DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on August 30, 2024. The application contains claims 1-10.
Claims 1-10 are pending
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 .
Priority
The present application claims foreign priority to 113128188, filed 07/29/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on August 30, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
The reference to a “fabric database” that stores “fabric data” is nothing more than a field of use. The specification in paragraphs [0003], [0027], and [0038] makes it clear this is speaking to things like woven fabrics such as wool that have various characteristics. While the “data” is intended to represent fabrics, that doesn’t really change anything about databases that can store data on all sorts of topics.
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.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "when the fourth fabric quantity is larger than the fifth fabric quantity, the processor arranges the third subset in front of the fourth subset" in lines 4-5 and also “when the fourth fabric quantity is larger than the fifth fabric quantity, the processor arranges the third subset behind the fourth subset” in lines 6-7. These two limitations are contradictory to each other. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The 2019 PEG guidance for subject matter eligibility is applied in the following analyses:
At Step 1
The inventions of claims 1-10 are directed to the statutory categories of a machine. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to statutory subject matter.
At Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites abstract ideas in the following limitations:
“select, …, a first fabric data group conformed to a first fabric searching condition” and “after the first selected fabric data group is stored …, … select, …, a second fabric data group conformed to a second fabric searching condition, and arrange the second fabric data group according to the first selected fabric data group” recite abstract ideas. One can mentally select a fabric group from a set (or database) based on a condition such as texture and one can also further select a second group based on condition and arrange that together. Therefore, these limitations may be characterized as mental processes.
At Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite the additional elements of:
“a memory”, “a processor”, and “a display” may be characterized as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
“store a fabric database and a user database corresponding to user information”, “store a first selected fabric data group in the first fabric data group into the user database according to the user information”, “display the first fabric data group”, and “display the second fabric data group which is arranged according to the first selected fabric data group” may be characterized as insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly data gathering and outputting, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above the additional elements constitute a high-level recitation of a generic computer components which represent mere instructions to apply on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activities including data gathering and outputting.
As per MPEP 2106.05(II), at Step 2B the conclusions for these additional elements under MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h) from Step 2A Prong Two are carried over and they do not provide significantly more. The additional elements from Step 2A Prong Two considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g) are re-evaluated as follows:
“store a fabric database and a user database corresponding to user information”, “store a first selected fabric data group in the first fabric data group into the user database according to the user information” are claimed at a high level of generality and as insignificant extra-solution activities. The courts have found these functions as well understood and routine activities, see MPEP 2106.05(d) [Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93].
“display the first fabric data group”, and “display the second fabric data group which is arranged according to the first selected fabric data group” constitute insignificant post solution activities that are well understood and routine activities. As evidenced by the links below, use of display devices to display information such as output, notification, etc. is well understood, routine and conventional.
The Graphical User Interface: An Introduction
Past, Present and Future of User Interface Software Tools
User Interface Software and Technology
Notifications and the notification list - Ubuntu Documentation
Notifications Pane and Action Center in Windows 10
Designing Notifications for Apps - | UX Magazine
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7, and 8 each recite additional elements elaborating on the further details of the abstract idea of “arrange” in independent claim 1 that are still mentally performable.
Dependent claim 6 recites additional elements elaborating on the further details of the data that does not prevent the claim being mentally performable.
Dependent claims 9 and 10 each recite additional elements of “display”. These functions constitute insignificant extra-solution activity, particularly post-solution activity, in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, see MPEP 2106.05(g). In Step 2B analysis, the additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional under 2106.05(d)(ii) as discussed with respect to independent claim 1 above.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadkari (US 20060206460 A1), in view of Arellanes et al. (US 20070239682 A1).
