DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s communication of 7/17/25, Applicant, on 1/20/2026, amended claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 21-24, and 29-30. Claims 1-30 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-30 regarding abstract ideas are still applied in light of Applicant’s arguments.
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 1-30 are 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. Here, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, Examiner finds that the Applicant invented a method and system for gathering data relating to users of an interface system for scheduling events and providing communications regarding changes in the scheduling of the events. Examiner formulates an abstract idea analysis, following the framework described in the MPEP as follows:
Step 1: The claims are directed to a statutory category, namely a "method" (claim 29) and "system" (claims 1-28 and 30).
Step 2A - Prong 1: The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, regarding claim 1:
obtain… participant data …, wherein the participant data includes data regarding a plurality of riders, a plurality of horses, a plurality of trainers, a plurality of owners, a plurality of coaches, a plurality of guardians, and/or a plurality of grooms, with each being with associated with one or more of the plurality of riders;
obtain … event configuration data, wherein the event configuration data includes data regarding a plurality of events, a plurality of different locations, and a time-location mapping of events to locations at specific blocks of time;
obtain … event-participant data, wherein the event-participant data includes data regarding a selection of events, the rider for the events, the horse for the events, and the trainer for the events;
…
order, via user interactions, the populated participant assignments in an order;
automatically detect conflicts with a remainder of the plurality of events;
wherein detecting conflicts comprises:
analyze the event state to identify scheduling conflicts for the first event across the plurality of events comparing the participant assignments based on a set of factors including a time slot of each event, a duration of each event, a respective location of each event, and travel time between different locations of the respective plurality of events, and identifying one or more conflicts in one or more of the set of factors for each of the participant assignments;
wherein comparing the participant assignments comprises, for each participant assignment of the participant assignments registered for the first event:
retrieving, from the event state, other event assignments for a same rider, a same horse, or a same trainer associated with the participant assignment across the remainder of the plurality of events;
determining a time slot or an estimated time for the participant assignment based on the duration of the first event and an ordinal position of the participant assignment in the order;
comparing the time slot or the estimated time of the participant assignment against time slots or estimated times of the other event assignments;
determining whether one or more of the conflicts exist by evaluating whether (i) the time slot or the estimated time overlaps with any of the time slots or estimated times of the other event assignments, (ii) a time gap between the time slot or the estimated time and any of the time slots or estimated times of the other event assignments violates a predefined break time requirement, or (iii) the time gap is insufficient for travel between a location of the first event and respective locations of the other event assignments based on stored travel times between the different locations;
update the event state in real-time as changes are made to event schedules or the participant assignments, and re-perform automatically detecting conflicts;
re-order the participant assignments in the orders after updating the event state in real-time and re-performing automatically detecting conflicts;
publish the order for the first event…
in response to the order being published… notify the participants of their place in the order;
…
retrieve orders for all of the plurality of events, wherein the orders, respectively, include ordered lists of participants at specific time slots and a location for a respective event;
…
automatically include conflict indicators for participants that have one or more conflicts;
re-order participants in the orders;
republish the orders to communicate the republished orders to both the one or more participant user devices and the one or more event user devices;
in response to the orders being republished, determine affected participants; and
…
notify the affected participants of their place(s) in the order(s) that have changed, wherein the operations further comprise: automatically generate suggestions for alternative time slots or event assignments to resolve detected conflicts, wherein the suggestions take into account interdependencies between riders, horses, or trainers, and other team members across multiple events and locations
Independent claims 29 and 30 recite substantially similar claim language.
Dependent claims 2-28 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claims 1, 29 and 30 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s) to particular data characterization and/or additional data analyses performed as part of the abstract idea.
The limitations in claims 1-30 above falling well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts, specifically the claims are found to correspond to the category of:
"Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)" as the limitations identified above are directed gathering data relating to users of an interface system for scheduling events and providing communications regarding changes in the scheduling of the events and thus is a method of organizing human activity including at least commercial or business interactions or relations and/or a management of user personal behavior; and/or
"Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)" as the limitations identified above include mere data observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, e.g. gathering data relating to users of an interface system for scheduling events and providing communications regarding changes in the scheduling of the events, which is capable of being performed mentally and/or using pen and paper.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-30 are found to clearly be directed to the abstract idea identified above because the claims, as a whole, fail to integrate the claimed judicial exception into a practical application, specifically the claims recite the additional elements of:
" via participant user interfaces… via event configuration interfaces … via registration user interface… in response to a request to view an event ordering user interface for a first event, generate the event ordering user interface… wherein the event ordering user interface is configured to: populate the participant assignments registered for the first event… in response to a request to view a global event ordering user interface, generate the global event ordering user interface, wherein the global event ordering user interface is configured to: … populate segments of the global event ordering user interface with the orders for all the events… display the suggestions in the global event ordering user interface; and enable user selection of suggested alternatives to update event assignments while maintaining support for riders by the other team members" (claim 1) " wherein the event ordering user interface is further configured to: receive user input to drag and drop participants to reorder the participants; and automatically update the order based on the drag and drop input. " (claim 2), " wherein the event ordering user interface is further configured to: display a visual indicator of potential conflicts after or as a participant is being dragged, and/or prevent dropping a participant into a conflicting time slot" (claim 3), " wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: provide a messaging interface that enables grouping of recipients based on their role in the event; and send targeted messages to the one or more participant user devices of specific groups of participants" (claim 6), “wherein the hierarchical data structure is stored in the database, and wherein the operations further comprise: query the hierarchical data structure to generate views for the event ordering user interface and the global event ordering user interface,” (claim 12) however the aforementioned elements directed to the receiving of user input/selection of data to view via a dashboard and displaying corresponding data via the dashboard merely amount to generic GUI elements of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract idea of gathering data relating to users of an interface system for scheduling events and providing communications regarding changes in the scheduling of the events to a particular field of use/technological environment of a GUI dashboard (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore the GUI dashboard input and display of data fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
" A system comprising: one or more participant user devices; one or more event user devices; and a platform configured to communicate with both the one or more participant user devices and the one or more event user devices, the platform comprising at least one memory configured to store instructions and at least one processor executing the instructions to perform operations, the operations comprising: / A computer-implemented method comprising: / A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:" (claims 1, 29, and 30); “ store the participant data, event-participant data and the event configuration data (collectively, "event state") in the at least one memory such that information about events, different locations, time slots or ordinal positions in orders for events, and participant assignments are associated with each other for specific participants… update the event state in real-time as changes are made to event schedules or the participant assignments, and re-perform automatically detecting conflicts…to communicate the order for the first event to both the one or more participant user devices and the one or more event; in response to the order being published, transmitting a notification to the one or more participant user devices to notify the participants of their place in the order … transmit a notification to the one or more participant user devices of the affected participants” (claims 1, 29, and 30); “wherein the operations further comprise: store the event configuration data in a hierarchical data structure, wherein the hierarchical data structure comprises: a top level representing the plurality of events; a second level representing the plurality of different locations for each event; a third level representing time slots for each location; and a fourth level representing participant slots for each time slot,” (claim 8); “wherein the hierarchical data structure further comprises: a fifth level representing individual participants assigned to each participant slot, wherein the individual participants include riders, horses, coaches, owners, and/or trainers,” (claim 9); “wherein the hierarchical data structure is stored in the database, and wherein the operations further comprise: query the hierarchical data structure to generate views for the event ordering user interface and the global event ordering user interface,” (claim 12) however the aforementioned elements merely amount to generic components of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, furthermore the high-level recitation of gathering data relating to users of an interface system for scheduling events and providing communications regarding changes in the scheduling of the events is at most an attempt to limit the abstract to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.0S(h), e.g.: "For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).") and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPE 2106.05(g)) and thus further fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
Step 2B: Claims 1-30 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to a general purpose computer that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment (MPEP 2106.0S(f)), including merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use of gathering data relating to users of an interface system for scheduling events and providing communications regarding changes in the scheduling of the events, as explained above, and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering or output, (MPEP 2106.0S(g)), as identified above, which is further found under step 2B to be merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser's back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to gathering data relating to users of an interface system for scheduling events and providing communications regarding changes in the scheduling of the events.
Claims 1-30 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of any claim otherwise styled as a machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis
For further authority and guidance, see:
MPEP § 2106
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility
Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1-30 are found to be provisionally allowable over the currently known prior art. The claims would be found to be allowable if they overcame the 35 USC 101 rejections.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of provisionally allowable subject matter:
The following limitations of claim 1,
…
obtain, via participant user interfaces, participant data from a plurality of the one or more participant user devices, wherein the participant data includes data regarding a plurality of riders, a plurality of horses, a plurality of trainers, a plurality of owners, a plurality of coaches, a plurality of guardians, and/or a plurality of grooms, with each being associated with one or more of the plurality of riders;
obtain, via event configuration interfaces, event configuration data from the one or more event user devices, wherein the event configuration data includes data regarding a plurality of events, a plurality of different locations, and a time-location mapping of events to locations at specific blocks of time;
obtain, via registration user interfaces, event-participant data, wherein the event-participant data includes data regarding a selection of events, the rider for the events, the horse for the events, and the trainer for the events;
store the participant data, event-participant data and the event configuration data (collectively, "event state") in the at least one memory such that information about events, different locations, time slots or ordinal positions in orders for events, and participant assignments are associated with each other for specific participants
in response to a request to view an event ordering user interface for a first event, generate the event ordering user interface, wherein the event ordering user interface is configured to:
populate participant assignments registered for the first event in respective time slots associated with the first event;
order, via user interactions, the populated participant assignments in an order based on the time slots;
automatically detect conflicts with a remainder of the plurality of events, wherein detecting conflicts comprises:
analyze the event state to identify scheduling conflicts for the first event across the plurality of events by comparing the participant assignments based on a set of factors including a time slot of each event, a duration of each event, a respective location of each event, and travel time between different locations of the respective plurality of events, and identifying one or more conflicts in one or more of the set of factors for each of the participant assignments
wherein comparing the participant assignments comprises, for each participant assignment of the participant assignments registered for the first event:
retrieving, from the event state, other event assignments for a same rider, a same horse, or a same trainer associated with the participant assignment across the remainder of the plurality of events;
determining a time slot or an estimated time for the participant assignment based on the duration of the first event and an ordinal position of the participant assignment in the order;
comparing the time slot or the estimated time of the participant assignment against time slots or estimated times of the other event assignments; and
determining whether one or more of the conflicts exist by evaluating whether (i) the time slot or the estimated time overlaps with any of the time slots or estimated times of the other event assignments, (ii) a time gap between the time slot or the estimated time and any of the time slots or estimated times of the other event assignments violates a predefined break time requirement, or (iii) the time gap is insufficient for travel between a location of the first event and respective locations of the other event assignments based on stored travel times between the different locations;
update the event state in real-time as changes are made to event schedules or the participant assignments, and re-perform automatically detecting conflicts
re-order the participant assignments in the order after updating the event state in real-time and re-performing automatically detecting conflict;
publish the order for the first event to communicate the order for the first event to both the one or more participant user devices and the one or more event user devices;
in response to a request to view a global event ordering user interface, generate the global event ordering user interface, wherein the global event ordering user interface is configured to:
retrieve orders for all of the plurality of events, wherein the orders, respectively, include ordered lists of participants at specific time slots and a location for a respective event;
populate segments of the global event ordering user interface with the orders for all the events;
automatically include conflict indicators for participants that have one or more conflicts;
re-order participants in the orders;
republish the orders to communicate the republished orders to both the one or more participant user devices and the one or more event user devices;
in response to the orders being republished, determine affected participants; and
transmit a notification to the one or more participant user devices of the affected participants to notify the affected participants of their place(s) in order(s) that have changed, wherein the operations further comprise: automatically generate suggestions for alternative time slots or event assignments to resolve detected conflicts, wherein the suggestions take into account interdependencies between riders, horses, or trainers, and other team members across multiple events and locations; display the suggestions in the global event ordering user interface; and enable user selection of suggested alternatives to update event assignments while maintaining support for riders by the other team members
in combination with the remainder of the claim limitations are neither taught nor suggested, singularly or in combination, by the prior art of record. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, nor knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art provides for any predictable or reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings. Independent claims 29 and 30, and dependent claims 2-28 are likewise provisionally allowable.
The closest prior art of record is described as follows:
Gardner et al. (U.S. Patent Number 10467599) - The abstract provides for the following: Implementations provide a calendar application for dynamic scheduling and adjustment of events, such as sequential training events. The calendar application is used to specify events that are to occur within a schedule of events, an order in which the events are to occur, and a duration for each event. The calendar application is also used to specify available time periods in which the events may be scheduled. Based on the specified events and available time periods, the events are scheduled into available time periods to generate a calendar, a schedule of the events that preserves the specified order of events. On detecting a change in the inputs, such as a change in the specified events and/or available time periods, the calendar may be automatically updated (in real time with respect to the change) to accommodate the change, while preserving the order and duration of events.
Wagner et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0267423) - The abstract provides for the following: Provided herein is an electronic calendar platform (“ECP”) server programmed to receive, from a user application, a subscription request identifying an event manager, and create a subscription record in a database. The server is also programmed to receive, from a manager application, calendar event information including a scheduled date/time for each of a plurality of events, and create, in the database, a plurality of event records linked to the event manager ID. Additionally, the server is programmed to receive, from the user application, a populate request configured to populate a calendar event feed displayed by the user application, and in response to the populate request, query the database for event records associated with event managers and the user, generate an ordered sequence of the calendar event information for the events returned by the query, and transmit the ordered sequence to the user application for display in the calendar event feed.
Rankin, JR. et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2011/0289161) - The abstract provides for the following: The APPARATUSES, METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR AN INTELLIGENT INBOX COORDINATING HUB ("HUB") facilitates the generation, evaluation, and recording of information and activities related to property transactions and associated communications. In embodiments, the HUB may be configured to effectuate intelligent inbox coordination, which may facilitate the processing of messages configured as email messages, XML data, HTTP POST message content, and/or the like for economical display and interaction. The HUB's intelligent inbox coordination features may allow for the distillation of large volumes of message data and/or content to highlight and/or direct users to the particular message and/or attachment containing data that is most interesting or relevant to them. Aspects of HUB intelligent inbox coordination features may include the generation and application of email allocation rules and/or sub-rules; analysis, parsing, intelligent filing and/or sub-filing, and/or other processing of email content, attachments, and/or other associated data; generation of message and/or message data analytics, statistics, summaries, industry trends, news content, and/or the like; and/or the like.
Mahan, JR. et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0131525) - The abstract provides for the following: The systems and methods of the present disclosure provide an authorized user with the ability to input and store past and current racing information and compare that information to a particular characteristic or set of characteristics to prepare reports, objective rating/performance systems, training regimens, value assessments and otherwise compare and analyze the data in real time for a variety of other reasons. The authorized user can access, create performance reports, and/or update data on the proposed system via the web using any device configured to access the Internet including, for example, any stand alone computer, networked device or suitable mobile device.
