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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
The abstract should not repeat the information given in the title.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “adapter between a server-side runtime and the third party application”. It is unclear what is the relationship between the adapter and function call and SDK being executed in response to the function call.
Claims 8 and 15 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 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 or integrating into practical application.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity. Independent claim 1 is directed to “executing the SDK functions in response to the function call from a third party application based on mapping the function call to one or more SDK functions in metadata document” at a high level of generality.
Step 1
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 recites “non-transitory computer readable media”, which falls within the “machine / manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 8 recites a “system comprising processors, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 15 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, See id.
Step 2A Prong One
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
claim elements
i
1. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising:
generic computing
ii
receiving, by a rapid adapter building (RAB) framework, a function call from a third-party application;
information gathering
iii
obtaining, by the RAB framework, a metadata document that defines an adapter between a server-side runtime and the third-party application;
information gathering
iv
determining that the metadata document comprises one or more metadata fields that map the function call to one or more software development kit (SDK) functions exposed by the server-side runtime;
mental process abstract idea
v
responsive to receiving the function call and based on the one or more metadata fields, executing the one or more SDK functions exposed by the server-side runtime.
mental process abstract idea
The overall process described by steps [iv]-[v] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Thus steps [iv]-[v] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” For example, step [iv] recites “determining that the metadata document comprises one or more metadata fields that map the function call to one or more software development kit (SDK) functions exposed by the server-side runtime”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind. Similarly, step [v] recites “responsive to receiving the function call and based on the one or more metadata fields”, which requires comparison of information, and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind. Therefore, steps [iv]-[v] resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons, claims 8 and 15 recite judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Because claims 1, 8 and 15 recite a judicial exception, Analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i]-[iii]. Claim 1 in step [i] recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, which recites one or more generic computing component and may not be considered an improvement in the functioning of a computer or technology or technical field. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Claim 1 in steps [ii]-[iii] recites “receiving an function call” and “obtaining a metadata document” respectively, both of which are directed to receiving information and resembles the idea of insignificant extra solution activity at a high level of generality. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception may not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) I. § 2106.05(g). Claim 1 step [v] recites additional claim elements of “executing SDK function”, which is directed to executing a function and is considered insignificant post solution activity and/or common computing activity as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art. Thus, additional elements recited in the independent claim 1, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating into practical application. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 8 and 15 also recites judicial exception without integrating into practical application.
Step 2B
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)).
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Because claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states:
A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
Regarding the non-transitory media, processors as recited in claim 1 step [i], the conventional or generalized function terms by which the computer components are described reasonably indicate that Specification discloses conventional component, and describes the component in a manner that indicates that these elements are sufficient well-known that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Further, the Specification does not provide additional details that would distinguish the recited components from generic implementation in the combination. Additional claim elements recited in steps [ii]-[iii] is directed to receiving information and resembles the idea of insignificant extra solution activity at a high level of generality. Additional claim elements recited in claim 1 step [v] is directed to executing the function by the server and is well-understood, routine and conventional, as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art. As such these additional claim elements are not directed to anything beyond conventional nature of these elements or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of computing. These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Further, the Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations as recited in the claim from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, Claims 1 is not directed to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept.
Based on similar analysis and rationales, claims 8 and 15 also recites mental process abstract idea and neither integrate into practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Claim 3 recit4es “based on the one or more metadata fields, transforming data received in the function call from (a) a first format used by the third-party application to (b) a second format used by the server-side runtime”, which is directed to transforming the format of data and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Claim 4 recites “obtaining an output of the one or more SDK functions exposed by the server-side runtime; returning the output to the third-party application responsive to receiving the function call”, which is directed to obtaining /transmitting information, and is considered insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim 5 recites “based on the one or more metadata fields, transforming the output of the one or more SDK functions exposed by the server-side runtime from (a) a first format used by the server- side runtime to (b) a second format used by the third-party application”, which is directed to transforming the format of output and is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Claim 6 recites “based on the one or more metadata fields, enriching the output of the one or more SDK functions with additional data not supplied by the one or more SDK functions”, which is directed to adding data based on metadata fields and can be considered mental process abstract idea because it is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Claim 7 recites wherein the metadata document is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) document, which describes the metadata document as JSON document which is well-understood, routine and conventional.
Based on similar analysis as above, dependent claims 3-6, 10-14 and 17-20 recite claim elements that are either abstract idea or additional claim elements, that individually or in combination, are either generic computing methods/components or insignificant pre-post solution activity and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim(s) , 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grey et al. (US 2023/0103938 A1, hereafter Grey) in view of Mohan et al. (US 2023/0266969 A1, hereafter Mohan).
As per claim 1, Grey teaches the invention substantially as claimed including one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising ([0067]):
receiving, by a rapid adapter building (RAB) framework, a function call from a third-party application ([0048] server system 405 client computing device / business server system 410 [0052] client side application, interacts with the system 405 [0054] UI, computing device, user, initiate the creation of a new application [0034] framework of the platform [0037] services, third-party applications, metadata, functions or services in the based platform to provide new functionalities suitable to customer’s needs [0043] service layer 120 , customer-built / modified services, calls function and instructions [0002] software development and integration platform [0021] enterprise level customer driven service development and integration platform; fig. 1 application platform 100 metadata 110 service layer 120 customer device 140);
obtaining, by the RAB framework, a metadata document that defines an adapter between a server-side runtime and the third-party application ([0040] integration adapters, third party service, definitional data objects [0029] data objects, definition, metadata objects, JSON files, metadata tables, metadata objects, definition and field, used along with metadata necessary to allow one or more function / service / behavior, data and/or metadata from the data layer by calling these definitions to execute various functions and actions [0043] platform, pre-built integration adapters, such as Twilio integration adapter, peoplesoft integration adapter[0034] framework of the platform [0002] software development and integration platform [0021] enterprise level customer driven service development and integration platform fig. 1 application platform 100 metadata 110 service layer 120 integration adapters 150 160 customer device 140 [0003] services module table or metadata object contains all registered services in the existing application system);
determining that the metadata document comprises one or more metadata fields that map the function call to one or more software development kit (SDK) functions exposed by the server-side runtime ([0005] mapping component, service definitions [0041] tables, metadata objects, fields and functions, listed in table rows, JSON object that map keys and variables to values that are used to produce difference functions and outcomes [0024] metadata based fields and definitions, relational metadata objects, provide the basis for the functioning, [0037] Twilio, Sendgrid, peoplesoft, wrapper code, SDK, service, application, incorporated with metadata, functions or service, base platform, provide new functionalities suitable to customer’s needs [0003] selecting relevant defined data objects, stored in one or more database tables or metadata objects associated with the existing application system, for inclusion in the new application service, adding metadata for the new application service into a services module table or metadata object of the one or more database tables or metadata objects, to register the new application service with the existing application system, allowing the new application service to be executed, wherein the services module table or metadata object contains all registered services in the existing application system [0005] utilizes the service definitions to produce a new or altered service, program, or application [0034] framework, platform, service, registered as metadata, may be called by the platform, adds new functionalities and tiers the new services to the runtime engine);
responsive to receiving the function call ([0054] UI, computing device, user, initiate the creation of a new application [0004] initiate creating new application [0043] service layer 120 , customer-built / modified services, calls function and instructions) and based on the one or more metadata fields ([0004] metadata objects, existing application, inclusion into new application, defined data objects, combining the defined data objects into the new application), executing the one or more SDK functions exposed by the server-side runtime ([0004] combining the defined data objects into the new application [0005] utilize the service definitions to produce a new or altered service, program or application by transformation and mapping of the service definitions [0037] Twilio, Sendgrid, peoplesoft, wrapper code, SDK, service, application, incorporated with metadata, functions or service, base platform, provide new functionalities suitable to customer’s needs [0040] integration adapters, third party services, wrapper code, SDK or APIs, provide definitional data objects, customer or end user may utilize to integrate third party service [0003] new application service, executed).
Grey doesn’t specifically teach executing the SDK function.
Mohan, however, teaches executing the SDK function ([0099] call the API Java SDK functions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Grey with the teachings of Mohan of calling the SDK functions to improve efficiency and allow executing the SDK function to the method of Grey as in the instant invention. The combination of analogous art would have been obvious because making SDK function call as taught by Mohan to the method of Grey to yield expected result of performing SDK function call with improved efficiency.
As per claim 2, Grey teaches the operations further comprising:
determining that the metadata document defines a set of relationships between metadata fields in the metadata document ([0040] integration adapters, third party service, definitional data objects [0029] data objects, definition, metadata objects, JSON files, metadata tables, metadata objects, definition and field, used along with metadata necessary to allow one or more function / service / behavior, data and/or metadata from the data layer by calling these definitions to execute various functions and actions [0021] enterprise level customer driven service development and integration platform fig. 1 application platform 100 metadata 110 service layer 120 integration adapters 150 160 customer device 140 [0003] services module table or metadata object contains all registered services in the existing application system);
generating a design-time user interface, for configuring the adapter, based at least on the set of relationships defined by the metadata document ([0004] user interface, receiving selections of defined data objects through the user interface; [0029] data objects, definition, metadata objects, JSON files, metadata tables, metadata objects, definition and field, used along with metadata necessary to allow one or more function / service / behavior, data and/or metadata from the data layer by calling these definitions to execute various functions and actions [0040] adapters, built for third party services, wrapper code, integration, service, platform, definitional data objects that customer / end user, utilize to integrate [0031] changes, metadata, user interface, specifically designed UI);
configuring the adapter based at least on user input received via the design-time user interface ([0040] adapters, built for third party services, wrapper code, integration, service, platform, definitional data objects that customer / end user, utilize to integrate [0031] changes, metadata, user interface, specifically designed UI).
