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 .
1. Claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1, 5 and 8, the generic placeholder, “software” coupled with the functional language, “configured to”. The specification Par. [0039], discloses “the software generates said control instructions for each of the multiple energy control devices” and “A computer (10) attached to storage (30) executes software (21)”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “the software id configured to”, in claims 1, 5 and 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed functions as state above. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform “the software configured to “receive…”,” provide control instructions”, in claims 1 and 8, “present…” claim 5.
There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform apply, determine, determining, control, define, generate, store, and adjust. The use of those terms is not adequate structure for performing the functions as listed because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
As per claim 2-12, these claims are at least rejected for their dependencies, directly or indirectly, on the rejected claim 1. They are therefore rejected as set forth above.
4. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of “the software configured to “receive…”,” provide control instructions”, in claims 1 and 8, “present…” claim 5. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. 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.
5.1 Claim(s) 1, 3-13 and 15-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakravarty (US 20180038606 A1) in view of Ribbich (US 20170234562 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Chakravarty discloses a system and method for distributing commands to multiple energy control devices (Abstract, Fig. 1, a control system 100 for managing operation of a plurality of thermostats includes a server 104) comprising:
a computer (server 104), having software executing ([0027], a programmable logic circuit), and/or any other circuit or processor capable of executing the functions) thereon, said computer in communication with a plurality of energy control devices (the server 104 communicate with a plurality thermostat 102), via a network connection ([0006], [0027], network data communication interface), and
said software configured to receive an indication of a grouping of a set of multiple energy control devices (Abstract, [0004], [0033], [0036], Fig. 2, Fig. 4, Fig. 5, a card view dashboard 500. A card icon 502 is shown for each thermostat and sorted according to group, the plurality of thermostats associated with the account and creating a group) which include said at least two of said plurality of energy control devices ([0004], [0033], [0036], adding one of the plurality of thermostats to the group and a visual representation for each thermostat of the plurality of thermostats and one or more groups into which each of the plurality of thermostats is grouped, and further to assign an operating schedule to a group, and location groups, in which thermostats are grouped by common geographic location).
However, Chakravarty fails to disclose at least two of said plurality of energy control devices are located in different physical buildings and different geographical locations; said software further configured to receive at least one command input for said set of multiple energy control devices; and said software further configured to provide control instructions to each of the multiple energy control devices which modify a control setting of each of the multiple energy control devices to modify energy usage of a plurality of energy usage devices, each energy usage device associated with one of said multiple energy control devices.
Ribbich discloses at least two of said plurality of energy control devices (Abstract, [0005], [0009], plurality of thermostats) are located in different physical buildings and different geographical locations (Abstract, a plurality of thermostats each located in a different building in a neighborhood);
said software further configured to receive at least one command input for said set of multiple energy control devices ([0159], Fig. 8, user control device 100 is receive information from building/home automation system 3064 or HVAC equipment 3066 indicating one or more measured states of the controlled building (e.g., temperature, humidity, electric loads, etc.) and one or more states of the HVAC equipment 3066 (e.g., equipment status, power consumption, equipment availability, etc. The HVAC equipment 3066 provides operating parameters (e.g., on/off decisions, set points, etc.) to building/home automation system 3064); and
said software further configured to provide control instructions to each of the multiple energy control devices which modify a control setting of each of the multiple energy control devices to modify energy usage of a plurality of energy usage devices, each energy usage device associated with one of said multiple energy control devices ([0006], [0083], [0084], [0121], Fig. 15A-15B, The user control device may receive weather forecasts from a weather service and utility rate information from a utility provider. The user control device may use the weather forecasts in conjunction with the utility rate information to optimize (e.g., minimize) the energy consumption of the home or building. In some embodiments, the user control device generates a utility bill forecast and recommends set point modifications to reduce energy consumption or energy cost).
Chakravarty and Ribbich are analogous art. They are related to centralized controller for a plurality electronic device.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify control of a building or space's HVAC, taught by Ribbich, incorporated with managing operation of a plurality of thermostats, taught by Chakravarty, in order to a minimize energy user by determining a user associated with one of the plurality of thermostats that is associated with energy usage data that indicates a lowest energy usage as compared to the plurality of thermostats.
Regarding claim 3, Ribbich discloses software at least one command input is indicative of a state for an HVAC unit ([0033],[0034], the thermostat is configured to control both the HVAC equipment and the non-HVAC equipment within the building based on a combination of information received from the plurality of remote sensor units).