With regard to claim 1,
Gadkari teaches
a … searching system (Fig. 1; [0012]: a system 100 that provides biased search results), comprising:
a memory configured to store a … database and a user database corresponding to user information (Fig. 6; [0038]: a memory 606. Fig. 1; [0014]; [0017]: a database 108 or other storage environment, which records the data that tracks the client's resource access, reads on "a user database". Fig. 1; [0016]: the client 102 searches for data of other machines (not illustrated) on the network 112, wherein data stored on other machines corresponds to a database);
a processor (Fig. 6; [0038]: processors 604) configured to select, in the … database, a first … data group conformed to a first … searching condition (Fig. 2; [0022]-[0026]: receive a search result 208 for a search 202 the client issued with a search engine, wherein potential search terms, restrictions, user preferences, etc. included in a search 202 correspond to "a first ... searching condition", and a search result 208 corresponds to "a first ... data group"), and store a first selected … data group in the first … data group into the user database according to the user information (Fig. 2; [0024]-[0026]: store 210 the search results in a database, monitor 216 whether the client actually accesses any search result, and track 218 accesses within a database, wherein the search result accessed by the client corresponds to “a first selected … data group”); and
wherein after the first selected … data group is stored into the user database, the processor is further configured to select, in the … database, a second … data group conformed to a second … searching condition, and arrange the second … data group according to the first selected … data group (Fig. 2; [0022]-[0026]: the illustrated process may continue 220 with a subsequent search that then becomes biased with respect to the most recent search along with previous search results, wherein a subsequent search corresponds to "a second ... searching condition", search result(s) received at 208 corresponds to "a second ... data group", and biasing 212 the received 208 results based on the client's previous search history, browsing history etc. teaches "arrange the second ... data group according to the first selected ... data group"), and
Gadkari does not teach
a search system being a “fabric” searching system, a database being a “fabric” database, a first data group being a first "fabric" data group, a first searching condition being a first "fabric" searching condition, a first selected data group being a first selected "fabric" data group,
a display configured to display the first fabric data group,
the display is further configured to display the second fabric data group which is arranged according to the first selected fabric data group.
Arellanes teaches
a display configured to display the first … data group (Fig. 4; [0050]-0052]: the user may type one or more search terms into field 412, select "Start" button 414, and the results may then be presented in display area 408 of browser window 40),
the display is further configured to display the second … data group which is arranged according to the first selected … data group (Abstract; Fig. 7; [0073]: browser window 700 includes a display area that presents a results page that is received responsive to submitting a search query and receiving clustered search results. The results page includes categories portion 702 and hits portion 704. Categories portion 702 presents the categories in descending order of relevancy to the viewed content history. Hits portion 704 presents the hits, represented here as links to matching Web documents, with the most relevant category listed first. The search results, i.e., “the second … data group”, are arranged according to the viewed content history, i.e., “the first selected … data group”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gadkari to incorporate the teachings of Arellanes to display the first fabric data group and display the second fabric data group which is arranged according to the first selected fabric data group. Doing so would classify the search result set into a plurality of categories and display the categories in descending order of relevancy to the viewed content history as taught by Arellanes (Abstract; [0073]).
Gadkari and Arellanes do not teach
a search system being a “fabric” searching system, a database being a “fabric” database, a first data group being a first "fabric" data group, a first searching condition being a first "fabric" searching condition, a first selected data group being a first selected "fabric" data group, a second data group being a second "fabric" data group, a second searching condition being a second "fabric" searching condition.
However, these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. All the steps recited in the claim would be performed the same regardless of the data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the teachings of Gadkari and Arellanes to fabric data in a fabric database because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 2,
As discussed in claim 1, Gadkari and Arellanes teach all the limitations therein.
