Detailed Action
1. This Office Action is responsive to the Application 18/944,929 filed 11/12/2024. Claims 1-21 are presented for examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The lengthy 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 applicant may become aware in the specification.
5. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 1, under section “Cross-Reference to Related Applications”, the cited copending application (18/393,916) should be updated with current statuses such as U.S. Patent Application Serial No., the filing date, U.S. Patent No., and the issued date.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Application No. 18/393,916, now U.S. Patent No. 12,170,713.
Instant application 18/944,929
US Patent No. 12,170,713
Claim 1. A system comprising: a processor and a memory coupled therewith, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to determine that data storage required to store data items, each having first and second data values resulting from an electronic transaction, exceeds a threshold, the data items being collectively characterized based on the first and second values of each data item, and automatically, based thereon, reduce the data storage required via replacement of the data items with first and, when generated, second replacement data, the first replacement data being generated based on a difference between a first value of one of the data items and a third value characterizing the data items based on the first value of each of the data items being modified as a function of the second value thereof, and the second replacement data being generated when there is a difference between the first value of the one of the plurality of data and the first replacement data so that the first and second replacement data are collectively characterized identically to the data items.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the data items comprise an electronic record of results of a plurality of electronic transactions corresponding to an associated user completed prior to the determination.
Claim 3. The system of claim 2, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to determine, subsequent to the replacement, that another electronic transaction corresponding to the associated user has been completed and, based thereon, add data indicative thereof to the data items.
Claim 4. The system of claim 2, wherein each of the data items corresponds to a result of a different electronic transaction and wherein the first value of at least one of the plurality of data is different from the first value of another of the data items.
Claim 5. The system of claim 4, wherein each electronic transaction comprises an interest rate swap, the collective characteristic comprising a risk value.
Claim 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the data items are stored remote from the processor.
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the first value corresponds to an interest rate and the second value corresponds to a notional value.
Claim 8. The system of claim 1, wherein the data items are collectively characterized by a collective cash flow of the electronic transactions represented by the data items.
Claim 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the required data storage may be subject to a limit different from a limit to which the required data storage of other data items are subject.
Claim 10. The system of claim 1, wherein the data items are periodically synchronized with a remote computer system via a communications network, the first and, when generated, second replacement data taking less time to synchronize than the data items which were replaced.
Claim 11. A computer implemented method comprising: determining, by a processor, that data storage required to store data items, each having first and second data values resulting from an electronic transaction, exceeds a threshold, the data items being collectively characterized based on the first and second values of each data item, and automatically, based thereon, reducing the data storage required by replacing the data items with first and, when generated, second replacement data, the first replacement data being generated based on a difference between a first value of one of the data items and a third value characterizing the data items based on the first value of each of the data items being modified as a function of the second value thereof, and the second replacement data being generated when there is a difference between the first value of the one of the plurality of data and the first replacement data so that the first and second replacement data are collectively characterized identically to the data items.
Claim 12. The computer implemented method of claim 11, wherein the data items comprise an electronic record of results of a plurality of electronic transactions corresponding to an associated user completed prior to the determination.
Claim 13. The computer implemented method of claim 12, further comprising determining, by the processor subsequent to the replacement, that another electronic transaction corresponding to the associated user has been completed and, based thereon, adding data indicative thereof to the data items.
Claim 14. The computer implemented method of claim 12, wherein each of the data items corresponds to a result of a different electronic transaction and wherein the first value of at least one of the data items is different from the first value of another of the data items.
Claim 15. The computer implemented method of claim 14, wherein each electronic transaction comprises an interest rate swap, the collective characteristic comprising a risk value.
Claim 16. The computer implemented method of claim 11, wherein the data items are stored remote from the processor.
Claim 17. The computer implemented method of claim 11, wherein the first value corresponds to an interest rate and the second value corresponds to a notional value.
Claim 18. The computer implemented method of claim 11, wherein the data items are collectively characterized by a collective cash flow of the electronic transactions represented by the data items.
Claim 19. The computer implemented method of claim 11, wherein the required data storage may be subject to a limit different from a limit to which the required data storage of other data items are subject.
Claim 20. The computer implemented method of claim 11, wherein the data items are periodically synchronized with a remote computer system via a communications network, the first and, when generated, second replacement data taking less time to synchronize than the data items which were replaced.
Claim 21. A memory management computing device comprising: a processor and a memory coupled therewith, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform the steps of:
determining that data storage required to store data items, each having first and second data values resulting from an electronic transaction, exceeds a threshold, the data items being collectively characterized based on the first and second values of each data item, and automatically, based thereon, reducing the data storage required by replacing the data items with first and, when generated, second replacement data, the first replacement data being generated based on a difference between a first value of one of the data items and a third value characterizing the data items based on the first value of each of the data items being modified as a function of the second value thereof, and the second replacement data being generated when there is a difference between the first value of the one of the plurality of data and the first replacement data so that the first and second replacement data are collectively characterized identically to the data items.
Claim 1. A system comprising: a processor and a memory coupled therewith, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: determine that a data size of a plurality of data exceeds a limit, each of the plurality of data including first and second data values resulting from an electronic transaction, the plurality of data having a collective characteristic computed based on the first and second values of each of the plurality of data, and automatically based thereon: generate first replacement data based on a difference between a first value of one of the plurality of data and a third value characterizing the plurality of data based on the first value of each of the plurality of data being modified as a function of the second value thereof; generate, when there is a difference between the first value of the one of the plurality of data and the first replacement data, second replacement data based on the difference such that the first and second replacement data have a collective characteristic identical to the plurality of data; and replace the data of the plurality of data with the first and, when generated, second replacement data, the data size thereby being reduced.
Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data comprises an electronic record of results of a plurality of electronic transactions corresponding to an associated user completed prior to the determination.
Claim 3. The system of claim 2, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to determine, subsequent to the replacement, that another electronic transaction corresponding to the associated user has been completed and, based thereon, add data indicative thereof to the plurality of data.
Claim 4. The system of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of data corresponds to a result of a different electronic transaction and wherein the first value of at least one of the plurality of data is different from the first value of another of the plurality of data.
Claim 5. The system of claim 4, wherein each electronic transaction comprises an interest rate swap, the collective characteristic comprising a risk value.
Claim 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data are stored remote from the processor.
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the first value corresponds to an interest rate and the second value corresponds to a notional value.
Claim 8. The system of claim 1, wherein the collective characteristic is indicative of the collective cash flow of the electronic transactions represented by the plurality of data.
Claim 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the data size may be subject to a limit different from a limit to which a data size of another plurality of data is subject.
Claim 10. The system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of data is periodically synchronized with a remote computer system via a communications network, the first and, when generated, second replacement data taking less time to synchronize than the data which was replaced.
Claim 11. A computer implemented method comprising: determining, by a processor, that a data size of a plurality of data exceeds a limit, each of the plurality of data including first and second data values resulting from an electronic transaction, the plurality of data having a collective characteristic computed based on the first and second values of each of the plurality of data, and automatically based thereon: generating, by the processor, first replacement data based on a difference between a first value of one of the plurality of data and a third value characterizing the plurality of data based on the first value of each of the plurality of data being modified as a function of the second value thereof; generating, by the processor when there is a difference between the first value of the one of the plurality of data and the first replacement data, second replacement data based on the difference such that the first and second replacement data have a collective characteristic identical to the plurality of data; and replacing, by the processor, the data of the plurality of data with the first and, when generated, second replacement data, the data size thereby being reduced.
Claim 12. The computer implemented method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of data comprises an electronic record of results of a plurality of electronic transactions corresponding to an associated user completed prior to the determination.
Claim 13. The computer implemented method of claim 12, further comprising determining, by the processor subsequent to the replacement, that another electronic transaction corresponding to the associated user has been completed and, based thereon, adding data indicative thereof to the plurality of data.
Claim 14. The computer implemented method of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of data corresponds to a result of a different electronic transaction and wherein the first value of at least one of the plurality of data is different from the first value of another of the plurality of data.
Claim 15. The computer implemented method of claim 14, wherein each electronic transaction comprises an interest rate swap, the collective characteristic comprising a risk value.
Claim 16. The computer implemented method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of data are stored remote from the processor.
Claim 17. The computer implemented method of claim 11, wherein the first value corresponds to an interest rate and the second value corresponds to a notional value.
Claim 18. The computer implemented method of claim 11, wherein the collective characteristic is indicative of the electronic transactions represented by the plurality of data.
Claim 19. The computer implemented method of claim 11, wherein the data size may be subject to a limit different from a limit to which a data size of another plurality of data is subject.
Claim 20. The computer implemented method of claim 11, wherein the plurality of data is periodically synchronized with a remote computer system via a communications network, the first and, when generated, second replacement data taking less time to synchronize than the data which was replaced.
Claim 21. A memory management computing device comprising: a processor and a memory coupled therewith, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform the steps of:
determining that a data size of a plurality of data exceeds a limit, each of the plurality of data including first and second data values resulting from an electronic transaction, the plurality of data having a collective characteristic computed based on the first and second values of each of the plurality of data, and automatically based thereon: generating first replacement data based on a difference between a first value of one of the plurality of data and a third value characterizing the plurality of data based on the first value of each of the plurality of data being modified as a function of the second value thereof; generating, when there is a difference between the first value of the one of the plurality of data and the first replacement data, second replacement data based on the difference such that the first and second replacement data have a collective characteristic identical to the plurality of data; and replacing the data of the plurality of data with the first and, when generated, second replacement data, the data size thereby being reduced.
8. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,170,713 substantially contain every element of claims 1-21 of the instant application and thus anticipate (or would have been obvious over) the claims of the instant application. Claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later application claim is not patently distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus)”. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY vs. BARR LABORATORIES INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 11 and 21 recite “determining that data storage required to store data items” and “reducing the data storage required by replacing the data items with first and second replacement data”, are directed to generic computer module functioning. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as follows:
The limitations of “determining that data storage required to store data items” and “reducing the data storage required by replacing the data items with first and second replacement data”, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor and a memory coupled therewith”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims 1, 11 and 21 recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 11 and 21 only recite using “a processor” to perform both the determining and reducing steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform both the determining and reducing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not recite additional limitations which amount to significantly more to overcome the deficiency of independent claims 1, 11 and 21, respectively. Likewise, claims 2-10, while reciting system claims, and claims 12-20, while reciting method claims, nevertheless are technically similar claims, and therefore, also describe an abstract idea of determining and reducing the data storage required. Taken alone, or in ordered combination, none of the additional elements amounts to significantly more than the exception. The claims are not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
12. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11 12, 14-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROSCH (US 2017/0351731 A1), in view of Cato (US 2003/0007676 A1).
13. As to claim 1, BROSCH teaches a system comprising:
a processor and a memory coupled therewith, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to determine that data storage required to store data items, each having first and second data values resulting from an electronic transaction ([0003]: information handling systems configured for a specific user or specific use such as financial transaction processing, airlines reservations, enterprise data storage, or global communications), exceeds a threshold, the data items being collectively characterized based on the first and second values of each data item ([0060]: detecting that the transaction log is filled to capacity or that the number of records stored in the transaction log exceeds a threshold value).
BROSCH does not explicitly teach “reduce the data storage required via replacement of the data items with first and, when generated, second replacement data, the first replacement data being generated based on a difference between a first value of one of the data items and a third value characterizing the data items based on the first value of each of the data items being modified as a function of the second value thereof, and the second replacement data being generated when there is a difference between the first value of the one of the plurality of data and the first replacement data so that the first and second replacement data are collectively characterized identically to the data items”.
In an analogous art, Cato teaches that for financial transactions, the check is first scanned at a high resolution level used for checks having relatively high monetary values. Next, a determination is made of whether the resolution is to be changed. If the monetary value of the check is not less than the second level monetary value, the resolution is not changed, in which the image data is compressed by an image data compression technique to further reduce the space required for storage. If the monetary value of the check is less than the second level monetary, the resolution of the image is reduced (Cato, [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of BROSCH and Cato to achieve the claimed invention to enable the system to reduce the storage required to store data items from electronic transactions to benefit from cost reductions and improved productivity, compared to conventional paper transactions (Cato, [0002]).
14. As to claim 2, BROSCH-Cato teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the data items comprise an electronic record of results of a plurality of electronic transactions corresponding to an associated user completed prior to the determination (BROSCH, [0003]: financial transactions, airlines reservations).
15. As to claim 4, BROSCH-Cato teaches the system of claim 2, wherein each of the data items corresponds to a result of a different electronic transaction and wherein the first value of at least one of the plurality of data is different from the first value of another of the data items (BROSCH, [0003]: financial transactions for different clients and airlines reservations for different passengers have different data fields and values).
16. As to claim 5, BROSCH-Cato teaches the system of claim 4, wherein each electronic transaction comprises an interest rate swap, the collective characteristic comprising a risk value (BROSCH, [0003]: it’s well-known in the art that financial transactions often contain data items as interest rate swap and risk value).
17. As to claim 6, BROSCH-Cato teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the data items are stored remote from the processor (Cato, Fig. 1, [0044] and [0074]: Alternately, these data structures 140, 152, 156 may be stored in a file of another system).
18. As to claim 7, BROSCH-Cato teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first value corresponds to an interest rate and the second value corresponds to a notional value (BROSCH, [0003]: it’s well-known in the art that financial transactions often contain data items as interest rate and notional value).
19. As to claim 8, BROSCH-Cato teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the data items are collectively characterized by a collective cash flow of the electronic transactions represented by the data items (BROSCH, [0003]: it’s well-known in the art that financial transactions often contain data items as cash flow).
20. As to claim 9, BROSCH-Cato teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the required data storage may be subject to a limit different from a limit to which the required data storage of other data items are subject (Cato, Figs. 6 and 8, {0072-0073]: third data structure 156 and first data structure 140 have different number of fields, i.e., different data items, hence, their required data storage may be subject to a different limit).
21. As to claims 11, 12, 14-19 and 21, claims 11, 12, 14-19 and 21 are corresponding method and computing device claims that recite similar limitations as of system claims 1, 2, 4-9 and do not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale.
22. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROSCH-Cato and further in view of Rowe (US 2002/0198803 A1).
23. As to claim 3, BROSCH-Cato teaches the system of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach “determine, subsequent to the replacement, that another electronic transaction corresponding to the associated user has been completed and, based thereon, add data indicative thereof to the data items”.
In an analogous art, Rowe teaches “determine, subsequent to the replacement, that another electronic transaction corresponding to the associated user has been completed and, based thereon, add data indicative thereof to the data items” (Rowe, [0147-0148]: the financial category reward total associated with the particular financial transaction category is updated to reflect a new reward value based upon the financial transaction received. The update involves adding the received financial transaction reward value with the award total existing for the associated financial transaction category before that transaction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of BROSCH-Cato and Rowe to achieve the claimed invention to allow the system to keep the [electronic] transactions up to date when receiving new values associated with the transactions.
24. As to claim 13, claim 13 is a corresponding method claim that recites similar limitations as of system claim 3 and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
25. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BROSCH-Cato and further in view of Gaddam et al. (US 2015/0058146 A1), hereinafter “Gaddam”.
26. As to claim 10, BROSCH-Cato teaches the system of claim 1, “wherein the first and, when generated, second replacement data taking less time to synchronize than the data items which were replaced” (Cato disclosed the compressed image data size is much smaller, hence it takes less time to synchronize than the original uncompressed image data size) but does not explicitly teach “the data items are periodically synchronized with a remote computer system via a communications network”.
In an analogous art, Gaddam teaches “the data items are periodically synchronized with a remote computer system via a communications network” ([0064]: a mobile wallet application on a phone may have a transaction log for each payment account, and the transaction log may keep track of the available credit limit for each account. The transaction log may be updated/synchronized periodically when the payment device is online and can communicate with the remote server at the issuer of the account).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of BROSCH-Cato and Gaddam to achieve the claimed invention to enable the system to retrieve current data items/values (current outstanding balances, current credit limits) for all accounts associated with the payment device and/or account owners.
27. As to claim 20, claim 20 is a corresponding method claim that recites similar limitations as of system claim 10 and does not contain any additional limitations with respect to novelty and/or inventive steps; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
28. Further references of interest are cited on Form PTO-892, which is an attachment to this Office Action.
29. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE (3) months from the mailing date of this communication. See 37 CFR 1.134.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANG N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3886.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMAL B. DIVECHA, can be reached at (571) 272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization 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.
/QUANG N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441