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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1, 2, 3 (part), 4-8) and self-incompatibility gene Ss11 in the reply filed on April 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant primarily argues that it Groups I-III “share a single core inventive concept and form single technical chain”, and it would not result in undue search burden if claims of Groups I-III are examined together (response, pages 1-2).
Applicant’s arguments are carefully considered but are deemed to be unpersusaive.
It is important to note that restriction mailed in the papers of January 27, 2026 is under 35 U.S.C. 121 and not under 35 U.S.C. 372. Since it is not a 371 application (national stage application), 37 CFR 1.499 and PCT Rule 13.2 regarding unity of invention is not applicable here.
With regard to restriction between Group I and Group II, it is important to note that Inventions of Group I and Group II are related as process of making and product made. The Self-incompatible diploid line of Group II can be used in a materially different process of using that product, such as a hybrid seed production using method steps of plant tissue culture/ protoplast culture and different plant breeding techniques. Furthermore, invention of Group II requires additional alleles not required by the invention of Group I (see page 3 of the restriction mailed February 18, 2026). With regard to restriction between Group I and Group III, it is maintained that invention of Group III requires a male parent for hybrid seed production which is a plant of self-incompatible dihaploid potato line, whereas there is no such requirement for the inventions of Group I (see page 3 of the restriction mailed February 18, 2026) and search of all the groups together are not coextensive for the reasons of record.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
It may be noted that upon further consideration the restriction between Ss11 gene and SIi gene is withdrawn.
Applicants are advised that if any claims including all the limitations of an allowable claim examined here are presented in a continuation or divisional application, such claims may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Accordingly, Claims 1-8 are examined on merits in this Office action. This restriction is made FINAL.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
2. Initialed and dated copies of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 filed January 1, 2025 and September 5, 2025 is attached to the instant Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. China 202210258745.2, filed March 16, 2022 has been received
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
4. The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. See for example, line 4 of paragraph [0013] at page 3. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Appropriate action/corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
5. Claims 1, 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Federal Circuit has recently clarified the application of the written description requirement. The court stated that a written description of an invention "requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name, of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials." University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568; 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The court also concluded that "naming a type of material generally known to exist, in the absence of knowledge as to what that material consists of, is not a description of that material." Id. Further, the court held that to adequately describe a claimed genus, Patent Owner must describe a representative number of the species of the claimed genus, and that one of skill in the art should be able to "visualize or recognize the identity of the members of the genus." Id.
Finally, the court held:
A description of a genus of cDNAs may be achieved by means of a recitation of a representative number of cDNAs, defined by nucleotide sequence, falling within the scope of the genus or a recitation of structural features common to members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus. Id.
See also MPEP Section 2163, page 174 of Chapter 2100 of the August 2005 version, column 1, bottom paragraph, where it is taught that
[T]he claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described where an invention is described solely in terms of a method of its making coupled with its function and there is no described or art-recognized correlation or relationship between the structure of the invention and its function. A biomolecule sequence described only by a functional characteristic, without any known or disclosed correlation between that function and the structure of the sequence, normally is not a sufficient identifying characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence.
See also Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 18 USPQ 2d 1016 at 1021, (Fed. Cir. 1991) where it is taught that a gene is not reduced to practice until the inventor can define it by "its physical or chemical properties" (e.g. a DNA sequence).
The claims are directed to a method for producing a self-incompatible dihaploid potato line and recite, inter alia: “selecting a haploid mutant which does not comprise any self-compatible gene”
The limitation “any self-compatible gene” encompasses a broad genus of genes that confer self-compatibility in potato. Thus, the claims are not limited to any particular self-compatibility gene, but instead encompass all genes, whether presently known or unknown, that are capable of conferring self-compatibility.
The specification, however only describes two self-compatibility genes, namely, Ss11 located on chromosome 1 and SIi gene located on chromosome 6. However, the specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors had possession of the full scope of the claimed genus, i.e., all genes that confer self-compatibility. See Examples 1-2 at pages 9-11 of the specification.
The specification discloses, at most, a limited number of specific genes associated with self-compatibility. Such disclosure does not constitute a representative number of species sufficient to support a claim encompassing all self-compatible genes. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.
The specification does not provide a description of structural features, sequence homology, conserved domains, or other identifying characteristics common to the claimed genus of “self-compatible genes.” Nor does the specification define the genus in terms of any unifying structural or molecular properties that would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize members of the genus.
The term “self-compatible gene” is defined solely by the function of conferring self-compatibility. The specification does not provide sufficient guidance to identify all genes that perform this function, nor does it disclose a correlation between structure and function that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether a given gene falls within the claimed genus.