Arellanes further teaches
the fabric searching system of claim 1, wherein
the first selected fabric data group includes a first selected data set having a first fabric feature and a second selected data set having a second fabric feature, the first fabric feature and the second fabric feature are different from each other (Fig. 5A; [0053]-[0061]; specifically [0060]: classify the viewed content history 524 into the generated taxonomy for the search result set as discussed below, wherein the viewed content history corresponds to "the first selected ... data group" and each distinct category in the generated taxonomy corresponds to a first/second selected data set that have features different from each other),
the second fabric data group includes a first fabric data set having the first fabric feature and a second fabric data set having the second fabric feature (Fig. 5A; [0053]-[0061]; specifically [0057]-[0058]: cluster the search result set for the search query into categories to form clusters 1-n 532, wherein the search result set corresponds to "the second ... data group" and each distinct cluster of clusters 1-n 532 corresponds to a first/second data set. Classifying the viewed content history into the same taxonomy generated for the search result set indicates the data sets each have features corresponding to those contained in the viewed content history),
the processor is further configured to compare a first fabric quantity of the first selected data set and a second fabric quantity of the second selected data set, when the first fabric quantity is larger than the second fabric quantity, the processor arranges the first fabric data set in front of the second fabric data set, when the first fabric quantity is smaller than the second fabric quantity, the processor arranges the first fabric data set behind the second fabric data set (Fig. 5A; [0053]-[0061]; specifically [0060]-[0061]: if the viewed content history fits into more than one category, then the clusters may be ranked in descending order of the number of documents from the history that fit into each category to form ranked cluster result set 534. As a further example, consider a viewed content history that includes ten viewed pages where four pages fit into cluster #2, three pages fit into cluster #1, two pages fit into cluster #3, and one page fits into cluster #5. In this example, clustering search engine 530 would rank the clusters as #2, #1, #3, #5, and then the remaining clusters).
With regard to claim 3,
As discussed in claim 2, Gadkari and Arellanes teach all the limitations therein.
Arellanes further teaches
the fabric searching system of claim 2, wherein the first selected fabric data group further includes a third selected data set having a third fabric feature, the third fabric feature is different from the first fabric feature, and is different from the second fabric feature, the second fabric data group further includes a third fabric data set having the third fabric feature, the processor is further configured to compare the first fabric quantity, the second fabric quantity and a third fabric quantity of the third selected data set, when the first fabric quantity is larger than the second fabric quantity and the second fabric quantity is larger than the third fabric quantity, the processor arranges the first fabric data set, the second fabric data set and the third fabric data set in order, and when the first fabric quantity is smaller than the second fabric quantity and the second fabric quantity is smaller than the third fabric quantity, the processor arranges the third fabric data set, the second fabric data set and the first fabric data set in order (this limitation merely extends what’s recited in claim 2 to a third data set having a third feature. Since Fig. 5A; [0053]-[0061] teach a plurality of clusters, 3 or more, with each having a distinct feature, this limitation is taught in the same way as explained above in claim 2).
With regard to claim 4,
As discussed in claim 3, Gadkari and Arellanes teach all the limitations therein.
Arellanes further teaches
the fabric searching system of claim 3, wherein the first selected fabric data group further includes a fourth selected data set having a fourth fabric feature and a fifth selected data set having a fifth fabric feature, the fourth fabric feature and the fifth fabric feature are different from each other, the first fabric data set includes a first subset having the fourth fabric feature and a second subset having the fifth fabric feature, the processor is further configured to compare a fourth fabric quantity of the fourth selected data set and a fifth fabric quantity of the fifth selected data set, when the fourth fabric quantity is larger than the fifth fabric quantity, the processor arranges the first subset in front of the second subset, when the fourth fabric quantity is smaller than the fifth fabric quantity, the processor arranges the first subset behind the second subset (this limitation merely applies what’s recited in claim 2 to a sub-category that is similarly taught by Fig. 5A; [0053]-[0061] as explained above in claim 2).
With regard to claim 5,
As discussed in claim 4, Gadkari and Arellanes teach all the limitations therein.
Arellanes further teaches
the fabric searching system of claim 4, wherein the second fabric data set includes a third subset having the fourth fabric feature and a fourth subset having the fifth fabric feature, when the fourth fabric quantity is larger than the fifth fabric quantity, the processor arranges the third subset in front of the fourth subset, when the fourth fabric quantity is larger than the fifth fabric quantity, the processor arranges the third subset behind the fourth subset (aside from the indefiniteness as discussed above, this limitation merely applies what’s recited in claim 2 to another sub-category that is similarly taught by Fig. 5A; [0053]-[0061] as explained above in claim 2).
With regard to claim 6,
As discussed in claim 4, Gadkari and Arellanes teach all the limitations therein.
Gadkari and Arellanes do not teach
the fabric searching system of claim 4, wherein the first fabric feature, the second fabric feature and the third fabric feature correspond to fabric texture characteristic data and the fourth fabric feature and the fifth fabric feature correspond to fabric application data, or the first fabric feature, the second fabric feature and the third fabric feature correspond to the fabric application data and the fourth fabric feature and the fifth fabric feature correspond to fabric specification data, or the first fabric feature, the second fabric feature and the third fabric feature correspond to the fabric specification data and the fourth fabric feature and the fifth fabric feature correspond to fabric touch characteristic data, or the first fabric feature, the second fabric feature and the third fabric feature correspond to the fabric touch characteristic data and the fourth fabric feature and the fifth fabric feature correspond to fabric color image data, or the first fabric feature, the second fabric feature and the third fabric feature correspond to the fabric color image data and the fourth fabric feature and the fifth fabric feature correspond to fabric supplier data.
However, these differences are only found in the nonfunctional descriptive material and are not functionally involved in the steps recited. All the steps recited in the claim would be performed the same regardless of the data. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply the teachings of Gadkari and Arellanes to the specific fabric related data because such data does not functionally relate to the steps in the method claimed and because the data does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 7,
As discussed in claim 2, Gadkari and Arellanes teach all the limitations therein.
Arellanes further teaches
the fabric searching system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to store a second selected fabric data group in the second fabric data group into the user database according to the user information, after the second selected fabric data group is stored into the user database, the processor is further configured to select, in the fabric database, a third fabric data group conformed to a third fabric searching condition, and arrange the third fabric data group according to the first selected fabric data group and the second selected fabric data group, and the display is further configured to display the third fabric data group which is arranged according to the first selected fabric data group and the second selected fabric data group (Fig. 5A; [0053]-[0054]: the currently viewed page is considered part of the viewed content history, which means the user’s choices on the currently viewed page will be added to the viewed content history to be used to rank subsequent search queries, wherein the currently viewed page reads on “a second selected … data group” and the subsequent search query reads on “a third … data group”. The teachings as explained in claim 2 similarly apply in this scenario).
With regard to claim 8,
As discussed in claim 7, Gadkari and Arellanes teach all the limitations therein.
Arellanes further teaches
the fabric searching system of claim 7, wherein the second selected fabric data group includes a sixth selected data set having the first fabric feature and a seventh selected data set having the second fabric feature, the third fabric data group includes a fourth fabric data set having the first fabric feature and a fifth fabric data set having the second fabric feature, the processor is further configured to sum a sixth fabric quantity of the sixth selected data set and the first fabric quantity to generate a first total fabric quantity, the processor is further configured to sum a seventh fabric quantity of the seventh selected data set and the second fabric quantity to generate a second total fabric quantity, the processor is further configured to compare the first total fabric quantity and the second total fabric quantity, when the first total fabric quantity is larger than the second total fabric quantity, the processor arranges the fourth fabric data set in front of the fifth fabric data set, and when the first total fabric quantity is smaller than the second total fabric quantity, the processor arranges the fourth fabric data set behind the fifth fabric data set (Fig. 5A; [0053]-[0054]: the continuous accumulation of the viewed content history and the clustering that follows as explained in claim 2 groups all user selections having the same features into the same cluster, the quantity of which will be used to rank subsequent search queries, hence, the “sum”).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gadkari (US 20060206460 A1), in view of Arellanes et al. (US 20070239682 A1), and in further view of Ishiguro et al. (US 20060074860 A1).
With regard to claim 9,
As discussed in claim 1, Gadkari and Arellanes teach all the limitations therein.
Gadkari and Arellanes do not teach
the fabric searching system of claim 1, wherein the display is further configured to display a picture, and the picture includes a first image, a second image and a third image different from each other, in response to an user identity signal corresponding to the first image, the processor controls the display to display a first search condition picture, in response to the user identity signal corresponding to the second image, the processor controls the display to display a second search condition picture, in response to the user identity signal corresponding to the third image, the processor controls the display to display a third search condition picture, the first search condition picture includes a first condition control image, the second search condition picture includes the first condition control image and a second condition control image, the third search condition picture includes the first condition control image, the second condition control image and a third condition control image, the first condition control image, the second condition control image and the third condition control image correspond to a first condition, a second condition and a third condition in the first fabric searching condition, respectively, and the first condition, the second condition and the third condition are different from each other.
Ishiguro teaches
the fabric searching system of claim 1, wherein the display is further configured to display a picture, and the picture includes a first image, a second image and a third image different from each other, in response to an user identity signal corresponding to the first image, the processor controls the display to display a first search condition picture, in response to the user identity signal corresponding to the second image, the processor controls the display to display a second search condition picture, in response to the user identity signal corresponding to the third image, the processor controls the display to display a third search condition picture, the first search condition picture includes a first condition control image, the second search condition picture includes the first condition control image and a second condition control image, the third search condition picture includes the first condition control image, the second condition control image and a third condition control image, the first condition control image, the second condition control image and the third condition control image correspond to a first condition, a second condition and a third condition in the first fabric searching condition, respectively, and the first condition, the second condition and the third condition are different from each other ([0027]: the field information holding unit holds pieces of the field information each corresponding to a different user ID, an ID accepting unit accepts a user ID inputted by the user before starting a database search, and the field display unit displays the data-entry fields indicated by one of the pieces of the field information that corresponds to the accepted user ID. Fig. 12; [0102]; [0104]: when the authentication has been successful, the field display unit 43 displays data-entry fields 202 that corresponds to the accepted user ID, wherein different sets of search conditions are displayed based on user identities and Fig. 12 shows such a user interface with user-specific data-entry fields, i.e., search condition, displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gadkari and Arellanes to incorporate the teachings of Ishiguro to display a picture, and the picture includes a first image, a second image and a third image different from each other, in response to an user identity signal corresponding to the first image, the processor controls the display to display a first search condition picture, in response to the user identity signal corresponding to the second image, the processor controls the display to display a second search condition picture, in response to the user identity signal corresponding to the third image, the processor controls the display to display a third search condition picture, the first search condition picture includes a first condition control image, the second search condition picture includes the first condition control image and a second condition control image, the third search condition picture includes the first condition control image, the second condition control image and a third condition control image, the first condition control image, the second condition control image and the third condition control image correspond to a first condition, a second condition and a third condition in the first fabric searching condition, respectively, and the first condition, the second condition and the third condition are different from each other. Doing so would hide any of the plurality of data-entry fields unrelated to the user. This prevents the searching operations from becoming complicated and troublesome even when the number of search categories is large as taught by Ishiguro (Abstract).
With regard to claim 10,
As discussed in claim 9, Gadkari and Arellanes and Ishiguro teach all the limitations therein.
Ishiguro further teaches
the fabric searching system of claim 9, wherein the first condition, the second condition and the third condition correspond to fabric texture characteristic data, fabric application data and fabric specification data, respectively, the second search condition picture does not include the third condition control image, and the first search condition picture does not include the third condition control image and the second condition control image ([0027]: the field information holding unit holds pieces of the field information each corresponding to a different user ID, an ID accepting unit accepts a user ID inputted by the user before starting a database search, and the field display unit displays the data-entry fields indicated by one of the pieces of the field information that corresponds to the accepted user ID, wherein the user-specific search conditions being different from each other teaches the recited distinct search condition pictures. Please refer to claim 1 for the fabric-specific data elements).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. 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.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights