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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a computational device” and “a communication module” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 12-15, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792).
Regarding claim 1, Lipnik teaches/suggests: A method, comprising:
receiving input data representing a plurality of depth images (Lipnik [0097] “The user device 1101-1, 1101-2 may comprise an imaging sensor 1107 serves as imaging device” [0103] “The imaging device may or may not be a 3D camera, stereo camera or depth camera” [The depth camera meets the depth images.]);
transmitting to a remote server for server model reconstruction (Lipnik [0079] “The remote dental monitoring and imaging system 1121 may be configured to process the input data (e.g., image data) collected from the user device 1101-1, 1101-2 in order to construct a high-quality 3D surface model of the dental anatomy”).
Lipnik does not teach/suggest:
partially reconstructing a plurality of overlapping depth images to generate a single composite image with a reduced data size relative to a size of the plurality of overlapping depth images;
transmitting the partially reconstructed composite image to a remote server for server model reconstruction.
Brailovskiy, however, teaches/suggests a single composite image (Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... According to an alpha blending method, the control circuit 614 may average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)” col. 17 line 47 – col. 18 line 8 “the control circuit 12 may be programmed to reduce the size of transmission frames by omitting portions of overlap regions that are directly reproduced into a stitched panoramic frame”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth images of Lipnik to be stitched as taught/suggested by Brailovskiy to reduce the size of transmission frames. As such, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy teaches/suggests:
partially reconstructing a plurality of overlapping depth images to generate a single composite image with a reduced data size relative to a size of the plurality of overlapping depth images (Lipnik [0103] “The imaging device may or may not be a 3D camera, stereo camera or depth camera” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... According to an alpha blending method, the control circuit 614 may average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)” col. 17 line 47 – col. 18 line 8 “the control circuit 12 may be programmed to reduce the size of transmission frames by omitting portions of overlap regions that are directly reproduced into a stitched panoramic frame”);
transmitting the partially reconstructed composite image to a remote server for server model reconstruction (Lipnik [0079] “The remote dental monitoring and imaging system 1121 may be configured to process the input data (e.g., image data) collected from the user device 1101-1, 1101-2 in order to construct a high-quality 3D surface model of the dental anatomy” Brailovskiy col. 17 line 47 – col. 18 line 8 “the control circuit 12 may be programmed to reduce the size of transmission frames by omitting portions of overlap regions that are directly reproduced into a stitched panoramic frame”).
Regarding claim 2, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, wherein the input data is received from a dental scanner equipped with a processing unit. Lipnik further teaches/suggests a dental scanner equipped with a processing unit (Lipnik [0035] “The high-quality 3D model reconstructed from the camera images may provide a visual representation of the dental structure with a quality, resolution, and/or level of surface details substantially the same or similar as those of 3D models (e.g., optical impressions) produced using a high-resolution clinical dental scanner”). The processing unit would have been well known for the dental scanner (Official Notice). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the substitution of one known element (the dental scanner of Lipnik) for another (the imaging device of Lipnik) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such substitutions would have yielded predictable results, namely to capture the depth images.
As such, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy teaches/suggests wherein the input data is received from a dental scanner equipped with a processing unit (Lipnik [0035] “The high-quality 3D model reconstructed from the camera images may provide a visual representation of the dental structure with a quality, resolution, and/or level of surface details substantially the same or similar as those of 3D models (e.g., optical impressions) produced using a high-resolution clinical dental scanner”).
Regarding claim 4, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the partial reconstruction involves associative operations on the plurality of overlapping depth images (Lipnik [0103] “The imaging device may or may not be a 3D camera, stereo camera or depth camera” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... According to an alpha blending method, the control circuit 614 may average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)”). The blending meets the associative operations. The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the selection of the plurality of overlapping depth images for partial reconstruction is based on temporally adjacent images acquired at a high frequency (Lipnik [0102]-[0103] “The imaging device 1107 may capture a sequence of image frames at a specific capture rate … The imaging device may or may not be a 3D camera, stereo camera or depth camera” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... According to an alpha blending method, the control circuit 614 may average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)”). The temporally adjacent images would have been well known for the captured image frames (Official Notice). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy teaches/suggests: The method of claim 1, wherein the selection of the plurality of overlapping depth images for partial reconstruction is based on spatially adjacent images using spatial data structures or clustering methods (Lipnik [0103] “The imaging device may or may not be a 3D camera, stereo camera or depth camera” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... According to an alpha blending method, the control circuit 614 may average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Claims 12-15 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 2, 5-6, 4, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy further teaches/suggests a dental cloud system (Lipnik [0080]-[0081] “the remote dental monitoring and imaging system may be implemented on the server 1120 ... The remote entity 1120 may be a data center, a cloud, a server, and the like that is in communication with one or more user devices”).
Claim 22 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 12, and is rejected for the same reason(s). Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy further teaches/suggests a computer-readable medium storing instructions (Lipnik [0105] “The user device may include one or more memory storage devices comprising non-transitory computer readable media including code, logic, or instructions”).
Claim(s) 3 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Sharma et al. (US 2024/0077562).
Regarding claim 3, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, wherein the input data is received from an edge device connected to a dental scanner, the edge device having a processing unit for partial reconstruction of the plurality of overlapping depth images. Sharma, however, teaches/suggests an edge device connected to a scanner, the edge device having a processing unit (Sharma [0021] “The edge device 104 may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to capture the first image 110 of the first scene ... Examples of the edge device 104 may include, but are not limited to, a medical scanner”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the substitution of one known element (the edge device of Sharma) for another (the imaging device of Lipnik) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such substitutions would have yielded predictable results, namely to capture the depth images.
As such, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy and Sharma teaches/suggests wherein the input data is received from an edge device connected to a dental scanner, the edge device having a processing unit for partial reconstruction of the plurality of overlapping depth images (Lipnik [0103] “The imaging device may or may not be a 3D camera, stereo camera or depth camera” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... According to an alpha blending method, the control circuit 614 may average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)” Sharma [0021] “The edge device 104 may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to capture the first image 110 of the first scene ... Examples of the edge device 104 may include, but are not limited to, a medical scanner”).
Regarding claim 20, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy teaches/suggests the communication module is configured to transmit the partially reconstructed composite image to the remote server via the internet (Lipnik [0106] “The user device may be configured to display webpages and/or websites on the Internet. One or more of the webpages/websites may be hosted by server 1120 and/or rendered by the remote dental monitoring and imaging system 1121” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... According to an alpha blending method, the control circuit 614 may average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy does not teach/suggest: The system of claim 12, wherein the computational device is an edge device connected to the dental scanner. Sharma, in view of Lipnik, teaches/suggests an edge device connected to the dental scanner, the edge device having a processing unit (Lipnik [0035] “The high-quality 3D model reconstructed from the camera images may provide a visual representation of the dental structure with a quality, resolution, and/or level of surface details substantially the same or similar as those of 3D models (e.g., optical impressions) produced using a high-resolution clinical dental scanner” Sharma [0021] “The edge device 104 may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to capture the first image 110 of the first scene ... Examples of the edge device 104 may include, but are not limited to, a medical scanner”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamilton (US 2023/0123552).
Regarding claim 7, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, further comprising preserving weight sums during the partial reconstruction process for proper combination in the final reconstruction step. Hamilton, however, teaches/suggests preserving weight sums (Hamilton [0236] “where the w.sub.i weights are incorporated with standard weighting procedures and re-normalized to maintain a total weight of 1”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stitching of Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy to maintain the total weight of Hamilton for normalization.
As such, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy and Hamilton teaches/suggests preserving weight sums during the partial reconstruction process for proper combination in the final reconstruction step (Lipnik [0079] “The remote dental monitoring and imaging system 1121 may be configured to process the input data (e.g., image data) collected from the user device 1101-1, 1101-2 in order to construct a high-quality 3D surface model of the dental anatomy” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... According to an alpha blending method, the control circuit 614 may average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)” Hamilton [0236] “where the w.sub.i weights are incorporated with standard weighting procedures and re-normalized to maintain a total weight of 1”).
Claim(s) 10 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Cummings et al. (US 2011/0285757).
Regarding claim 10, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, further comprising rendering low-resolution versions of the plurality of overlapping depth images on the server side for fast user feedback, discarding the low-resolution versions after receiving the partial reconstruction. Cummings, however, teaches/suggests rendering low-resolution versions (Cummings [0097] “a low-resolution preview image may be shown and then replaced with a full-resolution image”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth images of Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy to include the low-resolution versions as taught/suggested by Cummings for previewing.
As such, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy and Cummings teaches/suggests rendering low-resolution versions of the plurality of overlapping depth images on the server side for fast user feedback, discarding the low-resolution versions after receiving the partial reconstruction (Lipnik [0079] “The remote dental monitoring and imaging system 1121 may be configured to process the input data (e.g., image data) collected from the user device 1101-1, 1101-2 in order to construct a high-quality 3D surface model of the dental anatomy” [0103] “The imaging device may or may not be a 3D camera, stereo camera or depth camera” Brailovskiy col. 17 line 47 – col. 18 line 8 “the control circuit 12 may be programmed to reduce the size of transmission frames by omitting portions of overlap regions that are directly reproduced into a stitched panoramic frame” Cummings [0097] “a low-resolution preview image may be shown and then replaced with a full-resolution image”). In view of Lipnik, Brailovskiy, and Cummings, the replacing meets the discarding.
Claim 16 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 10, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2025/0126295).
Regarding claim 11, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy does not teach/suggest: The method of claim 1, further comprising performing global optimization on all partial reconstructions for optimal long-span accuracy before volume integration during the final reconstruction step. Zhang, however, teaches/suggests performing global optimization (Zhang [0050] “the M candidate pixel threshold pairs cover a wide range, so that an accurate target pixel threshold pair (for example, an optimal pixel threshold pair) can be determined subsequently, which may improve accuracy of correcting the reconstructed video data”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the stitching of Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy to include the wide range (the global optimization) as taught/suggested by Zhang to improve accuracy.
As such, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy and Zhang teaches/suggests performing global optimization on all partial reconstructions for optimal long-span accuracy before volume integration during the final reconstruction step (Lipnik [0079] “The remote dental monitoring and imaging system 1121 may be configured to process the input data (e.g., image data) collected from the user device 1101-1, 1101-2 in order to construct a high-quality 3D surface model of the dental anatomy” Brailovskiy col. 11 line 66 – col. 12 line 30 “the control circuit 614 may also proceed to 714 where it may stitch the frames ... According to an alpha blending method, the control circuit 614 may average redundant pixels from adjacent frames (e.g., pixels from the overlap regions)” Zhang [0050] “the M candidate pixel threshold pairs cover a wide range, so that an accurate target pixel threshold pair (for example, an optimal pixel threshold pair) can be determined subsequently, which may improve accuracy of correcting the reconstructed video data”).
Claim 19 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 11, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipnik et al. (US 2023/0149135) in view of Brailovskiy et al. (US 10063792) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yancey et al. (US 2021/0022832).
Regarding claim 21, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy does not teach/suggest: The system of claim 12, wherein the dental scanner is equipped with sensors to capture additional information including color, and the computational device is configured to preserve and transmit the additional information along with the partially reconstructed composite image. Yancey, however, teaches/suggests wherein the dental scanner is equipped with sensors to capture additional information including color (Yancey [0026] “the scanning circuit 124 can include a wide variety of sensors including, but not limited to, gyroscopes, accelerometers, magnetometers, inertial measurement units (“IMU”), depth sensors, and color sensors”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dental scanner of Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy to include the color sensors of Yancey to capture additional information.
As such, Lipnik as modified by Brailovskiy and Yancey teaches/suggests the computational device is configured to preserve and transmit the additional information along with the partially reconstructed composite image (Lipnik [0079] “The remote dental monitoring and imaging system 1121 may be configured to process the input data (e.g., image data) collected from the user device 1101-1, 1101-2 in order to construct a high-quality 3D surface model of the dental anatomy” Brailovskiy col. 17 line 47 – col. 18 line 8 “the control circuit 12 may be programmed to reduce the size of transmission frames by omitting portions of overlap regions that are directly reproduced into a stitched panoramic frame” Yancey [0026] “the scanning circuit 124 can include a wide variety of sensors including, but not limited to, gyroscopes, accelerometers, magnetometers, inertial measurement units (“IMU”), depth sensors, and color sensors”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Levene (US 2005/0093874) discloses texture mapping of a 3D virtual surface (Abstract). However, the limitations “the partially reconstructing includes volume integration on the plurality of overlapping depth images, extracting triangle meshes based on marching cubes, performing remeshing using the triangle meshes, applying active shape computation to retain information lost during volume integration, and generating a texture for the triangle meshes” in claims 8 and 17 and “the final reconstruction on the server side involves volume integration on the partially reconstructed composite images with consideration for accumulated weights, extracting triangle meshes from the volume integration, performing remeshing using the triangle meshes, applying active shape computation to retain information lost during the volume integration, and generating a final texture atlas from texture information of the partial reconstructions” in claims 9 and 18, taken as a whole, render the respective claims patentably distinct over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2023/0068727 – intraoral scanner
US 2024/0029380 – dental restoration
US 2024/0164632 – intraoral scanning
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. 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.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619