Regarding claim 4, Ribbich discloses at least one command input is indicative of a temperature set point for said set of multiple energy control devices ([0004], [0148], The user interface typically includes display for presenting information to a user and one or more user interface elements for receiving input from a user. To control the temperature of a building or space, a user adjusts the set point via the thermostat's user interface).
Regarding claim 5, Chakravarty discloses software is configured to present one or more filter options which are user selectable to generate said indication of a grouping (Abstract,[0004], [0026], [0033], user friendly management and grouping of multiple thermostats associated with a user account; and move one thermostat of the plurality of thermostats from a first group to a second group in response to a user dragging and dropping a visual representation of the thermostat on the display device from the first group to the second group).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Ribbich discloses at least one command input is indicative of a desired temperature at a desired time ([0014], the processing circuit of each of the plurality of thermostats is configured to control the building equipment associated with the thermostats to cause the building that the thermostat is located in to reach the temperature setpoint only during the assigned one or more operating slots during the period of time) and said software generates said control instructions (an energy usage regulation ) for each of the multiple energy control devices ([0020], for a plurality of thermostats each located in a different building in a neighborhood) such that control instructions for at least two of the multiple energy control devices are different ([0020], for a plurality of thermostats each located in a different building in a neighborhood; determining, by the analytics service, the one or more operating time slots based on the period of time, assigning, by the analytics service, the one or more operating time slots to each of the plurality of thermostats).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Ribbich discloses software has access to history data indicative of historical environmental conditions for each of the different physical buildings ([0273], [0278], User control device 100 may be able to learn what an appropriate adjustment to standard operating conditions might be based on historical data collected from the home) and further indicative of one or more rates of change of temperature within each of the different physical buildings correlated to heating, ventilation and/or cooling inputs ([0006],[0014],[0028], the processing circuit of each of the plurality of thermostats is configured to receive a temperature setpoint from the analytics service and control the building equipment associated with the thermostat to cause a building that the thermostat is located in to reach the temperature setpoint. The thermostat is also configured to control the HVAC equipment based on the calculated average temperature).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Ribbich software is configured to receive response data indicative of an actual change in temperature within each of the different physical buildings ([0014], the processing circuit of each of the plurality of thermostats is configured to receive a temperature setpoint (temperature change) from the analytics service and control the building equipment associated with the thermostat to cause a building that the thermostat is located in to reach the temperature setpoint) associated with one or more of the control instructions associated with that physical building ([0015], the processing circuit of each of the plurality of thermostats is configured to control the building equipment associated with the thermostats to cause the building that the thermostat is located in to reach the temperature setpoint only during the assigned one or more operating slots during the period of time).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Ribbich software updates the history data based on the response data ([0278], [0303], [0308], Analytics service 6310 may determine, from current operation conditions, feedback from the equipment, and historical data, that due to the high humidity and the size of the AC unit installed relative to the size of the home, the system is unable to reach the set point).
Claims 10, 19 and 20, Ribbich discloses command input is indicative of a desired temperature at a desired time ([0006], [0020]-[0021], the processing circuit of each thermostats is configured to receive a temperature setpoint from the analytics service and control the building equipment associated with the thermostat to cause a building that the thermostats is located in to reach the temperature setpoint, the processing circuit of the analytics service is configured to determine the temperature setpoint based on the weather forecast data and utility pricing data and send the temperature setpoint to the plurality of thermostats), and
software generates said control instructions for each of the multiple energy control devices based on the history data ([0278], User control device 100 may be able to use local equipment history or history stored in network 6306 of similar equipment to educate a user on the capabilities of the system). such that control instructions for at least two of the multiple energy control devices are different (Abstract, a plurality of thermostats each located in a different building in a neighborhood).
Regarding claim 11, Chakravarty discloses the software provides one or more filters for indication of the grouping, the filters selected from the group (Abstract, move one thermostat of the plurality of thermostats from a first group to a second group in response to a user dragging and dropping a visual representation of the thermostat on the display device from the first group to the second group) consisting of: owner, manager, city, state, town, zip code, geographical region, county, type of location, building type, location name or brand, window count, window area, exposed wall count, exposed wall area, presence of drive through, solarium seating presence, opening hours, plan subscription, category of device and combinations thereof ([0028], a control system for use in the thermostat control system 100 shown in FIG. 1; the plurality of thermostats 102 associated with an account may be housed in a single building, several buildings, some buildings may be in close proximity to one another, such as several buildings located on a college campus, remotely located from one another, such as located in different neighborhoods of the same city, in different cities, in different states, in different countries, or a school, university, daycare, church, place of worship, non-profit organization, property management company, restaurant, coffee shop, bars, bank, credit union, or the like, that may have a building with several thermostats, several buildings, and/or several locations).
Regarding claim 12, Chakravarty discloses command input is indicative of the group consisting of: temperature ( set-point of the thermostat 806, a current temperature), period of time, on/off status ( on/off schedule status 808) and combinations thereof ([0039], the user can hover over or rollover (e.g., with a computer mouse and without selecting or clicking on) the corresponding card icon 502. In the rollover state, depending on the embodiment, rollover card icon 802 displays at least one of the names of the thermostat 804, a set-point of the thermostat 806, a current temperature (not shown), an on/off schedule status 808, a type of operating schedule assigned to the thermostat 810).
Regarding claims 21, Ribbich discloses the response data is received from one or more of the multiple energy control devices (Fig. 8. [0159], data communications interface 3060 may include a network interface configured to facilitate electronic data communications between user control device 100 and various external systems or devices (e.g., a communications network 3062, a building automation system (BAS) or home automation system 3064, HVAC equipment 3066, mobile devices 3068, etc.). For example, user control device 100 may receive information from building/home automation system 3064 or HVAC equipment 3066 indicating one or more measured states of the controlled building).
5.2 Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakravarty (US 20180038606 A1) in view of Ribbich (US 20170234562 A1) further in view of Pettit (US20120084452A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, the combination of Chakravarty and Ribbich disclose the limitations of claims 1 and 13 but fails to discloses the limitations of claim 2. However, Pettit discloses software includes a normalizing feature which translates the at least one command input into a control instruction for each of the multiple energy control devices (Abstract, [0013], [0015], remote control command translation device 104 translating remote control commands), and said control instruction is formatted (protocol 112, 106), based on a type indication associated with each of the multiple energy control devices ([0013]-[00TV 110a, camera 111, MIC 113, HDMI 1090 such that the control instructions provided to each of the multiple energy control devices are formatted to be compatible with the corresponding one of the multiple energy control devices to which said control instruction is sent ([0013],[0018], Remote control command translation device 104 may include any suitable components to perform the various functions, for example, remote control command translation device 104 may include a wireless or wired network receiver 114 for receiving metacommands via first protocol 106. The remote-control command translation device 104 may further include one or more unidirectional protocol transmitters 116 for outputting translated commands via one or more protocols, such as unidirectional protocol 112. Examples of such transmitters 116 include, but are not limited to, infrared transmitters 117 and radio frequency transmitters 119 and each command has been send for each device with one or more protocol 112, 116 (formatted) to be compatible perform the control instruction for each devices).
Pettit, Chakravarty and Ribbich are analogous art. They are related to centralized controller for a plurality electronic device.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify translating remote control commands, taught by Pettit, incorporated with the teaching of Ribbich and Chakravarty, as stated above, in order to a minimize energy user by determining a user associated with one of the plurality of thermostats that is associated with energy usage data that indicates a lowest energy usage as compared to the plurality of thermostats.
Citation Pertinent prior art
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ratlif (US8838282B1) discloses a central controller that can communicate across different types of networks to reach various energy load control devices.
Longtin (US 5566879 A) discloses centralized controlling of a plurality of temperature regulating devices by an existing network of power lines comprising a central control means provided to send or receive predetermined commands to and from a plurality of temperature regulating devices.
Smith (US20060230406A1) discloses tiered command distribution, and a pipeline architecture includes processor chains of data processors that process control events received from an application interface control.
Taft (US20120310435A1) discloses the grid controller device then disaggregates the grid control command into a plurality of sub-locality control commands according to the grid characteristics of the corresponding plurality of sub-localities and distributes the sub-locality control commands to sub-grid controllers.
Rosen (US20160131382A1) discloses plurality of HVAC systems controlled by the plurality of networked thermostats. working in concert with other thermostats to minimize charges by a power- company supply g power to the HVAC systems, and especially charges relating to peak power demand.
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for allthat it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed wereinstead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1 009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kidest Worku, whose telephone number is 571-272-3737. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am to 5pm, ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ali Mohammad, can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application information Retrieval IPAIRI system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PMR 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 PAG system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217 - 9197. 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.
/KIDEST WORKU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights