DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 dated by 05/15/2024 are presently pending in the application and have been examined below, of which claims 1, 12 and 18 are presented in independent form.
Drawings
The drawings 1 – 11 were received on 05/15/2024. The drawings 2 – 3, and 10 – 11 are accepted.
Drawings Objection
The drawings 1, and 4 – 9 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. No new matter should be entered. However, drawings 1 and 4 – 9 contain unreadable or barely readable texts and labels that prevent clear understanding of the presented information.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101, non-statutory
(Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
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
therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Statutory Category:
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method. Therefore, claims 1 – 11 fall within the four statutory categories of invention, and thus must be further analyzed at Step 2A to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Step 2A Prong 1 Judicial exception:
Limitations of independent claim 1 have been identified as elements or part of the abstract idea itself. The claims recite a series of steps instructing
generating a hash…;
comparing the hash of the requested configuration change with the hash stored on the secure attestable ledger;
The above system steps appear to recite operations which may be performed by a human being. According to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III, where it examples a claim to "performing a mental process on a computer environment” as a Mental Process.
A human being may mentally perform certain action like comparison of two or more files or data structures using known packages for comparative analysis or generation specified values using standard software, e.g., hash generating software exploring well-documented algorithms using respective equipment. MPEP states that it is still a Mental Process if the action is aided by devices (emphases added).
Step 2A Prong 2 Integration into a practical application:
The following claim limitations in claim 1 are identified as additional elements not part of the abstract idea itself:
receiving a request…;
storing a hash…;
The above recited claim limitations are interpreted as known computing actions providing merely well-documented extra-solution activity. Although not explicitly recited, these additional limitations are interpreted as being implemented on a generic computing device or system, e.g., receiving or storing specified data. These limitations appear to recite general purpose computer machines which are merely implementing the abstract idea within a computer environment. See General purposes machine MPEP 2106.05(b)(I).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of data receiving, hash generation, data comparison, and storing without further details fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B Significantly more: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The above identified claim limitations have been identified as General-Purpose Machine which are merely implementing the abstract idea within a computer environment. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(I). When taken individually or viewed as an ordered combination the claims as a whole do not appear to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the abstract idea.
Overall, the claims are written very broad, they list a few standard information processing steps but fail to disclose an inventive concept indicating clear integration into practical applications, i.e., enhancement security of telecommunication between a server and external mobile service accounts [0027], protection against external intrusion [0033] and/or unauthorized configuration changes [0030]. Claims are silent regarding usage of digital signatures [0034, 0050]. Supporting paragraphs in SPECS are indicated in parentheses.
Based on the above rational the claims have been deemed to ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Adams et al. (US 20220131702) (hereafter Adams), in view of Zhang et al. (US 20200202038), (hereafter Zhang), and in view of Lewander et al. (US 20230336355) (hereafter Lewander).
As per claim 1 Adams discloses: A method for securing account information in a mobile services system, (Adams discloses in para. [0030] a computing platform and method for secure managing user account information of different institutions and mobile computing devices [0042]) the method comprising:
generating a hash of an account configuration; (Examiner note: account configuration is disclosed by Applicant in Para. [0027] of SPECS as a portion of the account information comprising billing information, phone numbers, network and hardware identities; the account configuration is met in Adams by the account information comprising billing, user, transactions, and other account information) (Adams in para [0003] discloses generation by the computing platform hash values associated with respective account) (Adams, [0039]: enterprise server infrastructure 120 may include various servers and/or databases that store and/or otherwise maintain account information, such as financial account information including account balances, transaction history, account owner information, and/or other information.).
[storing the hash on a secure attestable ledger as immutable data]
[signed by a private-key associated with the account;]
receiving a request for a change to the account configuration; (Adams in para. [0027] discloses creation of a report on account activity and modifications, i.e., changes, that may be hashed [0031]; the report could be created on a request as indicated in [0094]).