Fenner et al. “The Development of a Novel Questionnaire Approach to the Investigation of Horse Training, Management, and Behaviour.” The abstract provides for the following: The Equine Behaviour Assessment and Research Questionnaire (E-BARQ) is a questionnaire instrument developed to obtain quantitative data on the domestic equine triad of training, management, and behaviour of horses. The E-BARQ was developed to identify how changes in training and management impact behaviour over time, to define normal behaviour in horses, and to discover how to improve rider safety and horse welfare, leading to ethical equitation. During the development of the E-BARQ, we also investigated how best to motivate stakeholders to engage with this citizen science project. The pilot version of the E-BARQ collected qualitative data on respondents’ experience of the questionnaire. The pilot questionnaire was developed with the assistance of an international panel (with professional expertise in horse training, equitation science, veterinary science, equestrian coaching, welfare, animal behaviour, and elite-level riding), and was used to collect data on 1320 horses from approximately 1194 owner/caregiver respondents, with an option for respondents to provide free-text feedback. A Rotated Principal Component Analysis of the 218 behavioural, management, and training questionnaire items extracted a total of 65 rotated components. Thirty-six of the 65 rotated components demonstrated high internal reliability. Of the 218 questionnaire items, 43 items failed to reach the Rotated Principal Component Analysis criteria and were not included in the final version of the E-BARQ. Survey items that failed the Rotated Principal Component Analysis inclusion criteria were discarded if found to have a less than 85% response rate, or a variance of less than 1.3. Of those that survived the Rotated Principal Component Analysis, items were further assigned to horse temperament (17 rotated components), equitation (11 rotated components), and management and equipment (8 rotated components) groups. The feedback from respondents indicated the need for further items to be added to the questionnaire, resulting in a total of 214 items for the final E-BARQ survey. Many of these items were further grouped into question matrices, and the demographic items for horse and handler included, giving a final total of 97 questions on the E-BARQ questionnaire. These results provided content validity, showing that the questionnaire items were an acceptable representation of the entire horse training, management, and behavioural domain for the development of the final E-BARQ questionnaire.
Conlan (WO Patent Application Publication Number WO 2021/007258 A1) - The abstract provides for the following: Obtain rider locations for horse riders of a horse show event, the rider locations including at least a first location associated with a first horse rider, the horse show event including a plurality of venues, each of the plurality of venues being associated with at least a different first venue location. Obtain horse locations for horses associated with the horse riders, the horse locations including at least a second location associated with a first horse associated with the first horse rider. Determine a first route for the first horse rider from the first location of the first horse rider to a first venue location. Determine a second route for the first horse from the second location of the first horse to the first venue location. Provide an interface through which the first route and the second route are accessible
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 1/20/2026, pgs. 14-21). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 35 USC 101 analysis presented above, the claims recite an abstract concept that is encapsulated by decision making analogous to a method of organizing human activity or mathematical concepts. Examiner notes that each of the limitations that encapsulate the abstract concepts are recited in the above 35 USC 101. Additionally, the claims do not recite a practical application of the abstract concepts in that there is no specific use or application of the method steps other than to make conclusory determinations and provide for direction for either a person or machine to follow at some future time or to make calculations that are mathematical operations. The claims do not recite any particular use for these determinations and directions that improve upon the underlying computer technology (in this instance the computer software, processor, and memory). Instead, Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claim language are only used as implementation of the abstract concepts utilizing technology. The concepts described in the limitations when taken both as a whole and individually are not meaningfully different than those found by the courts to be abstract ideas and are similarly considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions or to make calculations that are mathematical operations. The steps are then encapsulated into a particular technological environment by executing these steps upon a computer processor and utilizing features such as a computer interface or sending and receiving data over a network or displaying information via a computerized graphical user interface. However, sending and receiving of information over a network and execution of algorithms on a computer are utilized only to facilitate the abstract concepts (i.e. selecting data on an interface, publishing/displaying information, etc.). As such, Examiner asserts that the implementation of the abstract concepts recited by the claims utilize computer technology in a way that is considered to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, Examiner does not find that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract concepts recited by the claims.
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H. DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0166. The fax phone number is 571-483-7110. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7:00 - 5:00. 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787.
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.
/M. H. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624