DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 9/12/2024, in which claims 1-16 are currently pending. The Application is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2023/056345, International Filing Date: 03/13/2023, and claims foreign priority to 22305434.7, filed 04/01/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 9/12/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
5- 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.
6- 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:
Calculation module in claims 1-9, 16,
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 § 101
7- 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.
8- Claims 1-7 and 10-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Legal Framework
An invention is patent eligible if it claims a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, our inquiry focuses on the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now common place that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”’ Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The Office recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”), 84 Fed. Reg. 50. Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See generally Memorandum.
Analysis
Applying the guidance set forth in the Memorandum, it is concludes that claims 1-7 and 10-16 do not recite patent-eligible subject matter.
(STEP 1): Claim 1 and 10 are directed to a calculation module and a computer implemented method for determining a localization of an optical device, which appear to be, each, one of the eligible four statutory categories.
Independent Claims 1 and 10 appear still to be ineligible under 101, since:
(STEP 2A – Prong 1) The claims are directed to a mere determination methods of a localization of a device involving mere computational processes, i.e. abstract idea. In particular, the claims consist of:
receiving data representing a power density of at least two spectral components of light received by the spectrophotometer, and to determine the localization using the power density of the at least two spectral components; which can be considered as mere computational steps of a data processing code or program.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed subject matter is directed to calculating data and using the calculation to determine a localization status of an optical object to which the spectral data correspond to.
Accordingly, applying the guidance in the Memorandum, we conclude that claims 1 and 10 each recite a mental process, and thus recite abstract ideas.
(Step 2A- Prong Two)
Having determined that claim recites the abstract concept of a mental design process, we next look to determine whether the claims recite “additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.” MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h); Memorandum, 84 F.3d at 53—54. Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53—54; see also id. at 55 (setting forth exemplary considerations indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application).
The step of receiving the data in the claims only adds a step of passively obtaining the data, without any specific physical measurement of the data, since the spectrophotometer is not claimed to be part of the module of claim 1, or that it positively measures the data in claim 10. This amounts to nothing more than an insignificant extrasolution activity of data gathering required to perform the abstract idea.
(STEP 2B)
Because we determine that claims 1 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea and does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, we look to whether the claim provides an inventive concept, i.e., adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Here, we find none, since the receiving of the spectral data appears as a mere data transfer between computer hard drives, and the determination of the localization appears to be the mere calculation of the position of the optical device.
Regarding the dependent claims:
Claims 2-7, 16 and 11-15 appear to pertain to data specifics, such as spectral ranges, data manipulation, calculation and comparisons with predetermined data thresholds.
Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 10-16, when taken as a whole, are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
9- The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
10- Claims 1, 4-6, 8-10, 13-14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hung et al. (PGPUB No. 2020/0022239, cited by Applicants).
As to claims 1, 10, Hung teaches a calculation module, and its method of use (Figs. 1-10 and Abstract; module 22/16) for determining a localization of an optical device (¶ 45, Fig. 5 Step 54), the calculation module being configured: to receive, from a spectrophotometer (30) of the optical device (10), data representing a power density of at least two spectral components of light received by the spectrophotometer (¶ 21-24, 32-33), and to determine the localization using the power density of the at least two spectral components (¶ 45, Fig. 5 Step 54; determining the localization of the device in an environment and whether it is outdoors, and/or indoors).
(claim 4/13, 5) wherein the data is first data, and the calculation module is configured: to receive, from a light sensor of the optical device, second data representing a temporal evolution of an amount of the light received by the light sensor, to determine a Fourier transform of the second data, to determine a frequency associated with at least one peak in the Fourier transform, and to determine the localization also using the frequency (Figs. 2-4, ¶ 33-43; using a flicker sensor 26, i.e. temporal variation, with a numerical Fourier Transform to extract the frequency component peaks to determine the localization of the device); (claim 5) wherein the calculation module being configured to compare the frequency with a predetermined range (Fig. 3, ¶ 33-43).
(claims 6/14) wherein the calculation module is configured: to detect a modification of an amount of the light received by the light sensor, and when the modification is detected the calculation module is also configured: to turn on the spectrophotometer (Figs. 3-4, ¶ 33-43, 41-46; detecting the flickering steps 50, 52 in Fig. 5, then using step 54 of color measurement. Consider also Fig. 9 and ¶ 55-58), and to determine the localization using the first data received from the spectrophotometer and the second data received from the light sensor (See rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 8, Hung teaches an eyewear (Figs. 1-10 and Abstract; ¶ 15 system integrated to eyeglasses), comprising: a spectrophotometer (30); and a calculation module configured to determine a localization of the eyewear, the calculation module being configured: to receive, from the spectrophotometer, data representing a power density of at least two spectral components of light received by the spectrophotometer, and to determine the localization using the power density of the at least two spectral components (see rejection of claim 1).
As to claim 9, Hung teaches a system comprising: eyewear and a portable device (Figs. 1-10 and Abstract; ¶ 15, 25 system integrated to eyeglasses 10 and portable or handheld electronic equipment 22 that can be handheld or portable and wirelessly connected to device 10), the eyewear comprising a spectrophotometer, the portable device comprising a calculation module for determining configured to determine a localization of the eyewear, the calculation module being configured: to receive, from the spectrophotometer, data representing a power density of at least two spectral components of light received by the spectrophotometer, and to determine the localization using the power density of the at least two spectral components (see rejection of claims 1 and 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11- 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
12- Claims 2-3, 11-12, 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung in view of Van Dalen et al. (PGPUB No. 2010/0187406, cited by Applicants)
As to claim 2/11, Hung teaches the calculation module according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 10.
Hung does not teach expressly wherein the calculation module being configured to determine the localization also by determining a ratio of a power density of a first of the at least two spectral components and a power density of a second of the at least two spectral components and by comparing the ratio with a threshold, even though warm and cold spectra are considered and compared for the localization (¶ 30, 45), and a ratio is a known species of numerical tools used for comparison among a limited genus of mathematical tools. A PHOSITA would find it obvious to use a ratio between the warm and cold spectra and to use a threshold, such as in Hung’s method in ¶ 57-58. Moreover, Van Dalen, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an indoor/outdoor detection (Abstract, Figs. 1-5), wherein a ratio 430 of power densities 410/420 (Figs. 4-5) and a comparison with a threshold is considered (Claim 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Hung in view of Van Dalen’s suggestions so that the calculation module being configured to determine the localization also by determining a ratio of a power density of a first of the at least two spectral components and a power density of a second of the at least two spectral components and by comparing the ratio with a threshold, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the determination of the outdoor/indoor localization of the device.
As to claim 3/12, 16, the combination of Hung and Van Dalen teaches the calculation module according to claim 2 and the method according to claim 11.
Moreover, Hung sugggests wherein a first of the at least two spectral components being between 400 nm and 535 nm, a second of the at least two spectral components being between 536 nm and 704 nm (¶30 for ex.; where a visible spectrum measurement and an infrared spectrum measurement are considered. The claimed ranges overlap, respectively, with the visible and infrared ranges of Hunh and are thusly obviated; since In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Hung does not teach expressly the threshold being between 0.5 and 0.7, and the localization is outdoors when the ratio is above the threshold, and the localization is indoors when the ratio is below the threshold; (claim 16) the threshold is between 0.55 and 0.65, and the localization is outdoors when the ratio is above the threshold, and the localization is indoors when the ratio is below the threshold.
However, Van Dalen, which teaches, Figs. 3-4, ¶ 41-42 and claim 12, a visible spectral range (410) and an infrared spectral range (420) being measured, for which a ratio (430) being considered and that ranges between 1 and 2.5. One PHOSITA could have arbitrarily considered the inverse of Van Dalen ratio, which ranges between 1 and 0.4 that overlap with the claimed ratio thresholds (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). This would obviate the claimed ratio ranges and thresholds, similarly to the thresholds considered in Fig. 5, in determining the localization of the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Hung in view of Van Dalen’s suggestions so that the threshold being between 0.5 and 0.7, and the localization is outdoors when the ratio is above the threshold, and the localization is indoors when the ratio is below the threshold; or the threshold is between 0.55 and 0.65, and the localization is outdoors when the ratio is above the threshold, and the localization is indoors when the ratio is below the threshold, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the determination of the outdoor/indoor localization of the device.
13- Claims 7, 15 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung in view of Bakaraju et al. (WO 2018/184072, cited by Applicants)
As to claim 7/15, Hung teaches the calculation module according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 10.
Hung does not teach expressly wherein the calculation module is configured to determine the localization using also a model trained with a set of model data comprising the power density of the at least two spectral components of the light associated with a localization.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bakaraju teaches systems/devices and methods for improving of ocular conditions (Abstract, Figs. 1-28), wherein training modes are used to enable self0learning and teaching by algorithms to detect spectral fingerprints of spectrum-based localization of the most common indoor vs. outdoor settings (¶ 113),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Hung in view of Bakaraju’s suggestions so that the calculation module is configured to determine the localization using also a model trained with a set of model data comprising the power density of the at least two spectral components of the light associated with a localization, with the advantage, taught by Bakaraju, of effectively optimizing the identification matching of the localization settings (¶ 113).
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571-272-2287. 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.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877