Adams failed to explicitly disclose secure operations on attestable legger nodes as immutable data. However, Zhang discloses: storing the hash on a secure attestable ledger as immutable data (Zhang in para. [0028] discloses data attestations on a distributed ledger; Zhang in para. [0196] discloses storage of attestation report on a distributed ledger as immutable data as well as in para. [0087, 0182] generation and storage in ledger the respective hash values)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams, in view of teaching of Zhang because they both disclose security of account data protection in a blockchain system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Adams for teaching of Zhang to generate and process hash values including data storage as immutable data on attestable ledger nodes in order to improve security of data processing in a blockchain system.
Adams as modified failed to explicitly disclose encoding and signing changes in the account information data and comparing respective hash values with the hashes stored in the ledger data base. However, Lewander discloses:
signed by a private-key associated with the account; (Lewander in para. [0063] discloses data protection object, e.g., account information changes presented in the report, signed using private key);
generating a hash of a requested configuration change; and comparing the hash of the requested configuration change with the hash stored on the secure attestable ledger (Lewander in para [0063] discloses a comparison of calculated hash value related to the protection object, i.e., account information activities and/or changes, to the hash values stored in the distributed data storage, DDS).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams-Zhang, in view of teaching of Lewander because they all disclose security of account data protection in a blockchain system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Adams-Zhang for teaching of Lewander for generation and processing hash values related to protection object modification and a comparative analysis of encrypted data with those stored in the ledger database.
As per claim 2 Adams as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a notification to an account owner (Adams in Para. [0065] discloses notification of transmissions to computing devices, i.e., account owner, regarding processing of hash values) [when the hash of the requested configuration change does not match]
the hash stored on the secure attestable ledger (Zhang in para. [0196] discloses storage of attestation report on a distributed ledger as immutable data as well as in para. [0087, 0182] generation and storage in ledger the respective hash values);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams, in view of teaching of Zhang because they both disclose security of account data protection in a blockchain system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Adams for teaching of Zhang to generate and process hash values including data storage as immutable data on attestable ledger nodes in order to improve security of data processing in a blockchain system.
Adams as modified further discloses: when the hash of the requested configuration change does not match [the hash stored on the secure attestable ledger] (Lewander in para [0064, 0069] discloses generation of a respective text string reflecting the result of the comparative analysis of hash values with the storage).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams-Zhang, in view of teaching of Lewander because they both disclose security of account data protection in a blockchain system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Adams-Zhang for teaching of Lewander for generation and processing hash values related to protection object modification and a comparative analysis of encrypted data with those stored in the ledger database including notifications of the results.
As per claim 3 Adams as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the secure attestable ledger is a blockchain (Zhang in para. [0028] discloses data attestations on a distributed ledger, e.g., on a blockchain).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams, in view of teaching of Zhang because they both disclose security of account data protection in a blockchain system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Adams for teaching of Zhang to data processing attestable ledger, i.e., blockchain, in order to improve security of data processing in a blockchain system.
As per claim 4 Adams as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the hash is generated using a secure hashing algorithm (Lewander in para [0045] discloses application for hashing an encryption function corresponding to the Advanced Encryption Standard, AES, i.e., the standard encryption algorithm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams-Zhang, in view of teaching of Lewander because they both disclose security of account data protection in a blockchain system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Adams-Zhang for teaching of Lewander for generation and processing hash values using known encryption standards, i.e., algorithm.
As per claim 5 Adams as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the account configuration includes information related to a mobile services account (Adams in para. [0039, 0042] discloses server configuration for processing mobile applications on mobile devices)
As per claim 6 Adams as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising disabling the account if the hash of the requested configuration change does not match (Adams in para. [0063, 0072] discloses operations on the hash values if there is a mismatch between existing and stored hash value, that may result in account termination [0077]); the hash stored on the secure attestable ledger. (Zhang in para. [0196] discloses storage of attestation report on a distributed ledger as immutable data).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams, in view of teaching of Zhang because they both disclose security of account data protection in a blockchain system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Adams for teaching of Zhang to generate and process hash values including data storage as immutable data on attestable ledger nodes in order to improve security of data processing in a blockchain system.
As per claim 7 Adams as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein a wallet is a software wallet hosted on a user's device (Examiner note: digital wallet is disclosed by Applicant in para. [0026] of SPECS as a packet to make and monitor transactions in the systems; the digital wallet is met in Adams by a transaction activity pool monitoring transactions in the system, Adams, [0007])
As per claim 8 Adams as modified discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein the notification is sent via email or push notification to a mobile device (Adams in para. [0042] discloses communication between server and mobile devices on respective transactions)
As per claim 9 Adams as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the account configuration includes information related to a subscriber's plan selection, billing information, MSISDN, IMSI, ICCID, owner wallet public key (pub-key), and opt-in/opt-out feature selections (Adams in para. [0039, 0042] discloses account information, i.e., account configuration, related to the financial status and activity).
As per claim 10 Adams as modified discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising monitoring a status of the account configuration and generating a hash of a current configuration based on the status of the account configuration (Adams in para. [0060] discloses monitoring the account status per transaction activity pool).
As per claim 11 Adams as modified discloses: The method of claim 10, wherein if the hash of the current configuration does not match the hash stored on [the secure attestable ledger], the account is disabled (Adams in para. [0063, 0072] discloses operations on the hash values if there is a mismatch between existing and stored hash value, that may result in account termination [0077]).
Adams failed to explicitly disclose secure operations on attestable legger nodes. However, Zhang discloses: storing the hash on a secure attestable ledger (Zhang in para. [0028] discloses data attestations on a distributed ledger; Zhang in para. [0196] discloses storage of attestation report on a distributed ledger as immutable data as well as in para. [0087, 0182] generation and storage in ledger the respective hash values)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams, in view of teaching of Zhang because they both disclose security of account data protection in a blockchain system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Adams for teaching of Zhang to generate and process hash values including data storage as immutable data on attestable ledger nodes in order to improve security of data processing in a blockchain system.
As per claim 12 Adams discloses: A system for securing account information in a mobile services system, (Examiner note: account configuration/information is disclosed by Applicant in Para. [0027] of SPECS as a portion of the account information comprising billing information, phone numbers, network and hardware identities; the account configuration is met in Adams by the account information comprising billing, user, transactions, and other account information) (Adams, [0039]: enterprise server infrastructure 120 may include various servers and/or databases that store and/or otherwise maintain account information, such as financial account information including account balances, transaction history, account owner information, and/or other information.),
the system comprising: [a secure attestable ledger;]
a wallet linked to an account configuration; (Examiner note: digital wallet is disclosed by Applicant in para. [0026] of SPECS as a packet to make and monitor transactions in the systems; the digital wallet is met in Adams by a transaction activity pool monitoring transactions in the system, Adams, [0007])
a hash generator configured to generate a hash of the account configuration and a hash of a requested configuration change (Examiner note: as noted above, account configuration is disclosed by Applicant in Para. [0027] of SPECS as a portion of the account information comprising billing information, phone numbers, network and hardware identities; the account configuration is met in Adams by the account information comprising billing, user, transactions, and other account information) (Adams in para [0003] discloses generation by the computing platform hash values associated with respective account) (Adams, [0039]: enterprise server infrastructure 120 may include various servers and/or databases that store and/or otherwise maintain account information, such as financial account information including account balances, transaction history, account owner information, and/or other information.)
Adams failed to explicitly disclose secure operations on attestable legger nodes. However, Zhang discloses:
a secure attestable ledger;
a storage device configured to store the hash on the secure attestable ledger as immutable data (Zhang in para. [0196] discloses storage of attestation report on a distributed ledger as immutable data as well as in para. [0087, 0182] generation and storage in ledger the respective hash values)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams, in view of teaching of Zhang because they both disclose security of account data protection in a blockchain system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Adams for teaching of Zhang to generate and process hash values including data storage as immutable data on attestable ledger nodes in order to improve security of data processing in a blockchain system.
[signed by a private-key associated with the account;]
a request receiver configured to receive a request for a change to the account configuration; (Adams in para. [0027] discloses creation of a report on account activity and modifications, i.e., changes, that may be hashed [0031]; the report could be created on a request as indicated in [0094]).
Adams as modified failed to explicitly disclose encoding and signing an information by using private keys, and comparing respective hash values with the hashes stored in the ledger data base.
However, Lewander discloses: signed by a private-key associated with the account (Lewander in para. [0063] discloses data protection object, e.g., account information changes presented in the report, signed using private key);
a comparator configured to compare the hash of the requested configuration change with the hash stored on the secure attestable ledger; (Lewander in para. [0140] discloses a circuit broadly designed as a processing unit to execute and complete any predefined data operations in various ways, in particular performing signal comparison performing signal comparison by the component modeler 140, i.e., a comparator, as depicted in Fig. 1 and disclosed in para. [0061 – 0063])
and a configuration changer configured to apply the requested configuration change to the account configuration if the hash of the requested configuration change matches the hash stored on the secure attestable ledger (Lewander in para [0063, 0065] discloses a comparison of calculated hash value related to the protection object, i.e., account information, including operations of component modeler 140 tracking all modifications, and/or changes, to the protection object per hash values stored in the distributed data storage, DDS).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang, in view of teaching of Lewander because they all disclose security of account data protection in a blockchain system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Adams-Zhang for teaching of Lewander for generation and processing hash values related to protection object modification and a comparative analysis of encrypted data with those stored in the ledger database.
As per claims 13, 14, claims 13, 14 encompass same or similar scope as claims 3, 10, respectively. Therefore, claims 13, 14 are rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 3, 10.
As per claim 15 Adams as modified discloses: The system of claim 14, further comprising a monitoring processor configured to monitor the status of the account configuration and to generate the hash of the current configuration (Adams in para. [0032] discloses a transaction activity pool, i.e., processing unit, providing a log of information relevant to data activity in the immutable log.) (Adams in para. [0060] discloses monitoring the account status per transaction activity pool).
As per claim 16, claim 16 encompasses same or similar scope as claim 11. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected based on the same reasons set forth above in rejecting claim 11.
As per claim 17 Adams as modified discloses: The system of claim 12, wherein the wallet is a software wallet, a hardware wallet, or a paper wallet (Examiner note: digital wallet is disclosed by Applicant in para. [0026] of SPECS as a packet to make and monitor transactions in the systems; the digital wallet is met in Adams by a transaction activity pool monitoring transactions in the system, Adams, [0007]).
As per claim 18 Adams discloses: A computer-implemented method for securing account information in a mobile services system, (Adams, [0039]: enterprise server infrastructure 120 may include various servers and/or databases that store and/or otherwise maintain account information, such as financial account information including account balances, transaction history, account owner information, and/or other information.), the method comprising:
linking an account configuration to a wallet (Examiner note: digital wallet is disclosed by Applicant in para. [0026] of SPECS as a packet to make and monitor transactions in the systems; the digital wallet is met in Adams by a transaction activity pool monitoring transactions in the system, Adams, [0007]) (Adams, in para. [0015] discloses linking account data to user account monitoring by transaction activity pool [0003])
[on a secure attestable ledger]
generating a hash of the account configuration; (Examiner note: account configuration is disclosed by Applicant in Para. [0027] of SPECS as a portion of the account information comprising billing information, phone numbers, network and hardware identities; the account configuration is met in Adams by the account information comprising billing, user, transactions, and other account information) (Adams in para [0003] discloses generation by the computing platform hash values associated with respective account) (Adams, [0039]: enterprise server infrastructure 120 may include various servers and/or databases that store and/or otherwise maintain account information, such as financial account information including account balances, transaction history, account owner information, and/or other information.).
[storing the hash on the secure attestable ledger as immutable data]
[signed by a private-key associated with the account;]
receiving a request for a change to the account configuration; (Adams in para. [0027] discloses creation of a report on account activity and modifications, i.e., changes, that may be hashed [0031]; the report could be created on a request as indicated in [0094]).
Adams failed to explicitly disclose secure operations on attestable legger nodes as immutable, i.e., certified, data.
However, Zhang discloses:
on a secure attestable ledger;
storing the hash on the secure attestable ledger as immutable data (Zhang in para. [0028] discloses data attestations on a distributed ledger; Zhang in para. [0196] discloses storage of attestation report on a distributed ledger as immutable data as well as in para. [0087, 0182] generation and storage in ledger the respective hash values)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams, in view of teaching of Zhang because they both disclose security of account data protection in a blockchain system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Adams for teaching of Zhang to generate and process hash values including data storage as immutable data on attestable ledger nodes in order to improve security of data processing in a blockchain system.
Adams as modified failed to explicitly disclose encoding and signing changes in the account information data and comparing respective hash values with the hashes stored in the ledger data base. However, Lewander discloses:
signed by a private-key associated with the account (Lewander in para. [0063] discloses data protection object, e.g., account information changes presented in the report, signed using private key);
generating a hash of a requested configuration change;
comparing the hash of the requested configuration change with the hash stored on the secure attestable ledger; and (Lewander in para [0063] discloses a comparison of calculated hash value related to the protection object, i.e., account information activities, modifications, and/or changes, to the hash values stored in the distributed data storage, DDS);
applying the requested configuration change to the account configuration if the hash of the requested configuration change matches the hash stored on the secure attestable ledger.
(Lewander in para [0045] discloses usage of hash values, keys in the account if no modifications have been found and component modeler 140 is allowed to use respective values for the account [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams-Zhang, in view of teaching of Lewander because they all disclose security of account data protection in a blockchain system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Adams-Zhang for teaching of Lewander for generation and processing hash values related to protection object modification and a comparative analysis of encrypted data with those stored in the ledger database.
As per claim 19 Adams as modified discloses: The method of claim 18, further comprising: monitoring a status of the account configuration; generating a hash of a current configuration based on the status of the account configuration; (Examiner note: account configuration is disclosed by Applicant in Para. [0027] of SPECS as a portion of the account information comprising billing information, phone numbers, network and hardware identities; the account configuration is met in Adams by the account information comprising billing, user, transactions, and other account information) (Adams in para [0003] discloses generation by the computing platform hash values associated with respective account) (Adams, [0039]: enterprise server infrastructure 120 may include various servers and/or databases that store and/or otherwise maintain account information, such as financial account information including account balances, transaction history, account owner information, and/or other information.);
comparing the hash of the current configuration with the hash stored on the secure attestable ledger (Lewander in para [0063] discloses a comparison of calculated hash value related to the protection object, i.e., account information activities and/or changes, to the hash values stored in the distributed data storage, DDS).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Adams-Zhang, in view of teaching of Lewander because they all disclose security of account data protection in a blockchain system. The motivation to combine would be to modify Adams-Zhang for teaching of Lewander for generation and processing hash values related to protection object modification and a comparative analysis of encrypted data with those stored in the ledger database.
Adams as modified further discloses: and disabling the account if the hash of the current configuration does not match the hash stored on the secure attestable ledger (Adams in para. [0063, 0072] discloses operations on the hash values if there is a mismatch between existing and stored hash value, that may result in account termination [0077]).
As per claim 20 Adams as modified discloses: The method of claim 19, wherein the monitoring of the status of the account configuration is performed periodically, and wherein the disabling of the account is performed within a predetermined time period after the hash of the current configuration does not match the hash stored on the secure attestable ledger (Adams in para [0026, 0034, 0039] discloses: processing of account information is performed according to the regulatory requirements using immutable log at specified point in time; the account termination, i.e., account disabling, is disclosed in para. [0077]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Balinsky US_20240281801, Cline US_20230088197, Perez US_20220366406, Steele US_20200403805, Obaidi US_20200367054.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADIMIR IVANOVICH GAVRILENKO whose telephone number is (313)446-6530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Lynn Feild can be reached on (571) 272-2092. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/VLADIMIR I GAVRILENKO/Examiner, Art Unit 2431