The claims encompass genes beyond those specifically disclosed, including genes not yet identified or characterized at the time of filing. The specification does not demonstrate that the inventors were in possession of such undisclosed species.
There is no description of the structure required for the recited function, and no description of the necessary and sufficient elements of functional activity of diverse structures encompassed by Applicant’s broadly claimed genus is thus unknown.
One of skill in the art would not recognize that Applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features of the genus in view of the disclosed species. Since the disclosure fails to describe the common attributes that identify members of the genus, and because the genus is highly variant, Ss11 gene or SIi genes is insufficient to describe the claimed genus.
Accordingly, there is lack of adequate description to inform a skilled artisan that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. See Written Description guidelines published Federal Register/Vol.66, No. 4/Friday, January 5, 2001/Notices; p. 1099-1111.
Given the claim breadth and lack of guidance as discussed above, the specification does not provide written description of the genus broadly claimed. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would not have recognized Applicants to have been in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
6. Claims 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Hermsen et al. (Euphytica 22:244–259, 1973) in view of Hosaka et al. (Euphytica 99:191–197, 1998), and further in view of Van Breukelen et al. (Euphytica 26:263–271 1977) and Gebhardt et a. (Theor. Appl. Genet. 83:49–57 1991).
Hermsen et al. teach a method for producing haploid potato plants by crossing diploid Solanum tuberosum with haploid inducer lines of Solanum phureja. Hermsen et al. further teach screening and identifying maternal haploids using a seed appearance marker, specifically the embryo-spot marker, to distinguish hybrids from true haploids. Thus, Hermsen et al. teach (i) haploid-inducing a diploid potato using a haploid induction line; and (ii) screening haploid progeny using a seed appearance marker. See in particular, pages 245, 246, 247, 248; Figures 1-4, Scheme 1 at page 248, Table 1 at page 249, Tables 2-7 at pages 250-258.
However, Hermsen et al. do not expressly teach that the diploid parent carries heterozygous self-compatibility genes; and selecting haploids lacking a self-compatibility gene; or performing chromosome doubling to obtain a self-incompatible dihaploid line.
Hosaka et al. teach that self-compatibility in diploid potato is controlled by a dominant S-locus inhibitor (Sli) gene. The reference demonstrate that diploid plants lacking the dominant Sli allele are self-incompatible. The trait segregates according to Mendelian inheritance. Thus, Hosaka et al. teach: (i) the genetic basis for self-compatibility; (ii) how absence of Sli confers self-incompatibility; and (iii) that segregating haploids can be selected based on genotype. See in particular, summary at page 191; Tables 1-4, results & discussion at pages 193-196.
Van Breukelen et al. teach production of parthenogenetic monoploid (2n = x = 12) potato plants; chromosome doubling of monoploids to produce homozygous diploid plants; and restoration of fertility after chromosome doubling. Thus, Van Breukelen et al. teach (i) chromosome doubling of potato haploids; and (ii) generation of stable, fertile dihaploid diploid lines. See in particular, summary, Tables 1-5, Figures 1-3, results and discussion at pages 265-270.
Gebhardt et al. teach (i) construction of RFLP linkage maps in potato (ii) identification of molecular markers closely linked to specific loci, and (iii) use of molecular markers to track and select alleles in breeding programs. Thus, MAS (Marker-Assisted Selection) was routine in potato breeding by 1991. Also see in particular, summary at page 49, Figures 1-2, Tables 1-2; results and discussion at pages 50-56.
Given (i) Hermsen et al. provide the method to generate haploids, (ii) Hosaka et al. identify the Sli locus that segregates in haploids, giving a target for selection, (iii) Gebhardt et al. demonstrate that MAS was a known, routine method to select specific alleles, including Sli; and (iv) Van Breukelen et al. teach restoring fertility in haploids, it would have been obvious and within the scope of an ordinary skill in the art prior to earliest filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have combined these teachings by merely applying known methods to a predictable genetic trait. The combination is logical: one would use haploid induction to generate progeny, select Sli-negative plants using markers, and double chromosomes to obtain fertile dihaploids. This aligns with the routine goals of potato breeding: producing homozygous, self-incompatible diploid lines. The motivation to do so comes from longstanding objectives in potato breeding: generating homozygous diploid lines with defined reproductive traits for hybrid breeding. Haploid induction is a standard method to fix alleles; MAS is routine to select desired genotypes; chromosome doubling is standard to restore fertility. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to earliest filing date of the instantly claimed invention, would have recognized that applying these known steps sequentially would have predictably yielded a self-incompatible dihaploid line. Dependent claims recite predictable variations of Claim 1: fertility (Claim 2), specific alleles (Claim 3), selection methods (Claims 4–6), and chromosome doubling techniques (Claims 7–8). Each is taught or rendered obvious by the same combination and reasoning applied to Claim 1.
Under KSR v. Teleflex, combining familiar elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Here: Each reference contributes a well-known technique: haploid induction (Hermsen et al.), allele selection (Hosaka et al. and Gebhardt et al.), and chromosome doubling (Van Breukelen et al.). The outcome — a self-incompatible, fertile dihaploid — is predictable, arising from routine Mendelian segregation and conventional breeding methods. No unexpected properties or technical surprises are present; each step is an obvious application of existing knowledge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine these references to achieve the claimed method.
7. Claims 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Eijlander (Mechanisms of self-incompatibility and unilateral incompatibility in diploid potato (Solanum tuberosum L., Ph. D. thesis, pages 1-113, Published January 1, 1998, Wageningen Agricultural University AJ, Wageningen, NL) in view of Hosaka et al. (Euphytica 99:191–197, 1998), and further in view of Van Breukelen et al. (Euphytica 26:263–271 1977) and Gebhardt et a. (Theor. Appl. Genet. 83:49–57 1991).
Eijlander teaches mechanisms of self-incompatibility and self-compatibility in diploid potato and describes genetic control and segregation of self-compatibility factors. Eijlander et al. specifically teach genetic basis of self-compatibility/incompatibility and segregation behavior. Eijlander further teaches selection and breeding approaches to obtain lines lacking self-compatibility determinants. Thus, Eijlander teaches selecting potato lines lacking self-compatibility genes and breeding strategies for isolating such genotypes. See in particular, page 16, paragraph 3; page 39, paragraph 4; chapters 2 and 5.
Eijlander does not explicitly teach haploid induction followed by screening haploid mutants; or chromosome doubling of selected haploid mutants to produce dihaploid lines.
Hosaka et al. teach that self-compatibility in diploid potato is controlled by a dominant S-locus inhibitor (Sli) gene. The reference demonstrate that diploid plants lacking the dominant Sli allele are self-incompatible. The trait segregates according to Mendelian inheritance. Thus, Hosaka et al. teach: (i) the genetic basis for self-compatibility; (ii) how absence of Sli confers self-incompatibility; and (iii) that segregating haploids can be selected based on genotype. See in particular, summary at page 191; Tables 1-4, results & discussion at pages 193-196.
Van Breukelen et al. teach production of parthenogenetic monoploid (2n = x = 12) potato plants; chromosome doubling of monoploids to produce homozygous diploid plants; and restoration of fertility after chromosome doubling. Thus, Van Breukelen et al. teach (i) chromosome doubling of potato haploids; and (ii) generation of stable, fertile dihaploid diploid lines. See in particular, summary, Tables 1-5, Figures 1-3, results and discussion at pages 265-270.
Gebhardt et al. teach (i) construction of RFLP linkage maps in potato (ii) identification of molecular markers closely linked to specific loci, and (iii) use of molecular markers to track and select alleles in breeding programs. Thus, MAS (Marker-Assisted Selection) was routine in potato breeding by 1991. Also see in particular, summary at page 49, Figures 1-2, Tables 1-2; results and discussion at pages 50-56.
Given (i) Eijlander provide the method to generate haploids, (ii) Hosaka et al. identify the Sli locus that segregates in haploids, giving a target for selection, (iii) Gebhardt et al. demonstrate that MAS was a known, routine method to select specific alleles, including Sli; and (iv) Van Breukelen et al. teach restoring fertility in haploids, it would have been obvious and within the scope of an ordinary skill in the art prior to earliest filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have combined these teachings by merely applying known methods to a predictable genetic trait. The combination is logical: one would use haploid induction to generate progeny, select Sli-negative plants using markers, and double chromosomes to obtain fertile dihaploids. This aligns with the routine goals of potato breeding: producing homozygous, self-incompatible diploid lines. The motivation to do so comes from longstanding objectives in potato breeding: generating homozygous diploid lines with defined reproductive traits for hybrid breeding. Haploid induction is a standard method to fix alleles; MAS is routine to select desired genotypes; chromosome doubling is standard to restore fertility. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying these known steps sequentially would predictably yield a self-incompatible dihaploid line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to earliest filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have combined Eijlander’s teaching of selecting lines lacking self-compatibility genes with haploid production and selection methods of Hosaka et al., and chromosome doubling methods of Van Breukelen et al., because these were known to be standard sequential steps in potato breeding for fixation of desired alleles and rapid generation of homozygous or genetically fixed lines. Dependent claims recite predictable variations of Claim 1: fertility (Claim 2), specific alleles (Claim 3), selection methods (Claims 4–6), and chromosome doubling techniques (Claims 7–8). Each is taught or rendered obvious by the same combination and reasoning applied to Claim 1.
Under KSR v. Teleflex, combining familiar elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. Here: Each reference contributes a well-known technique: haploid induction (Eijlander), allele selection (Hosaka et al. and Gebhardt et al.), and chromosome doubling (Van Breukelen et al.). The outcome — a self-incompatible, fertile dihaploid — is predictable, arising from routine Mendelian segregation and conventional breeding methods. No unexpected properties or technical surprises are present; each step is an obvious application of existing knowledge.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine these references to achieve the claimed method.
8. Claims 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (Cell, 184:3873-3883, July 22, 2021) in view of Hermsen et al. (Euphytica, 22:244–259 1973); Hutten et al. (Euphytica, 72:61–64, 1994); Liu et al. (Euphytica 70:113–126, 1993); Amundson et al. (Genetics 214:369-380, 2020); and De Maine et al. (Annals of Applied Biology, 134:125–130, 1999).
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. In light of this, Zhang et al. citation would be treated as being published more than one year from the filing date of this application.
Zhang et al. teach a diploid hybrid potato breeding system aimed at generating highly homozygous, fertile parental lines (see Highlights; Fig. 1; Results; Discussion). The reference emphasizes allele selection and fixation, including self-compatibility loci such as Sli (Results) and Ss11 (Discussion), and describes breeding decisions based on allele content, homozygosity, segregation distortion, and parental complementarity (see Results; Figs. 1–6; Table 1). Zhang et al., thus provides the central breeding objective: achieving genetic uniformity through fixation or elimination of alleles in diploid potato lines.
Zhang et al., however, do not expressly teach (i) use of haploid inducer lines, (ii) screening of induced haploids using markers or ploidy analysis, or (iii) chromosome doubling of selected haploids.
Hermsen et al. teach haploid induction in potato via crossing diploid Solanum tuberosum with haploid inducer lines of Solanum phureja, and identification of maternal haploids using a seed appearance marker (embryo spot) (see pp. 245–248; Figs. 1-4; Scheme 1 at p. 248; Tables 1–7 at pp. 249-258).
Hutten et al. teach that dihaploid production using known inducer pollinators is a standard first step in diploid potato breeding and demonstrate the relative efficiency of such inducers (see Summary; Materials and Methods, pp. 61–62; Results and Discussion, pp. 62–63; Tables 1-3).
Liu et al. teach identification of potato haploids using molecular or biochemical markers (see Summary; pp. 121–125; Tables 1–4; Figs. 1-2).
Amundson et al. teach that haploid inducer pollination yields maternal dihaploids and that flow cytometry can be used to identify clean dihaploids (see Abstract; Materials and Methods; Results and Discussion, pp. 371-377; Figs. 1-4).
De Maine et al. teach chromosome doubling of potato dihaploids using colchicine and callus-based regeneration to restore diploidy and fertility (see Summary; Materials and Methods; Results and Discussion, pp. 126-129; Tables 1-4; Figs. 1-3).
Collectively, the secondary references provide well-established techniques for (i) haploid induction (Hermsen et al.; Hutten et al.), (ii) identification and selection of haploids (Hermsen et al., Liu et al., Amundson et al.), and (iii) chromosome doubling (De Maine et al.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to apply these known techniques to the Zhang et al. system in order to more efficiently achieve the stated objective of homozygous diploid lines. Haploid induction followed by chromosome doubling was a recognized approach in potato breeding for rapidly fixing alleles as discussed above.
Under KSR v. Teleflex Inc., combining familiar elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. Here, Zhang provides the motivation (generation of uniform, homozygous diploid lines), while the cited references supply the specific tools for achieving that goal: Hermsen et al. and Hutten et al. provide haploid induction techniques; Hermsen et al., Liu et al., and Amundson et al. provide methods for identifying and selecting haploids (via embryo-spot markers, molecular/biochemical markers, and flow cytometry, respectively); and De Maine et al. provide chromosome doubling techniques to restore diploidy and fertility. The combination of these references would have predictably resulted in fixed diploid lines with desired allele compositions.
The combination also would have carried a reasonable expectation of success. The cited references demonstrate that haploid induction, haploid identification, and chromosome doubling were each well-established and routinely applied in potato breeding. The claimed method therefore involves selecting from a finite set of known techniques to achieve a known objective.
Further, once Zhang teaches tracking and selecting alleles such as self-compatibility loci, selecting a haploid segregant lacking a particular allele represents routine genotype selection. The claimed method, when considered as a whole, reflects the application of conventional breeding techniques to obtain an expected allelic outcome.
Accordingly, the claimed invention represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to achieve a known goal, and is therefore unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Conclusion
9. Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vinod Kumar whose telephone number is (571) 272-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on 8.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amjad A. Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-7058 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).
/VINOD KUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights