable for used by the user device to interface the server… Internet connection, …wired connection… [24-28] system database…security database …distribution database…external data… storage …configured to store data…)
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim 2-26, 28-29 and 31-39 introduce the additional elements of wherein clauses further defining elements of the claims and steps/configuration of system components. (See also independent claim 40) These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these elements amounts to mere use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) Specification,[19-20] system …can be constructed… cloud-based …alternatively…using physical components …Figure 1….cloud based system sold by Amazon Web Services…[21-22] system…server…computer code… user device… desktop computer, a notebook computer, a tablet, a mobile telephone, a smart watch ….network…network connection… network, the cloud, a wired connection and another connection… a wired network, a wireless network and another network… [23] server… login module suitable for use by the user device ..to log into the server…. User interface (not shown) suitable for used by the user device to interface the server… Internet connection, …wired connection… [24-28] system database…security database …distribution database…external data… storage …configured to store data…)
Therefore, Claims 1-26, and 28-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art
Applicant’s Specification discloses:
[0049] For the purpose of this application, the undistributed income is equal to the return of capital a user can claim as a tax deduction when purchasing income-producing securities….
[0067] Correct income is defined as the income that should correctly be subject to taxation….
The relevant prior art includes:
US 20070118445 A1, Hechler which discloses a system and method which allows the accurate tracking and accounting for investments, including features for financial and tax consequences for various tax statuses including a return of capital status. (See Abstract, Fig. 4, CUSIP, Shares, Cost, Trade Date, Accounting method; [19] various databases; [31] return of capital tax status; [34] Fig.1, identifying data for a security; [44-45] Fig. 2, databases, financial event, tax opinion, tax status, communicate…processor… network… Internet.. use variety of commercial databases… [51] Fig. 4-8, input… data range… account method…. Trade data, number of shares, cost of shares,… CUSIP number…)
US 20110161247 A1, Gannalo which discloses systems and methods of optimizing tax consequences includes the concept of tax basis of sale determining the tax consequences, that the gain or loss is a result of the difference between the cost ‘money’ and the sale ‘money’, and that the cost of the asset may include the asset price, sales commissions, and/or adjustments to the tax basis (e.g. undistributed capital gains or a return of capital distributions). (See Specification [3])
US 9563917 B2, Willis et al, which discloses a computer-implemented method and apparatus for adjusting the cost basis of a security using an adjustment ratios. (See Fig. 4, C18L8-39, software… based on stock symbol.. difference between ordinary income …and capital gain distributions…system further identifies return of capital distributions whereby the cost basis of mutual fund shares is reduced… if the mutual fund stares reached a level of zero, the system may then treat the return of capital distribution as a capital gain… use the adjusted basis…)
The prior art does not directly disclose, in view of the Specification, the specific limitation of:
wherein computing the correct income comprises:
if the security is a stock, the correct income equals zero;
if the security is an investment fund:
computing the undistributed income as a product of a number of shares purchased (S), a total distribution per share (D), and an elapsed percentage of the payment period; and
calculating the correct income by first calculating a product of the number of shares purchased (S) and the total distribution per share (D), and then subtracting the undistributed income;
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abhishek Vyas, can be reached on (571) 270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights