DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
Instant application is CON of US Patent No. 12,169,811 B1; US Patent No. 11,605,060 B1; US Patent No. 10,853,777 B1; and US Patent No. 10,846,667 B1. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Examiner has established objections for claims 1-2, 4, 8, 10-13, 16-17, and 19-20; double patenting rejection for claims 1-20; § 112(b) rejection for claims 1-20; and § 101 rejection for claims 1-20 in the instant Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality:
transmitting, by the mobile device to a check processing computer system, . . . to have funds deposited funds into a user account based on the restricted endorsement.
It appears that the second instance of “funds” is a typographical error. Applicant could amend claim 1 to recite:
transmitting, by the mobile device to a check processing computer system, . . . to have funds deposited [[funds]] into a user account based on the restricted endorsement.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality:
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising detecting a selection of an image capture button of the mobile device, wherein the first image of the check is captured in response to detection of the selection of the image capture button.
There should be a colon (“:”) after “further comprising.” Applicant could amend claim 2 to recite:
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting a selection of an image capture button of the mobile device, wherein the first image of the check is captured in response to detection of the selection of the image capture button.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informality:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the quality level is based on at least one of a word included in the restricted endorsement, a phrase included in the restricted endorsement, or a location of the restricted endorsement.
There should be a colon (“:”) after “at least one of.” Applicant could amend claim 4 to recite:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the quality level is based on at least one of: a word included in the restricted endorsement, a phrase included in the restricted endorsement, or a location of the restricted endorsement.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality:
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising generating, by the mobile device, based on identifying information related to the first image, an information request to provide additional account information related to the user account associated with the first image.
There should be a colon (“:”) after “further comprising.” Applicant could amend claim 8 to recite:
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating, by the mobile device, based on identifying information related to the first image, an information request to provide additional account information related to the user account associated with the first image.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informality:
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising transmitting, by the mobile device, to the institution, an amount of the funds to be deposited and the user account into which the funds are to be deposited.
There should be a colon (“:”) after “further comprising.” Applicant could amend claim 10 to recite:
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising:
transmitting, by the mobile device, to the institution, an amount of the funds to be deposited and the user account into which the funds are to be deposited.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality:
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the mobile device, the quality level from an institution computing system.
There should be a colon (“:”) after “further comprising.” Applicant could amend claim 11 to recite:
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the mobile device, the quality level from an institution computing system.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the OCR system, an identity and a second location of a character on at least one of the first image or the second image.
There should be a colon (“:”) after both “further comprising” and “at least one of.” Applicant could amend claim 12 to recite:
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the OCR system, an identity and a second location of a character on at least one of: the first image or the second image.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality:
13. The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the mobile device, a location request for the restricted endorsement located in a predetermined area of the first image.
There should be a colon (“:”) after “further comprising.” Applicant could amend claim 13 to recite:
13. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the mobile device, a location request for the restricted endorsement located in a predetermined area of the first image.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informality:
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the quality level is based on at least one of a word included in the restricted endorsement, a phrase included in the restricted endorsement, or a location of the restricted endorsement.
There should be a colon (“:”) after “at least one of.” Applicant could amend claim 16 to recite:
16. The system of claim 15, wherein the quality level is based on at least one of: a word included in the restricted endorsement, a phrase included in the restricted endorsement, or a location of the restricted endorsement.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informality:
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the quality level is further based on an assessment using identifying information related to the image, wherein the identifying information related to the image comprises at least one of an account holder, an account number, a deposit amount, a check number, a check date, or a check payor.
There should be a colon (“:”) after “at least one of.” Applicant could amend claim 17 to recite:
17. The system of claim 16, wherein the quality level is further based on an assessment using identifying information related to the image, wherein the identifying information related to the image comprises at least one of: an account holder, an account number, a deposit amount, a check number, a check date, or a check payor.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality:
19. The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the institution, the quality level.
There indefinite article “an” in front “institution” instead of definite article “the” because “institution” has not appeared in the system-claims previously. Applicant could amend claim 19 to recite:
19. The system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from [[the]] an institution, the quality level.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informality:
20. The system of claim 15, further comprising determining, by the OCR system, an identity and a second location of a character on at least one of the image or the corrected image.
There should be a colon (“:”) after “further comprising.” Applicant could amend claim 20 to recite:
20. The system of claim 15, further comprising:
determining, by the OCR system, an identity and a second location of a character on at least one of the image or the corrected image.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,169,811 B1; over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 11,605,060 B1; over claims 1-24 of US Patent No. 10,853,777 B1; and over claims 1-16 of US Patent No. 10,846,667 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are obvious over the reference claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent method claim 1 recites:
displaying, by a mobile device comprising one or more processors, on a display screen of the mobile device, images captured using an image sensor of the mobile device;
overlaying, by the mobile device, a guide box over the images to frame a back side of a check;
responsive to detecting the check, changing, by the mobile device, a feature of the guide box as visual feedback to the user that the check is detected;
capturing, by the image sensor of the mobile device, a first image of the check and storing the first image of the check in memory of the mobile device;
Independent system claim 15 recites:
overlay a guide box over captured images to frame a back side of a check;
apply a first feature to the guide box until the check is detected by the mobile device;
responsive to detecting the check within the guide box, apply a second feature to the guide box;
capture an image of the check and store the image of the check in memory of the mobile device;
It appears that in both independent claims 1 and 15, the check image is already captured. Therefore, it is not clear why the image is captured again. For this reason, claims 1-20 are rejected as indefinite under § 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
The Supreme Court in Mayo laid out a framework for determining whether an applicant is seeking to patent a judicial exception itself or a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355,110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961). This framework, which is referred to as the Mayo test or the Alice/Mayo test (“the test”), is described in detail in Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (”MPEP”) (see MPEP § 2106(III) for further guidance). The step 1 of the test: It need to be determined whether the claims are directed to a patent eligible (i.e., statutory) subject matter under 35 USC § 101. Step 2A of the test: If the claims are found to be directed to a statutory subject matter, the next step is to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea (Prong 1). If the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea, it needs to be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong 2). Step 2B of the test: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the next and final step is to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1 of the Test:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Here, the claimed invention of claims 1-14 is a series of steps, which is method (i.e., a process) and, thus, one of the statutory categories of invention. Further, the claimed invention of claims 15-20 is a system, which is also one of the statutory categories of invention.
Conclusion of Step 1 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-20 are statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 1 of the test.
Step 2A of the Test:
Prong 1: Claims 1-20, however, recite an abstract idea of depositing a check image. The creation of depositing a check image, as recited in the independent claims 1 and 15 belongs to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions) that are found by the courts to be abstract ideas. The limitations in independent claims 1 and 15, which set forth or describe the recited abstract idea, are found in the following steps:
“displaying images” (claim 1);
“overlaying a guide box over the images to frame a back side of a check” (claim 1);
“responsive to detecting the check, changing a feature of the guide box as visual feedback to the user that the check is detected” (claim 1);
“capturing a first image of the check” (claim 1);
“determining whether a restricted endorsement is within the first image by applying optical character recognition (OCR) to the first image” (claim 1);
“generating a request to provide a second image having the restricted endorsement based on a quality level associated with the restricted endorsement” (claim 1);
“overlay a guide box over captured images to frame a back side of a check” (claim 15);
“apply a first feature to the guide box until the check is detected” (claim 15);
“responsive to detecting the check within the guide box, apply a second feature to the guide box” (claim 15);
“capture an image of the check” (claim 15);
“determine whether a restricted endorsement is within the image by applying optical character recognition (OCR) to the image of the check” (claim 15); and
“generate a request to provide a corrected image having the restricted endorsement based on a quality level associated with the restricted endorsement” (claim 15).
Prong 2: In addition to abstract steps recited above in Prong 1, independent claims 1 and 15 recite additional elements:
“a mobile device comprising one or more processors” (claim 1);
“an image sensor of the mobile device” (claim 1);
“a display screen of the mobile device” (claim 1);
“memory of the mobile device” (claim 1);
“a check processing computer system” (claim 1);
“a mobile device comprising a network interface configured to communicate data over a network, an input device configured to receive an input from a user, an image capture device configured to capture images, a display device to display the images, and one or more processors” (claim 15);
“memory of the mobile device” (claim 15); and
“a check processing computer system” (claim 15).
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the following limitations recite insignificant extra solution activity (for example, data gathering):
“storing the first image of the check” (claim 1);
“transmitting at least one of the first image or the second image comprising the back side of the check having the restricted endorsement, to have funds deposited funds into a user account based on the restricted endorsement” (claim 1);
“store the image of the check” (claim 15);
“transmit the corrected image comprising the back side of the check having the restricted endorsement within the corrected image, causing automatically deposit[ing] funds into a user account based on the restricted endorsement” (claim 15).
These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The additional elements/limitations of independent claims 1 and 15 here do not render improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), nor do they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under MPEP § 2106.05(b) (particular machine); MPEP § 2106.05(c) (particular transformations); or MPEP § 2106.05(e) (other meaningful limitations). Further, the combination of these additional elements/limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements/ limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion of Step 2A Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1 and 15 are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2A of the test.
Step 2B of the Test: The additional elements of independent claims 1 and 15 (see above under Step 2A - Prong 2) are described by Applicant’s Specification in following terms:
[0034] As previously indicated, embodiments of the present invention may be practiced in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computers having processors. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that such network computing environments may encompass many types of computers, including personal computers, hand-held devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and so on. Embodiments of the invention may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by local and remote processing devices that are linked (either by hardwired links, wireless links, or by a combination of hardwired or wireless links) through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.
[0035] An exemplary system for implementing the overall system or portions of the invention might include a general purpose computing computers in the form of computers, including a processing unit, a system memory, and a system bus that couples various system components including the system memory to the processing unit. The system memory may include read only memory (ROM) and random access memory (RAM). The computer may also include a magnetic hard disk drive for reading from and writing to a magnetic hard disk, a magnetic disk drive for reading from or writing to a removable magnetic disk, and an optical disk drive for reading from or writing to a removable optical disk such as a CD ROM or other optical media.
This is a description of general-purpose computing system. Thus, individually, the additional elements of independent claims 1 and 15 are well-understood, routine, and conventional elements that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Further, the additional limitations of “transmitting” and “storing” information amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these additional limitations are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. The additional limitations of “transmitting” and “storing” information were considered as insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A - Prong 2. Re-evaluating here in Step 2B, they are also determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Similarly to OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network), and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), the additional limitations of independent claims 1 and 15 “transmit” information over a network in a merely generic manner. Further, similarly to Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, the additional limitations of independent claims 1 and 15 “store” information in memory. The courts have recognized “transmitting” and “storing” information functions as well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. Therefore, the additional limitations of independent claims 1 and 15 are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Further, taken as combination, the additional elements/limitations add nothing more than what is present when the additional elements/limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Conclusion of Step 2B Analysis: Therefore, independent claims 1 and 15 are non-statutory under 35 USC § 101 in view of step 2B of the test.
Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 2-14 depend on independent claim 1; and dependent claims 16-20 depend on independent claim 15. The elements in dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20, which set forth or describe the abstract idea, are:
“detecting a selection of an image capture button of the mobile device, wherein the first image of the check is captured in response to detection of the selection of the image capture button” (claim 2: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“an electronic shutter of the mobile device is automatically activated to capture the first image of the check in response to detecting the check” (claim 3: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the quality level is based on at least one of a word included in the restricted endorsement, a phrase included in the restricted endorsement, or a location of the restricted endorsement” (claim 4: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the quality level is based at least on whether the restricted endorsement is within the first image” (claim 5: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the quality level is based at least on an assessment using identifying information related to the first image” (claim 6: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the assessment using the identifying information related to the first image comprises identifying at least one of: an account holder, an account number, a deposit amount, a check number, a check date, and a check payor” (claim 7: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“generating, by the mobile device, based on identifying information related to the first image, an information request to provide additional account information related to the user account associated with the first image” (claim 8: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“at least one of the first image or the second image is transmitted, by the mobile device, to an institution to trigger a transfer of funds into the user account” (claim 9: insignificant extra solution activity);
“transmitting, by the mobile device, to the institution, an amount of the funds to be deposited and the user account into which the funds are to be deposited” (claim 10: insignificant extra solution activity);
“receiving, by the mobile device, the quality level from an institution computing system” (claim 11: insignificant extra solution activity);
“determining, by the OCR system, an identity and a second location of a character on at least one of the first image or the second image” (claim 12: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“receiving, by the mobile device, a location request for the restricted endorsement located in a predetermined area of the first image” (claim 13: insignificant extra solution activity);
“the feature is a color of one or more lines of the guide box” (claim 14: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the quality level is based on at least one of a word included in the restricted endorsement, a phrase included in the restricted endorsement, or a location of the restricted endorsement” (claim 16: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the quality level is further based on an assessment using identifying information related to the image, wherein the identifying information related to the image comprises at least one of an account holder, an account number, a deposit amount, a check number, a check date, or a check payor” (claim 17: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the one or more processors are further configured to generate, based on identifying information related to the image, an information request to provide additional account information related to the user account associated with the image” (claim 18: further narrowing the recited abstract idea);
“the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the institution, the quality level” (claim 19: insignificant extra solution activity); and
“determining, by the OCR system, an identity and a second location of a character on at least one of the image or the corrected image” (claim 20: further narrowing the recited abstract idea).