As per claim 3, Grey teaches the operations further comprising:
based on the one or more metadata fields, transforming data received in the function call from (a) a first format used by the third-party application to (b) a second format used by the server-side runtime ([0041] metadata objects, various fields and functions, listed in the table [0044] converting data from one type to another, reformatting, adding references to data objects, tables, forms, and metadata objects [0004] initiate the creation of a new application, receiving selection of defined data objects [0041] customization, UI, customer, function, instructions sent to execute other logic and make function calls in the backend of the platform).
As per claim 4, Grey teaches the operations further comprising:
obtaining an output of the one or more SDK functions exposed by the server-side runtime ([0037] integration, wrapper code, SDKs/API [0040] integration adapters, wrapper code, SDKs, provide definitional data objects, customer/end-user, utilize, third party services, desire [0028] data object, fields, modified, customer, produce outcomes, displaying a value or result of a new or different variable [0047]);
returning the output to the third-party application responsive to receiving the function call ([0040] integration adapters, wrapper code, SDKs, provide definitional data objects, customer/end-user, utilize, third party services, desire [0054] user, initiate the creation of a new application, values, defined data objects, affect, function of the new application [0041] customization, UI, customer, function, instructions sent to execute other logic and make function calls in the backend of the platform [0028] data object, fields, modified, customer, produce outcomes, displaying a value or result of a new or different variable [0047]).
As per claim 5, Grey teaches the operations further comprising:
based on the one or more metadata fields ([0004] metadata objects, existing application, inclusion into new application, defined data objects, combining the defined data objects into the new application), transforming the output of the one or more SDK functions exposed by the server-side runtime ([0040] integration adapters, wrapper code, SDKs, provide definitional data objects, customer/end-user, utilize, third party services, desire [0044] service transformation and mapping components 240, service definitions to produce new or altered service / program, or application by the transformation) from (a) a first format used by the server-side runtime to (b) a second format used by the third-party application ([0044] converting data from one type to another, reformatting, data objects [0045] service layer 220, customer in a format, determined by user experience and interface layer 250 takes the instructions from the services layer 220 and transforms them into a UX and UI to execute and deliver the services).
As per claim 6, Grey teaches the operations further comprising:
based on the one or more metadata fields, enriching the output of the one or more SDK functions with additional data not supplied by the one or more SDK functions ([0004] combining the defined data objects into the new application [0005] utilize the service definitions to produce a new or altered service, program or application by transformation and mapping of the service definitions [0037] Twilio, sendgrid, peoplesoft, wrapper code, SDK, service, application, incorporated with metadata, functions or service, base platform, provide new functionalities suitable to customer’s need [0029] data objects, definition, metadata objects, JSON files, metadata tables, metadata objects, definition and field, used along with metadata necessary to allow one or more function / service / behavior, data and/or metadata from the data layer by calling these definitions to execute various functions and actions).
As per claim 7, Grey teaches wherein the metadata document is a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) document ([0029] data object, definitions, metadata objects, JSON files).
Claim 8 recites system comprising: one or more hardware processors; one or more non-transitory computer-readable media; and program instructions stored on the one or more non-transitory computer readable media which, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 9 recites elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 10 recites elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 11 recites elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 12 recites elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 13 recites elements similar to claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 14 recites elements similar to claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 15 recites method for elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 16 recites method for elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 17 recites method for elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 18 recites method for elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 19 recites method for elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 20 recites method for elements similar to claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Janakiraman et al. (US 2023/0365270 A1) teaches system and methods of integrated application framework for connected Aircraft using avionics systems
Kim et al. (US 2014/0040861 A1) teaches metadata driven software architecture
Kulkarni et al. (US 2022/0350578 A1) teaches custom integration flow step for integration service
Makhija et al. (US 2023/0136289 A1) teaches development application framework for codeless development of enterprise application
Miller et al. (US 2021/0342145 A1) teaches metadata driven serverless functions in a multitenant environment
Velasco (US 2022/0350673 A1) teaches deploying dynamic applications and infrastructure according to metadata assigned by content
Zhang et al. (US 2014/0173683 A1) teaches metadata driven real-time analytics framework
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 14:00 - 15:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. 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.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights