DETAILED ACTION
Note to Applicant
The Examiner of record has changed. However, the rejection has not for at least claims 16-20. Applicant has requested a second non-final office action based on the generality of the previous first office action (see Remarks, received 6/18/26, page 8). While the current Examiner understands applicant’s frustration with a lack of specific citations regarding the rejection of claims 16-20, it is customary for primary examiners to generically reject claims based on a reference that anticipates the claim language. Turning to the current rejections, it is the Examiner’s personal position and preference that specific citations should be used in rejecting the claim language. As such, the Examiner has done so accordingly.
Turning to claims 1-15, applicant has amended the claims. The amendment to the claims results in a change to the scope of the claims. As such, the current Examiner is allowed to amend the rejection accordingly (noting the Examiner also gives specific citations for these rejections).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wearable” interactive toy of claims 1 and 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Restated, the Examiner clearly sees with the toy is “handheld”, but he does not see it being “wearable”. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hovey et al (herein “Hovey”; US Pat. No. 10,723,455).
Regarding claim 16, Hovey discloses a system (Fig. 2), comprising: a first interactive device having a first physical identifying feature (col. 9, lines 11-16; noting a first UAV with an attached “show effect” device and col. 15, lines 56 to col. 16, lines 11; noting the “physical identifying feature” can be the “the pose and/or orientation” of the UAV; see col. 7, lines 10-14; clearly disclosing that the “show effect element” may be “provide on…or tethered to” the UAV; see also col. 14, lines 40-65); a second interactive device having a second physical identifying feature (col. 9, lines 11-16; noting a second UAV with a “show effect” device attached is clearly anticipated and col. 15, lines 56 to col. 16, lines 11; noting the “physical identifying feature” can be the “the pose and/or orientation”; see col. 7, lines 10-14; clearly disclosing that the “show effect element” may be “provide on…or tethered to” the UAV); and a control assembly configured to: determine a first location of the first interactive device (col. 15, lines 56 to col. 16, lines 11; noting it determines if it proximate an “audience” and its pose/orientation, see also col. 14, lines 40-65); determine a second location of the second interactive device (col. 15, lines 56 to col. 16, lines 11; noting it determines if it proximate an “audience” and its pose/orientation); cause a first actuation of the first interactive device based on the first location and the first physical identifying feature (col. 15, lines 56 to col. 16, lines 11; noting the first actuation may be “audio clip playback” based on “ground tracking and visual monitoring” of the location of the UAV/show effect device as per col. 15, line 56 proximate the audience); and cause a second actuation of the second interactive device based on the second location and the second physical identifying feature (col. 15, lines 56 to col. 16, lines 11; noting the second actuation may be “audio clip playback” based on “ground tracking and visual monitoring” of the location of the UAV/show effect device as per col. 15, line 56 as per col. 15, line 56 proximate the audience).
Regarding claim 17, Hovey disclose that the control assembly is configured to: determine that the first location resides within a zone of a plurality of zones (col. 15, line 56 to col. 16, line 11; noting “ground tracking” determines if the first UAV is proximate the audience which can be considered a “zone”; and not proximate the audience can be considered a separate, second zone); determine that the second location resides within the zone (col. 15, line 56 to col. 16, line 11; noting “ground tracking” determines if the second UAV is proximate the audience which can be considered a “zone”; and not proximate the audience can be considered a separate, second zone); determine that the first physical identifying feature corresponds to the second physical identifying feature (col. 15, line 56 to col. 16, line 11; noting it can determine if the “pose and/or orientation” are the same); and cause, based on determining that the first location and the second location reside within the zone and based on determining that the first physical identifying feature corresponds to the second physical identifying feature, the first actuation and the second actuation such that the first actuation and the second actuation correspond in type (col. 15, line 56 to col. 16, lines 10; noting the same “audio clip playback” can be produced if the UAV/show effect device is proximate the audience and both are positioned at the same pose/orientation).
Regarding claim 18, Hovey discloses that the control assembly is configured to:
determine that the first physical identifying feature does not correspond to the second physical identifying feature; and cause, based on determining that the first physical identifying feature does not correspond to the second physical identifying feature, the first actuation and the second actuation such that the first actuation and the second actuation do not correspond in type (col. 15, lines 56 to col. 16, lines 11; noting the same “audio clip playback” would not occur for both if their “pose and/or orientation” were not the same; restated one UAV/show effect device could produce the audio clip based on the proper pose/orientation, the other would not produce the audio clip based on an improper pose/orientation).
Regarding claim 19, Hovey discloses that the control assembly is configured to:
determine that the first location resides within a first zone of a plurality of zones (col. 15, line 56 to col. 16, lines 11; noting based on “ground-based tracking and visual monitoring”, the system can determine if the first UAV/show effect device is proximate the audience, which can be considered “the first zone”); determine that the second location resides within a second zone of the plurality of zones (col. 15, line 56 to col. 16, lines 11; noting based on “ground-based tracking and visual monitoring”, the system can determine if the second UAV is proximate or not proximate the audience, an area not proximate the audience can be considered a “second zone”), the second zone differing from the first zone (again, noting the first zone can be proximate the audience, the second zone away from the audience); and cause, based on determining that the first location resides within the first zone and the second location resides within the second zone, the first actuation and the second actuation such that the first actuation and the second actuation do not correspond in type (col. 15, line 56 to col. 16, line 11; noting a first UAV proximate the audience and in a first zone that is at the required or proper “pose and/or orientation” would produce the “audio clip playback”, a second UAV that is not proximate the audience and in what can be considered the second zone would not produce a “audio clip playback”).
Regarding claim 20, Hovey discloses a drone (col. 5, lines 10-16; specifically noting the UAV can be a “drone”), wherein the control assembly is configured to: cause the first actuation of the first interactive device based on the first location, the first physical identifying feature, and a first physical proximity between the drone and the first interactive device (see col. 11, lines 10-16; noting the “show effect devices” of the first and second UAV can be triggered “by another UAV flying” as opposed to location of the audience, which can be a “drone” as per col. 5, lines 15-16, the “pose/orientation” and location of the UAV/show effect continuing to be used to determine the show effect based on col. 15, line 56 to col. 16, line 11 or col. 14, lines 40-65; restated, the first actuation can occur when the first UAV/show effect is at a location and orientation with respect to the “drone”); and cause the second actuation of the second interactive device based on the second location, the second physical identifying feature, and a second physical proximity between the drone and the second interactive device (see col. 11, lines 10-16; noting the “show effect devices” of the first and second UAV can be triggered “by another UAV flying” as opposed to location of the audience, which can be a “drone” as per col. 5, lines 15-16, the “pose/orientation” and location of the UAV/show effect continuing to be used to determine the show effect based on col. 15, line 56 to col. 16, line 11 or col. 14, lines 40-65; restated, the second actuation can occur when the second UAV/show effect is at a location and orientation with respect to the “drone”).
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 (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.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hovey et al (herein “Hovey”; US Pat. No. 10,723,455) in view of Kelly et al. (herein “Kelly”; US Pub. No. 2016/0074759 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hovey discloses a system, comprising: an interactive device (Fig. 2); and a control assembly configured to: determine a location of the interactive device; and cause an actuation of the interactive device based on the location (Fig. 2, item 260 and col. 9, lines 33-46 and col. 15, line 56 to col. 16, line 11). It is noted that Hovey does not specifically disclose that the device is a handheld or wearable interactive toy device. However, Kelly discloses the ability to use a handheld or wearable interactive toy device that interacts with a location (Fig. 9 and par. [0025]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hovey to use a handheld or wearable interactive toy device as taught by Kelly because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a system that activates a separate ground element and system that activates a handheld device) according to known methods (using the element in the form of a handheld device) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to operate a ground element in conjunction with an overhead device, the ground element being a handheld device).
Regarding claim 2, the combined Hovey and Kelly disclose that the control assembly is configured to: determine, based on the location of the handheld or wearable interactive toy device, that the handheld or wearable interactive toy device resides within a zone of a plurality of zones; and cause the actuation of the handheld or wearable interactive toy device based on the zone (Hovey: col. 4, lines 47-59 and col. 6, lines 30-67; noting this is obvious as one “zone” may be within a prescribed area to create a “ground-based show” and a location away from this can be considered a second zone).
Regarding claim 3, the combined Hovey and Kelly disclose that the control assembly is configured to: select, based on the zone, a reaction from a plurality of reactions, each reaction of the plurality of reactions corresponding to a respective zone of the plurality of zones; and cause the actuation of the handheld or wearable interactive toy device by causing the handheld or wearable interactive toy device to carry out the reaction (Kelly: par. [0025]; noting based on location, the toy can “custom” sound and light based on the exact location).
Regarding claim 4, the combined Hovey and Kelly disclose that the reaction comprises an audio reaction (Kelly: par. [0025]; noting “at least one custom sound”; alternatively, Hovey: col. 14, lines 40-56; noting a “audio soundtrack playback from a ground-based show effect device”).
Regarding claim 5, the combined Hovey and Kelly disclose that one or more sensors configured to detect the location of the handheld or wearable interactive toy device (Kelly: pars. [0023]-[0025]; disclosing at least “proximity sensing devices”).
Regarding claim 6, the combined Hovey and Kelly disclose that an additional handheld or wearable interactive toy device, wherein the control assembly is configured to: determine an additional location of the additional handheld or wearable interactive toy device; and cause an additional actuation of the additional handheld or wearable interactive toy device based on the additional location (Hovey: Fig. 2, items 264 and 260 and col. 9, lines 47-67; noting this is functionally possible and obvious; Hovey clearly discloses the ability to initiate ground effects from multiple elements, and noting using more than one handheld device would be a simple duplication of parts).
Regarding claim 7, the combined Hovey and Kelly disclose that a drone (Hovey: col. 5, lines 10-20), wherein the control assembly is configured to cause the actuation of the handheld or wearable interactive toy device based on the location of the handheld or wearable interactive toy device and based on a correlation or interaction between the drone and the handheld or wearable interactive toy device (Hovey: col. 9, lines 47-67; and Kelly: Fig. 1 making obvious a handheld device).
Regarding claim 8, Hovey discloses a system, comprising: an interactive device (Fig. 2); a drone (Fig. 2, and col. 5, lines 10-20) and a control assembly configured to: a correlation or interaction between the interactive device and the drone (col. 9, line 47 to col. 10, line 6; noting correlation based on location); and cause the interactive device to emit audio based on the correlation or interaction (col. 14, lines 40-56; noting a “audio soundtrack playback from a ground-based show effect device”). It is noted that Hovey does not specifically disclose that the device is a handheld or wearable interactive toy device. However, Kelly discloses the ability to use a handheld or wearable interactive toy device that interacts with a location (Fig. 9 and par. [0025]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Hovey to use a handheld or wearable interactive toy device as taught by Kelly because doing so would be combining prior art elements (a system that activates a separate ground element and system that activates a handheld device) according to known methods (using the element in the form of a handheld device) to yield predictable results (the continued ability to operate a ground element in conjunction with an overhead device, the ground element being a handheld device).
Regarding claim 9, the combined Hovey and Kelly disclose the control assembly is configured to: determine a location of the handheld or wearable interactive toy device; and cause the handheld or wearable interactive toy device to emit the audio based on the correlation or interaction and based on the location of the handheld or wearable interactive toy device (Hovey: col. 9, lines 47-67 and col. 14, lines 40-65; noting based on location of the drone as compared to the ground effect device; see also Kelly: Fig. 9 and par. [0025] disclosing handheld).
Regarding claim 10 the combined Hovey and Kelly disclose that the audio includes a simulated yelling, a simulated screaming, a simulated laughing, a simulated crying, or a combination thereof (Hovey: col. 14, lines 40-65 and Kelly: par. [0025]; noting both discloses an audio output and the exact content of that audio output is not actually patentable structure; the Examiner also noting that the exact audio content would be a design choice or preference, emphasis added). In the alternative, Kelly also clearly discloses the ability to create a “custom” audio output (par. [0025]). Since the audio recording may be “custom” made, it would be obvious and functionally possible that the content of the audio recording could be any message that is desired including yelling, screaming, laughing or crying. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the exact content of the audio file could be custom made to include yelling, screaming, laughing, or crying.
Regarding claim 11, the combined Hovey and Kelly disclose that the correlation or interaction corresponds to a physical proximity between the drone and the handheld or wearable interactive toy device (Hovey: col. 9, lines 47-67 and col. 14, lines 40-65; noting based on location of the drone as compared to the ground effect device; see also Kelly: Fig. 9 and par. [0025] disclosing handheld).
Regarding claim 12, the combined Hovey and Kelly disclose that the control assembly is configured to determine the correlation or interaction based on identifying a physical identifier associated with the drone, an additional physical identifier associated with the handheld or wearable interactive toy device, or a combination thereof (Hovey: col. 14, lines 40-65; noting the “physical identifier associated with the drone” can be the “orientation and/or pose” of the UAV).
Regarding claim 13, the combined Hovey and Kelly disclose that the control assembly is configured to determine the correlation or interaction based on an RFID chip in the drone, an additional RFID chip in the handheld or wearable interactive toy device, or both (Kelly: pars. [0023] and [0025] noting RFID in the handheld device).
Regarding claim 14, the combined Hovey and Kelly disclose that an additional handheld or wearable interactive toy device, wherein the control assembly is configured to: determine an additional correlation or interaction between the drone and the additional handheld or wearable interactive toy device; and cause the additional handheld or wearable interactive toy device to emit additional audio based on the additional correlation or interaction (Hovey: Fig. 2, items 264 and 260 and col. 9, lines 47-67; noting this is functionally possible and obvious; Hovey clearly discloses the ability to initiate ground effects from multiple elements, and noting using more than one handheld device would be a simple duplication of parts, see also Hovey: col. 14, lines 40-65 and Kelly: par. [0025] making obvious that the output is sound or audio).
Regarding claim 15, the combined Hovey and Kelly disclose that an additional drone (Hovey: col. 9, lines 11-16), wherein the control assembly is configured to: determine an additional correlation or interaction between the additional drone and the handheld or wearable interactive toy device; and cause the handheld or wearable interactive toy device to emit additional audio based on the additional correlation or interaction (Hovey: col. 9, lines 47-67 and col. 14, lines 40-65; noting this would be not only obvious from the disclosure, but also a duplication of parts/procedure to account for another drone which is specifically disclosed).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,883,761 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Below is claim 1 of the ‘761 patent.
1. An entertainment system, comprising: a drone configured to be maneuvered across a plurality of zones; an interactive toy device configured to be actuated to cause a plurality of toy reactions; one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory, computer readable media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: determine a correlation between the drone and the interactive toy device, wherein the correlation is based on a proximity between the drone and the interactive toy device and at least one of: a location of the drone within a zone of the plurality of zones; an additional location of the interactive toy device within the zone or an additional zone of the plurality of zones; a non-position based physical attribute of the drone; or an additional non-position based physical attribute of the interactive toy device; and activate, based on the correlation, a toy reaction of the plurality of toy reactions.
Below is claim 1 of the current application (claim 1 being exemplary of claim 8).
(Currently Amended) A system, comprising: a handheld or wearable interactive toy device; and a control assembly configured to: determine a location of the handheld or wearable interactive toy device; and cause an actuation of the handheld or wearable interactive toy device based on the location.
As can be seen, claim 1 of the current is significantly broader than claim 1 of the ‘761 patent. As such, a terminal disclaimer is warranted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejection is maintained.
102 Rejection
The 102 rejection for claims 16-20 are maintained based on the fact that applicant has not amended the claims. While Hovey continues to be used at the reference, the Examiner has elaborated on the rejection based on applicant’s request (see Remarks, page 10, applicant asking the Examiner to “individually characterize the rejection(s) of each and every claim”).
103 Rejection
With all due respect, when applicant amends claims 1 and 8, they forgo the ability to argue that the Examiner cannot enter a new grounds of rejection. That is, applicant had enough notice given the prior art that they could amend the independent claims in an attempt to overcome the prior art. As such, arguing that the Examiner needs to essentially maintain his previous rejection in light of amendments is not compelling (see Remarks, page 11, applicant specifically stating “Applicant presently amends independent claims 1 and 8 to further clarify distinctions over Hovey”).
The argument with regards to claim 13 is moot. Kelly is brought into show a “handheld or wearable toy”. It also makes obvious the use of RFID.
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 MATTHEW BRIAN STANCZAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7831. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-10 and 1-3:30 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on (571)270-1775. 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.
/MATTHEW B STANCZAK/
Examiner, Art Unit 3711
9/21/26
/MICHAEL D DENNIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights