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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 02/09/2026. Claims 1-3, 14, 27-29 have been amended. Claim 12 has been canceled. Claims 1-11, 13-14, 27-31, 35 are presented for examination.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-14, 27-31, 35 are allowable over prior art because the prior art of record fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims, in particular: “providing one or more prescriptions associated with the one or more prescription contracts by the patient to a medical product, a device or a medication for a validation via a third electronic communication, wherein in the first, second, and third communications, credentials of at least one of the patient, the medical professional, or the a dispensary receiving the one or more prescription contracts or the one or more prescriptions is retrieved and verified using (i) the SSI credentials and (ii) a database which is at least one of an issuer database or a verifier database, wherein the retrieval and the verification of the credentials occur in a decentralized public key infrastructure such that no personal or health information is stored in a central database.” Because the prior art does not teach or disclose the above features in the specific manner and combinations recited in independent claims 1, 14, 27, claims 1, 14, 27are hereby deemed to be allowable over prior art. Originally numbered dependent claims 2-11, 13, 28-31, 35 incorporate the allowable features of originally numbered independent claims 1, 14, 27, through dependency, respectively.
However, the claims are still rejected under 101.
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 1-11, 13-14, 27-31, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method). Claim 14 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-accessible medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., manufacture). Claim 27 is drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine).
Independent claim 27 (which is representative of independent claims 1, 14) recites…provide the one or more prescription contracts associated with a medical professional…; facilitate a submission of a co-execution of the one or more prescription contracts by the patient…; provide one or more prescriptions associated with the one or more prescription contracts by the patient to a medical product, a device or a medication for a validation…, wherein in the first, second, and third communications, credentials of at least one of the patient, the medical professional, or a dispensary receiving the one or more prescription contracts or the one or more prescriptions is retrieved and verified using (i) the SSI credentials...
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “computer” (claim 1), “computer processor” (claim 14), “computer hardware arrangement” (claim 27), the claim encompasses rules or instructions to provide a patient with a prescription and check the patient’s medication adherence. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., computer to implement the method; a mobile storage configuration of a patient via a first electronic communication; a control application of the medical professional via a second electronic communication; a third electronic communication; a database which is at least one of an issuer database or a verifier database; wherein the retrieval and the verification of the credentials occur in a decentralized public key infrastructure such that no personal or health information is stored in a central database). Claim 14 recites additional elements (i.e., a non-transitory computer-accessible medium; a computer processor; a mobile storage configuration of a patient via a first electronic communication; a control application of the medical professional via a second electronic communication; a third electronic communication; a database which is at least one of an issuer database or a verifier database; wherein the retrieval and the verification of the credentials occur in a decentralized public key infrastructure such that no personal or health information is stored in a central database). Claim 27 recites additional elements (i.e., a computer hardware arrangement; a mobile storage configuration of a patient via a first electronic communication; a control application of the medical professional via a second electronic communication; a third electronic communication; a database which is at least one of an issuer database or a verifier database; wherein the retrieval and the verification of the credentials occur in a decentralized public key infrastructure such that no personal or health information is stored in a central database). Looking to the specifications, a computing device having a computer-accessible medium, a computer processor, a computer hardware arrangement is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0105-0112), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, “a mobile storage configuration,” “a control application,” and “electronic [communications]” amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, “a database which is at least one of an issuer database or a verifier database” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing and providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, “wherein the retrieval and the verification of the credentials occur in a decentralized public key infrastructure such that no personal or health information is stored in a central database” only invokes the decentralized public key infrastructure merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., retrieving and verifying data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. The use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., a computing device having a computer-accessible medium, a computer processor, a computer hardware arrangement) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, “a mobile storage configuration,” “a control application,” and “electronic [communications]” amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, “a database which is at least one of an issuer database or a verifier database” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing and providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, “wherein the retrieval and the verification of the credentials occur in a decentralized public key infrastructure such that no personal or health information is stored in a central database” only invokes the decentralized public key infrastructure merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., retrieving and verifying data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13, 28-31, 35 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 5-10, 13, 31 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claims 2, 28 further recites the additional elements of “submitting an electronic program of the patient to the mobile storage configuration via a fourth communication” and “a fifth communication.” Claims 3, 29 further recites the additional elements of “a sixth communication,” “an electronic program,” and “submitting the modified electronic program by the medical professional to the mobile storage configuration in a seventh communication.” Claims 4, 30 further recites the additional elements of “an electronic program.” The “electronic program” and other communications amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claims 11, 35 further recites the additional elements of “an electronic dashboard” and “at least one computer processor.” The “ electronic dashboard” and “computer processor” amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 02/09/2026.
In the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that:
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, the amendments overcome the rejections.
Regarding the 101 rejections,
“"the retrieval and the verification of the credentials occur in a decentralized public key infrastructure such that no personal or health information is stored in a central database”…combined with the existing recitations requiring SSI credentials and issuer/verifier databases, clearly provides a specific technical architecture that provides a concrete improvement to data security and privacy in healthcare transactions…the claimed SSI architecture with the decentralized verification provides specific technical benefits-enhanced data privacy, elimination of centralized data storage vulnerabilities, and fraud prevention-that go beyond merely automating an abstract idea on generic computers. Importantly, amended independent claims 1, 14 and 28 recite a specific technical implementation, not merely generic computer components. Thes claims thus recite: (i) Self- Sovereign Identity (SSI) credentials for verification; (ii) peer-to-peer credential verification across multiple electronic communications (first, second, and third communications); (iii) an issuer database or verifier database for credential retrieval and verification; and (iv) a decentralized public key infrastructure that ensures no personal or health information is stored in a central database. These elements work together as an integrated technical architecture for secure healthcare communications, certainly not as generic computer components merely "applying" an allegedly abstract idea…[Similar to Example 41], the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application of securing healthcare communications through decentralized credential verification using SSI credentials and a decentralized public key infrastructure…the additional elements (mobile storage configuration, control application, electronic communications, databases)… work together as part of a specific SSI architecture for decentralized credential verification.”
Regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “A DPKI is a specific technical architecture characteristic of Self-Sovereign Identity systems, which is fundamentally different from the centralized cryptographic server described in Dhoble.”
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments and does not find them persuasive. Examiner has attempted to address all of the arguments presented by Applicant; however, any arguments inadvertently not addressed are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
In response to Applicant’s argument that (a) regarding the 112(b) rejections, the amendments overcome the rejections:
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner withdraws the aforementioned 112(b) rejections of Office Action dated 09/08/2025 because the amendments have rendered the rejections moot.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (b) regarding the 101 rejections,
“"the retrieval and the verification of the credentials occur in a decentralized public key infrastructure such that no personal or health information is stored in a central database”…combined with the existing recitations requiring SSI credentials and issuer/verifier databases, clearly provides a specific technical architecture that provides a concrete improvement to data security and privacy in healthcare transactions…the claimed SSI architecture with the decentralized verification provides specific technical benefits-enhanced data privacy, elimination of centralized data storage vulnerabilities, and fraud prevention-that go beyond merely automating an abstract idea on generic computers. Importantly, amended independent claims 1, 14 and 28 recite a specific technical implementation, not merely generic computer components. Thes claims thus recite: (i) Self- Sovereign Identity (SSI) credentials for verification; (ii) peer-to-peer credential verification across multiple electronic communications (first, second, and third communications); (iii) an issuer database or verifier database for credential retrieval and verification; and (iv) a decentralized public key infrastructure that ensures no personal or health information is stored in a central database. These elements work together as an integrated technical architecture for secure healthcare communications, certainly not as generic computer components merely "applying" an allegedly abstract idea…[Similar to Example 41], the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application of securing healthcare communications through decentralized credential verification using SSI credentials and a decentralized public key infrastructure…the additional elements (mobile storage configuration, control application, electronic communications, databases)… work together as part of a specific SSI architecture for decentralized credential verification”:
It is respectfully submitted that Applicant argues “the retrieval and the verification of the credentials occur in a decentralized public key infrastructure such that no personal or health information is stored in a central database”…combined with the existing recitations requiring SSI credentials and issuer/verifier databases, clearly provides a specific technical architecture that provides a concrete improvement to data security and privacy in healthcare transactions.” However, the claim limitations to which Applicant refer only invokes the decentralized public key infrastructure merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., retrieving and verifying data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, “a database which is at least one of an issuer database or a verifier database” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing and providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination “combined with the existing recitations requiring SSI credentials” adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Furthermore, "data security and privacy in healthcare transactions" addresses administrative problems, and not a technical problem to any specific devices, technology, or computers for that matter, and thus, the claims do not provide a technical solution. For example, the computing system did not cause the argued problem and thus it is not a technical problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. Even if the claims provide the alleged improvements, any alleged benefits of the invention are at best, an improvement to the abstract idea of rules or instructions to provide a patient with a prescription and check the patient’s medication adherence. However, an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea and the claims do not provide a technical improvement.