Conclusion of Dependent Claims Analysis: Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20 do not correct the deficiencies of independent claims 1 and 15 and they are, thus, rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion of the 35 USC § 101 Analysis: Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected as directed to an abstract idea without “significantly more” under 35 USC § 101.
Prior Art under 35 USC § 102 and § 103
The closest prior art reference located by Examiner is Cahill (US 5,917,965) that teaches generally a method and a system for storing and retrieving images of documents, e.g., checks. Further, Ethington (US 10,552,810 B1) discloses specifically:
Referring to FIG. 15, once a check 1502 is identified by the mobile device 1302, the semi-transparent overlay image 1402 is removed and replaced by a frame 1504 that will then track the check within the camera viewfinder area 1404 as long as it can be detected. The frame may be lines or other indicia that make up a full or partial border of the check. The frame may be displayed in one or more colors. The phrase “track the check” used above is intended to mean that the frame will move around in the camera viewfinder area 1404 with the check if the check is moved within the camera viewfinder area 1404 and the mobile device still detects the check. If the mobile device 1302 can no longer detect the check, the frame 1504 is removed and then replaced by the semi-transparent overlay 1402. If the check is detected for a given number of video frames the auto-capture, and anti-shake code work in tandem to automatically capture the image. The given number of frames may be the number acquired in approximately ¾ of a second in one embodiment, however this may be adjusted dynamically for different hardware to account for varying frames per second video output.
However, Cahill and Ethington do not disclose – alone or in combination with each other or with other references – all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 15 as an ordered combination of steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lopez (US 10,552,901 B2) discloses: “A method is provided of operating an image-based self-service check depositing terminal when a customer at the terminal is conducting a check deposit transaction. A check to be deposited is received from the customer. An image capture device electronically captures check image data which is representative of an image of the check. The check image data is electronically transmitted via a first communications network to a web service provider to allow the web service provider to determine if the check being deposited is a duplicate check. A verification message is received from the web-based service provider indicating that the check being deposited is either a duplicate check or not a duplicate check. The check image data is transmitted via a second communications network to a consolidation server when the verification message indicates that the check being deposited in not a duplicate check.”
Bueche (US 8,977,571 B1) discloses: “An image of a check that is in the field of view of a camera is monitored prior to the image of the check being captured. The camera is associated with a mobile device. When the image of the check in the field of view passes monitoring criteria, an image may be taken by the camera and provided from the mobile device to a financial institution. The image capture may be performed automatically as soon as the image of the check is determined to pass the monitoring criteria. The check may be deposited in a user's bank account based on the image. Any technique for sending the image to the financial institution may be used. Feedback may be provided to the user of the camera regarding the image of the check in the field of view.”
Jacobs (WO 2005/048151 A1) discloses: “he data defining the portions of the financial transaction is compared with value in fields of financial instrument to define comparisons and to generate respective confidence values. The confidence value is compared to the range of acceptable confidence values including range of low confidence values. The range of acceptable confidence values are altered if confidence value falls within range of low confidence value.”
N. D. Lane, E. Miluzzo, H. Lu, D. Peebles, T. Choudhury and A. T. Campbell, "A survey of mobile phone sensing," in IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 48, no. 9, pp. 140-150, Sept. 2010.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIRPI H. KANERVO whose telephone number is 571-272-9818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10 am - 6 pm, EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VIRPI H KANERVO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691