Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on January 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 17 and 20 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No claims have been added. Claims 1 - 20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 17 and 20 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 101
The Applicant alleges: “
Applicant respectfully submits that each of independent claims 1, 17, and 20 is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C § 101 at least because each claim is not directed to an abstract idea. In rejecting the claims, the Office Action asserts that each claim is directed to an abstract idea because the claim is related to mental processes or mathematical concepts (Office Action, pages 2-6).
First, Applicant respectfully submits that in step 2A analysis, each claim is not directed to "mental process." The Office Action asserted that "computing, for each of a plurality of different rotations, a scoring metric for the associated rotation; and determining the candidate 3D orientation based on the scoring metrics of the plurality of different rotations" can be interpreted as computing a scoring metric for the associated rotation between two histograms and determining the candidate 3D orientation based on the scoring metrics of the different rotations, respectively, and therefore can be categorized as mental processes.
As stated in the MPEP § 2106.04, "a claim with limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not recite a mental process." Further, "claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations."
None of the above limitations can practically be performed in the human mind. The claimed histogram is determined based on geometric features determined based on the 3D points of the 3D point cloud, and therefore comprises a massive amount of information that cannot be processed by the human mind.
In fact, as described in the present application, "3D point clouds often include hundreds of thousands or millions of (x,y,z) points. ... directly interpreting such a massive number of 3D points in space can therefore be quite time consuming and resource intensive [even for computers]" (Published Application, paragraph [0046]). Thus, each claim does not fall into the mental processes grouping.
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Office Action, filed on October 8, 2025, analyzed claimed limitation of “
computing, for each of a plurality of different rotations between the first histogram and the second histogram in 3D space, a scoring metric for the associated rotation”
as mathematical concept; and claimed limitation of “
determining the candidate 3D orientation based on the scoring metrics of the plurality of different rotations”
as mental processes.
The Office Action also analyzed claimed limitation of “
determining a first histogram for the plurality of 3D points based on geometric features determined based on the plurality of 3D points”
as mathematical concept. Because even the plurality of 3D point of the 3D point cloud comprises a massive amount of information, it can still determine a histogram based on a mathematical relationships, formulas, and/or calculations.
The Applicant further alleges: “
Second, Applicant respectfully submits that in step 2A analysis, each claim is not directed to "mathematical concepts." The Office Action asserted that "determining a histogram for the plurality of 3D points based on geometric features determined based on the plurality of 3D points" can be interpreted as calculating histogram based on geometric features of 3D points, and therefore can be categorized as mathematical concepts. (Office Action, page 4.)
As stated in the MPEP § 2106.04, "[w]hen determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept." The MPEP § 2106.04 also defines that "[a] mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers"; and "[a] mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation" (emphasis added).
According to the above definitions from the MPEP, the limitation of "determining a histogram for the plurality of 3D points based on geometric features determined based on the plurality of 3D points" does not recite any of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations. Thus, each claim does not fall into the mathematical concepts grouping.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner again respectfully disagrees.
Determining a histogram for the plurality of 3D points is basically calculating a histogram based on distance or location the plurality of 3D points. Thus, the claimed limitation recites a mathematical concept even though it is not explicitly reciting a mathematical formula.
The Applicant still further alleges: “
Third, even if each claim recites any alleged abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, the claim as a whole integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. For example, claim 1, as amended, recites, inter alia, "determining a first histogram for the plurality of 3D points based on geometric features determined based on the plurality of 3D points ... performing a plurality of different rotations between the first histogram and the second histogram in 3D space; computing, for each of a plurality of different rotations, a scoring metric for the associated rotation; and determining the candidate 3D orientation based on the scoring metrics of the plurality of different rotations." The recited claim limitations provide technological improvements to machine vision techniques to address challenges in interpretation a 3D point cloud as described throughout the application as filed including, for example, 46, 47.”
Examiner’s response:
Examiner still respectfully disagrees.
The claim as a whole is basically using a plurality of mathematical calculations and computations to determine a candidate 3D orientation for an object. As the Examiner analyzed in the § 101 rejection, they are mainly mathematical concepts or mental processes without a significantly more.
For examples 46 and 47, they have both eligible and ineligible claims, the Examiner does not sure which one is comparing to.
For at least these reasons, independent claims 1, 17 and 20 is still directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding to the rest of claims, the Applicant does not argue about the rest of claims.
Regarding rejections under 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 - 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In regarding claims 1, 17 and 20:
Step 1:
Claims 1, 17 and 20 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 17 and 20 are directed an idea for determining a candidate 3D orientation of an object which is an abstract idea.
Consideration of the claimed elements:
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 20: the claim comprising limitations of:
receiving data indicative of a 3D point cloud comprising a plurality of 3D points;
determining a first histogram for the plurality of 3D points based on geometric features determined based on the plurality of 3D points;
accessing data indicative of a second histogram of geometric features of a 3D representation of a reference object;
performing a plurality of different rotations between the first histogram and the second histogram in 3D space;
computing, for each of a plurality of different rotations, a scoring metric for the associated rotation; and
determining the candidate 3D orientation based on the scoring metrics of the plurality of different rotations.
.
Regarding “determining a first histogram for the plurality of 3D points based on geometric features determined based on the plurality of 3D points”, it can be interpreted as calculating histogram based on geometric features of plurality of 3D point. This claimed limitation can be categorized as mathematical concepts.
Regarding “performing a plurality of different rotations between the first histogram and the second histogram in 3D space”, it is basically using a rotation matrix to computing rotations on data structure. This claimed limitation can be categorized as mathematical concepts.
Regarding “computing, for each of a plurality of different rotations, a scoring metric for the associated rotation”, it can be interpreted as computing a scoring metric for the associated rotation between two histograms. This claimed limitation can be categorized as mathematical concepts.
Regarding “determining the candidate 3D orientation based on the scoring metrics of the plurality of different rotations”, it can be interpreted as determining the candidate 3D orientation based on the scoring metrics of the plurality of different rotations (high or low), or mathematically performing determination based on high or low of the score. This claimed limitation can be categorized as mental processes or mathematical concepts.
As analyzed above, the above claimed limitations are Mathematical Concepts or Mental Processes.
Prong 2:
The claims 1, 17 and 20 include additional elements of:
receiving data indicative of a 3D point cloud comprising a plurality of 3D points;
accessing data indicative of a second histogram of geometric features of a 3D representation of a reference object.
A non-transitory computer-readable media (claim 17)
A system, memory, and a processor (claim 20).
For limitations of “
receiving data indicative of a 3D point cloud comprising a plurality of 3D points;
accessing data indicative of a second histogram of geometric features of a 3D representation of a reference object,”
they are a process of data gathering of adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
For limitations of “
A non-transitory computer-readable media,
A system, memory, and a processor,”
they are general computer hardware.
The above additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Moreover, the claim limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Thus, the recited generic additional element (e.g. receiving, accessing data, and computer hardware) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a computational algorithm, a generic memory and processor are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an idea of itself, and therefore not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional elements) include computer processors, computer-readable storage media.
The additional element (e.g. receiving, accessing data, and computer hardware) perform only basic function, which would be common to every additional element (e.g. receiving, accessing data, and computer hardware). It is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.07(a)III.
Thus, the recited generic additional elements (e.g. receiving, accessing data, and computer hardware) perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic memory are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 2 - 16 and 18 – 19, the rejection is based on the same rationale described for claims 1 and 17, because the claims include/inherit the same/similar type of problematic limitation(s) as claims 1 and 17, wherein limitations regarding additional aspect for process; “are …”, "comprises ... ", “performing …”, “determining …”, “pre-determining …”, “catching …”, “refining …”, “fitting …”, “is …” and “computing …”, is/are of sufficient breadth that it would be substantially directed to or reasonably interpreted as a part of the “mental processes/mathematical concepts” as the abstract idea (similar to claims 1 and 17 as stated above). It is noted that further additional limitation is merely generic/conventional computer component/steps to implement the abstract idea, which is, individually or in combination, not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole is directed to an ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 8, 10 and 17 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Ko et al. (“3D Point Cloud Matching Based on Its 2D Representation for Visual Odometry”, IDS), hereinafter referred as Ko, in view of Mak (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0259570).
Regarding claim 20, Ko discloses a system (section III.A) comprising a memory storing instructions (section III.A, RAM), and a processor (section III.A, CPU) configured to execute the instructions to perform:
receiving data indicative of a 3D point cloud comprising a plurality of 3D points (Fig. 1, (a) target & model point cloud);
determining a first histogram for the plurality of 3D points based on geometric features determined based on the plurality of 3D points (Fig. 1, (b) theta--phi representation for the target point cloud, and section II.A tor the details of theta--phi representation and Fig, 4 illustrating it as a histogram);
accessing data indicative of a second histogram of geometric features of a 3D representation of a reference object (Fig. 1, (b) theta--phi representation for the model point cloud);
performing a rotation between the first histogram and the second histogram in 3D space (page 217, col. 1, “find rotation angle from model and target point cloud and generate transform matrix”);
computing, for the rotation, a scoring metric for the associated rotation (Fig. 1, (c) normalized cross correlation (NCC) matching by "sliding" one of the histograms which, given the coordinate system of the representations of the histograms, corresponds to scoring the match for different rotations., see section II.A para. Storing information to 2D histogram, and Fig. 4); and
determining the candidate 3D orientation based on the scoring metrics of the plurality of different rotations (Fig. 1 (d) rotation angle estimation, section II. B Normalized Cross Correlation and Figs. 7 – 8).
However, Ko fails to explicitly disclose the system wherein the rotation between the first histogram and the second histogram is a plurality of different rotations.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Mak discloses a method for histogram image processing ([0064]). In addition, Mak discloses the method wherein the histogram rotation can combine a plurality of different rotations ([0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Ko, and the rotation between the first histogram and the second histogram can be combine a plurality of different rotations. The motivation for doing this is that the application of Ko can be extended to handle more complicated situations.
Regarding claim 1, it is corresponding to claim 20, thus, it is interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claim 20.
Regarding claim 2 (depends on claim 1), Ko discloses the method wherein: the plurality of different rotations are of the second histogram in 3D space with respect to the first histogram; the plurality of different rotations are of the first histogram in 3D space with respect to the second histogram; or some combination thereof (Fig. 1, (c) normalized cross correlation (NCC) matching by "sliding" one of the histograms which, given the coordinate system of the representations of the histograms, corresponds to scoring the match for different rotations., see section II.A para. Storing information to 2D histogram, and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3 (depends on claim 1), Ko discloses the method wherein the scoring metric comprises data indicative of a measure of match of the first histogram with a rotated version of the second histogram (Fig. 1 (d) rotation angle estimation, section II. B Normalized Cross Correlation and Figs. 7 – 8).
Regarding claim 4 (depends on claim 1), Ko discloses the method wherein performing each of the rotation in three degrees of freedom space (section II. A, different rotations in XYZ space).
However, Ko fails to explicitly disclose the system wherein the rotation between the first histogram and the second histogram is a plurality of different rotations.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Mak discloses a method for histogram image processing ([0064]). In addition, Mak discloses the method wherein the histogram rotation can combine a plurality of different rotations ([0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Ko, and the rotation between the first histogram and the second histogram can be combine a plurality of different rotations. The motivation for doing this is that the application of Ko can be extended to handle more complicated situations.
Regarding claim 5 (depends on claim 1), Ko discloses the method further comprising determining the geometric features based on the plurality of 3D points, comprising estimating the geometric features of a surface of the object represented by the plurality of 3D points (section II. A, whole point P within hemisphere).
Regarding claim 6 (depends on claim 1), Ko discloses the method wherein the geometric features comprise surface normals of a surface of the object represented by the plurality of 3D points, edges of the surface, or both (section II. A, normalized distance value).
Regarding claim 7 (depends on claim 1), Ko discloses the method further comprising pre-determining the plurality of different rotations (section III. D, 22.5 degree).
Regarding claim 8 (depends on claim 7), Ko discloses the method further comprising pre-determining, for each of the plurality of different rotations, correspondences between bins of the first histogram and bins of the second histogram (Fig. 8, section III. D).
Regarding claim 10 (depends on claim 1), Ko discloses the method further comprising: determining a set of the plurality of different rotations with associated scoring metrics that form a local maximum; and determining the candidate 3D orientation based on the local maximum (page 218, col. 1, para. 1, “Pick the highest scores from 0 degree to 360 degree.”).
Regarding claims 17 – 19, they are corresponding to claims 1, 3 and 6, respectively, thus, they are interpreted and rejected for a same reason set forth for claims 1, 3 and 6.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Mak and Sheldon et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022//0401741), hereinafter referred as Sheldon.
Regarding claim 9 (depends on claim 8), Ko fails to explicitly disclose the method further comprising caching only the pre-determined correspondences for bins of the second histogram that comprise a value greater than a predetermined threshold.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Sheldon discloses a method for data processing (abstract). In addition, Sheldon discloses the method wherein caching only the pre-determined correspondences for bins of the second histogram that comprise a value greater than a predetermined threshold ([0286]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Ko, and caching only the pre-determined correspondences for bins of the second histogram that comprise a value greater than a predetermined threshold. The motivation for doing this is that noise can be removed so that the application of Ko can be extended.
Claim(s) 11 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Mak and Wang et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication CN 114743113), hereinafter referred as Wang.
Regarding claim 11 (depends on claim 10), Ko discloses the method further comprising refining, using interpolation, the candidate 3D orientation based on the local maximum to generate a refined candidate 3D orientation (page 218, col. 1, para. 1, “For TPR for model point, smoothing operation requires for better matching with target TPR.”).
However, Ko fails to explicitly disclose the method wherein refining using interpolation.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Wang discloses a method for image processing (abstract). In addition, Wang discloses the method wherein refining using interpolation (page 8, three paras. in bottom).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Ko, and refining using interpolation. The motivation for doing this is that a standardized refining algorithm can be used so that the calculation can be simplified.
Regarding claim 12 (depends on claim 11), Ko discloses the method wherein refining, comprises scoring metrics of rotations of the plurality of different rotations that neighbor the local maximum (page 218, col. 1, para. 1, “Pick the highest scores from
0 degree to 360 degree. For TPR for model point, smoothing operation requires for better matching with target TPR.”).
However, Ko fails to explicitly disclose the method wherein refining, using the interpolation, comprises fitting an elliptical paraboloid.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Wang discloses a method for image processing (abstract). In addition, Wang discloses the method wherein refining, using the interpolation, comprises fitting an elliptical paraboloid (page 8, three paras. in bottom).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Ko, and refining, using the interpolation, comprises fitting an elliptical paraboloid. The motivation for doing this is that a standardized refining algorithm can be used so that the calculation can be simplified.
Regarding claim 13 (depends on claim 12), Ko discloses the method wherein the refined candidate 3D orientation comprises an orientation and a scoring metric of a peak (page 218, col. 1, para. 1, “Pick the highest scores from 0 degree to 360 degree”).
However, Ko fails to explicitly disclose the method wherein the peak is a peak of the fitted elliptical paraboloid.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Wang discloses a method for image processing (abstract). In addition, Wang discloses the method wherein refining using fitting an elliptical paraboloid (page 8, three paras. in bottom).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Ko, and using fitting an elliptical paraboloid for the peak. The motivation for doing this is that the peak value can be more accurate.
Claim(s) 14 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Mak and Al-Nuaimi et al. (“6DOF decoupled roto-translation alignment of large-scale indoor point clouds”, IDS), hereinafter referred as Al-Nuaimi.
Regarding claim 14 (depends on claim 1), Ko discloses the method wherein: the candidate 3D orientation is a first candidate 3D orientation; and the method further comprises: computing, based on the first histogram and the second histogram, a set of candidate 3D orientations of the object represented by the 3D data, the set of candidate 3D orientations comprising the first candidate 3D orientation (Fig. 1 (d) rotation angle estimation, section II. B Normalized Cross Correlation and Figs. 7 – 8);
However, Ko fails to explicitly disclose the method further comprising computing, based on the set of candidate 3D orientations, (1) a location of the object represented by the 3D data and (2) a final orientation; and determining a pose of the object comprising the location and the final orientation.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Al-Nuaimi discloses a method for image processing (abstract). In addition, Al-Nuaimi discloses the method wherein
computing, based on the set of candidate 3D orientations, (1) a location of the object represented by the 3D data and (2) a final orientation; and determining a pose of the object comprising the location and the final orientation (Fig. 4(c) and section 3.2, the last wo paras., recognizes possible ambiguities in rotation estimates and resolves this ambiguities in connection with translation alignment leading to a 6 DoF pose estimation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Ko, and computing, based on the set of candidate 3D orientations, (1) a location of the object represented by the 3D data and (2) a final orientation; and determining a pose of the object comprising the location and the final orientation. The motivation for doing this is that the final result can be more accurate so that the application of Ko can be extended.
Regarding claim 15 (depends on claim 14), Ko discloses the method wherein the final orientation is from the set of possible orientations and/or within a range of the set of possible orientations (page 218, col. 1, para. 1, “Pick the highest scores from 0 degree to 360 degree”).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko in view of Mak, in further view of Al-Nuaimi and Yang et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication CN 114743259), hereinafter referred as Yang.
Regarding claim 16 (depends on claim 14), Ko discloses the method wherein determining the pose of the object comprising the location and the final orientation comprises removing pose candidates (page 218, col. 1, para. 1, “Pick the highest scores from 0 degree to 360 degree”).
However, Ko fails to explicitly disclose the method wherein removing pose candidates with an orientation that has an angular distance greater than a threshold from the set of possible orientations.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Yang discloses a method for pose estimation (abstract). In addition, Yang discloses the method wherein removing pose candidates with an orientation that has an angular distance greater than a threshold from the set of possible orientations (page 10, last para.; claim 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Ko, and removing pose candidates with an orientation that has an angular distance greater than a threshold from the set of possible orientations. The motivation for doing this is that the pose can be estimated more accurately so that the application of Ko can be extended.
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 QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677