Applicant argues “the claimed SSI architecture with the decentralized verification provides specific technical benefits-enhanced data privacy, elimination of centralized data storage vulnerabilities, and fraud prevention-that go beyond merely automating an abstract idea on generic computers. Importantly, amended independent claims 1, 14 and 28 recite a specific technical implementation, not merely generic computer components. Thes claims thus recite: (i) Self- Sovereign Identity (SSI) credentials for verification; (ii) peer-to-peer credential verification across multiple electronic communications (first, second, and third communications); (iii) an issuer database or verifier database for credential retrieval and verification; and (iv) a decentralized public key infrastructure that ensures no personal or health information is stored in a central database. These elements work together as an integrated technical architecture for secure healthcare communications, certainly not as generic computer components merely "applying" an allegedly abstract idea.” However, as stated previously above, “enhanced data privacy” and “fraud prevention” addresses administrative problems, and not a technical problem to any specific devices, technology, or computers for that matter, and thus, the claims do not provide a technical solution. For example, the computing system did not cause the argued problem and thus it is not a technical problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. Furthermore, the problems described as arising from the “centralized data storage” seem to be addressed by the invention of “a decentralized public key infrastructure,” and not the claims of the present invention; Applicant’s claims do not recite the invention of “a decentralized public key infrastructure,” but only invoke the decentralized public key infrastructure merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., retrieving and verifying data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Furthermore, “electronic [communications]” amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., computer technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, “a database which is at least one of an issuer database or a verifier database” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing and providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Applicant argues “[Similar to Example 41], the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application of securing healthcare communications through decentralized credential verification using SSI credentials and a decentralized public key infrastructure…the additional elements (mobile storage configuration, control application, electronic communications, databases)… work together as part of a specific SSI architecture for decentralized credential verification.” However, the claim limitations of the present invention are different from the claim limitations of the aforementioned case law. Even if the claim limitations of the present invention are similar to that of the claims found eligible (and they are not similar), the claimed inventions are fundamentally different in scope and examples should be interpreted based on the asserted fact patterns; as previously stated above, other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes, as is the case with the claims of the present invention. Furthermore, the claims of the present invention covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and not the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas like the claims of Example 41. Regardless, the alleged improvements of “decentralized credential verification” and “how that information is securely exchanged and verified without centralized storage of personal health data” seem to be addressed by the invention of “a decentralized public key infrastructure,” and not the claims of the present invention; Applicant’s claims do not recite the invention of “a decentralized public key infrastructure,” but only invoke the decentralized public key infrastructure merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., retrieving and verifying data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually.
Examiner cannot find any problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined, which per broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification, is a well-known, general purpose computer. As stated previously above, the computing system did not cause the argued problem and thus it is not a technical problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined. While the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, the disclosure does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing any technical improvement or any physical improvement to the computer. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
Thus, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, Examiner maintains the 101 rejections of claims 1-11, 13-14, 27-31, 35, which have been updated to address Applicant’s remarks and to comply with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence in the above Office Action.
In response to Applicant’s argument that (c) regarding the 103 rejections, the cited prior art reference(s) fails to teach the amended claim limitations because “A DPKI is a specific technical architecture characteristic of Self-Sovereign Identity systems, which is fundamentally different from the centralized cryptographic server described in Dhoble”:
It is respectfully submitted that Examiner withdraws the aforementioned 103 rejections of Office Action dated 09/08/2025 because the amendments have rendered the rejections moot.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-14, 27-31, 35 are allowable over prior art because the prior art of record fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims, in particular: “providing one or more prescriptions associated with the one or more prescription contracts by the patient to a medical product, a device or a medication for a validation via a third electronic communication, wherein in the first, second, and third communications, credentials of at least one of the patient, the medical professional, or the a dispensary receiving the one or more prescription contracts or the one or more prescriptions is retrieved and verified using (i) the SSI credentials and (ii) a database which is at least one of an issuer database or a verifier database, wherein the retrieval and the verification of the credentials occur in a decentralized public key infrastructure such that no personal or health information is stored in a central database.” Because the prior art does not teach or disclose the above features in the specific manner and combinations recited in independent claims 1, 14, 27, claims 1, 14, 27are hereby deemed to be allowable over prior art. Originally numbered dependent claims 2-11, 13, 28-31, 35 incorporate the allowable features of originally numbered independent claims 1, 14, 27, through dependency, respectively.
However, the claims are still rejected under 101.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272-6773.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.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683