Detailed Action
1. 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
2. The Amendment filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered. Claim 8 has been amended. Claims 1-7 and 9 have been canceled. Claims 10-28 have been added. Claims 8 and 10-28 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 8, 14, 17, 19, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TOMOHIRO (JP 2001356752 A).
Regarding claim 8, TOMOHIRO discloses a computer-implemented method (Figs. 1-3), comprising: identifying one or more candidate video output settings that are supported by a display device (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0038]; identifying video settings of a display device, video settings including resolution and refresh rate, display device can be display A(7a), B(7b), and/or C(7c)); determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0041]; e.g., Fig. 3 show a plurality of video settings including resolution and refresh rate that need to be verified); and in response to determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device, and for each candidate video output setting for the display device: providing, for output on the display device, a video signal based at least on the candidate video output setting, determining whether the display device is able to display the video signal (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0041], [0053]-[0055]; in accordance with the plurality of video settings including resolution and refresh rate that need to be verified, a video signal is provided to the display A(7a) to be displayed, of which the resolution and the refresh rate match the resolution and the refresh rate of the display B(7b) and display C(7c)).
Regarding claim 14, TOMOHIRO discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein identifying the one or more candidate video output settings comprises: identifying a pre-existing video output setting set in advance by a user (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0041], [0053]-[0055]; identifying a pre-existing video output setting including resolution and refresh rate of a display 7); and excluding at least one candidate video output setting from the one or more candidate video output settings, wherein the at least one candidate video output setting fails to match a dynamic range or a frame rate category of the pre-existing video output setting (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0041], [0053]-[0055]; excluding a video output setting including resolution and refresh rate of a display, which does not match the video output setting including resolution and refresh rate of the other displays).
Regarding claim 17, TOMOHIRO discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein identifying that the one or more candidate video output settings are supported by the display device comprises acquiring support information provided by the display device, wherein the support information comprises Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) indicating a plurality of video output settings compatible with the display device, and the plurality of video output settings comprise the one or more candidate video output settings ([0005] and [0027]; EDID and video output setting including resolution and refresh rate).
Regarding claim 19, TOMOHIRO discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the one or more candidate video output settings supported by the display device comprise a resolution, a frame rate, and a dynamic range (e.g., Fig. 3; resolution, refresh rate, refresh rate range).
Regarding claim 20, TOMOHIRO discloses a system (Figs. 1-3) comprising: one or more computers (Fig. 1; microcomputer 19), and one or more storage devices (Fig. 1; memory 21) storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers to cause the one or more computers (Fig. 1; microcomputer 19) to perform operations comprising: identifying one or more candidate video output settings that are supported by a display device (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0038]; identifying video settings of a display device, video settings including resolution and refresh rate, display device can be display A(7a), B(7b), and/or C(7c)); determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0041]; e.g., Fig. 3 show a plurality of video settings including resolution and refresh rate that need to be verified); and in response to determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device, and for each candidate video output setting for the display device: providing, for output on the display device, a video signal based at least on the candidate video output setting, determining whether the display device is able to display the video signal (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0041], [0053]-[0055]; in accordance with the plurality of video settings including resolution and refresh rate that need to be verified, a video signal is provided to the display A(7a) to be displayed, of which the resolution and the refresh rate match the resolution and the refresh rate of the display B(7b) and display C(7c)).
Regarding claim 25, TOMOHIRO discloses the system of claim 20, wherein identifying the one or more candidate video output settings comprises: identifying a pre-existing video output setting set in advance by a user (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0041], [0053]-[0055]; identifying a pre-existing video output setting including resolution and refresh rate of a display 7); and excluding at least one candidate video output setting from the one or more candidate video output settings, wherein the at least one candidate video output setting fails to match a dynamic range or a frame rate category of the pre-existing video output setting (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0041], [0053]-[0055]; excluding a video output setting including resolution and refresh rate of a display, which does not match the video output setting including resolution and refresh rate of the other displays).
Regarding claim 28, TOMOHIRO discloses one or more non-transitory computer storage media (Fig. 1; memory 21) encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more computers (Fig. 1; microcomputer 19) cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: identifying one or more candidate video output settings that are supported by a display device (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0038]; identifying video settings of a display device, video settings including resolution and refresh rate, display device can be display A(7a), B(7b), and/or C(7c)); determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0041]; e.g., Fig. 3 show a plurality of video settings including resolution and refresh rate that need to be verified); and in response to determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device, and for each candidate video output setting for the display device: providing, for output on the display device, a video signal based at least on the candidate video output setting, determining whether the display device is able to display the video signal (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0041], [0053]-[0055]; in accordance with the plurality of video settings including resolution and refresh rate that need to be verified, a video signal is provided to the display A(7a) to be displayed, of which the resolution and the refresh rate match the resolution and the refresh rate of the display B(7b) and display C(7c)).
5. Claims 8, 20, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KATO (US 20180007311 A1).
Regarding claim 8, KATO discloses a computer-implemented method (Figs. 1-6), comprising: identifying one or more candidate video output settings that are supported by a display device (Figs. 1 and 5 and [0040], [0058]-[0060], [0100]; identifying video settings of a display device, video settings including refresh rates); determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device (Figs. 4 and 7 and [0040], [0058]-[0060], [0100]; one or more refresh rates are determined to be verified in accordance with display modes); and in response to determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device, and for each candidate video output setting for the display device: providing, for output on the display device, a video signal based at least on the candidate video output setting, determining whether the display device is able to display the video signal (Figs. 2-3 and 6 and [0044]-[0056], [0095]-[0098]; in accordance with a refresh rate setting that needs to be verified and a corresponding display mode, a video signal with a corresponding refresh rate is provided to the display to be displayed).
Regarding claim 20, KATO discloses a system (Figs. 1-6) comprising: one or more computers ([0126]; CPU), and one or more storage devices ([0126]; memory) storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers to cause the one or more computers ([0126]; CPU) to perform operations comprising: identifying one or more candidate video output settings that are supported by a display device (Figs. 1 and 5 and [0040], [0058]-[0060], [0100]; identifying video settings of a display device, video settings including refresh rates); determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device (Figs. 4 and 7 and [0040], [0058]-[0060], [0100]; one or more refresh rates are determined to be verified in accordance with display modes); and in response to determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device, and for each candidate video output setting for the display device: providing, for output on the display device, a video signal based at least on the candidate video output setting, determining whether the display device is able to display the video signal (Figs. 2-3 and 6 and [0044]-[0056], [0095]-[0098]; in accordance with a refresh rate setting that needs to be verified and a corresponding display mode, a video signal with a corresponding refresh rate is provided to the display to be displayed).
Regarding claim 28, KATO discloses one or more non-transitory computer storage media ([0126]; memory) encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more computers ([0126]; CPU) cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: identifying one or more candidate video output settings that are supported by a display device (Figs. 1 and 5 and [0040], [0058]-[0060], [0100]; identifying video settings of a display device, video settings including refresh rates); determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device (Figs. 4 and 7 and [0040], [0058]-[0060], [0100]; one or more refresh rates are determined to be verified in accordance with display modes); and in response to determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device, and for each candidate video output setting for the display device: providing, for output on the display device, a video signal based at least on the candidate video output setting, determining whether the display device is able to display the video signal (Figs. 2-3 and 6 and [0044]-[0056], [0095]-[0098]; in accordance with a refresh rate setting that needs to be verified and a corresponding display mode, a video signal with a corresponding refresh rate is provided to the display to be displayed).
6. Claims 8, 20, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIM (US 20020135605 A1).
Regarding claim 8, KIM discloses a computer-implemented method (Figs. 1-4), comprising: identifying one or more candidate video output settings that are supported by a display device (Fig. 3, S1-S3, and [0032]-[0039] and [0042]; identifying video settings of a display device, video settings including resolution and refresh rates); determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device (Fig. 3, S1-S3, and [0032]-[0039] and [0042]; resolution and refresh rate are determined to be verified in accordance with display modes); and in response to determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device, and for each candidate video output setting for the display device: providing, for output on the display device, a video signal based at least on the candidate video output setting, determining whether the display device is able to display the video signal (Fig. 3, S1-S3, and [0032]-[0039] and [0042]; in accordance with the resolution and refresh rate to be verified and a corresponding display mode, a video signal with a corresponding resolution and refresh rate is provided to the display to be displayed).
Regarding claim 20, KIM discloses a system (Figs. 1-4) comprising: one or more computers (Fig. 2; processing unit), and one or more storage devices ([0049] and [0035]; storage) storing instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers to cause the one or more computers (Fig. 2; processing unit) to perform operations comprising: identifying one or more candidate video output settings that are supported by a display device (Fig. 3, S1-S3, and [0032]-[0039] and [0042]; identifying video settings of a display device, video settings including resolution and refresh rates); determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device (Fig. 3, S1-S3, and [0032]-[0039] and [0042]; resolution and refresh rate are determined to be verified in accordance with display modes); and in response to determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device, and for each candidate video output setting for the display device: providing, for output on the display device, a video signal based at least on the candidate video output setting, determining whether the display device is able to display the video signal (Fig. 3, S1-S3, and [0032]-[0039] and [0042]; in accordance with the resolution and refresh rate to be verified and a corresponding display mode, a video signal with a corresponding resolution and refresh rate is provided to the display to be displayed).
Regarding claim 28, KIM discloses one or more non-transitory computer storage media devices ([0049] and [0035]; storage) encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more computers (Fig. 2; processing unit) cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: identifying one or more candidate video output settings that are supported by a display device (Fig. 3, S1-S3, and [0032]-[0039] and [0042]; identifying video settings of a display device, video settings including resolution and refresh rates); determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device (Fig. 3, S1-S3, and [0032]-[0039] and [0042]; resolution and refresh rate are determined to be verified in accordance with display modes); and in response to determining that the one or more identified candidate video output settings are unverified for the display device, and for each candidate video output setting for the display device: providing, for output on the display device, a video signal based at least on the candidate video output setting, determining whether the display device is able to display the video signal (Fig. 3, S1-S3, and [0032]-[0039] and [0042]; in accordance with the resolution and refresh rate to be verified and a corresponding display mode, a video signal with a corresponding resolution and refresh rate is provided to the display to be displayed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claims 10-12, 15, 18, 21-23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over TOMOHIRO (JP 2001356752 A) in view of KATO (US 20180007311 A1).
Regarding claim 10, TOMOHIRO discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the one or more candidate video output settings comprise a first candidate video output setting for outputting the video signal using a variable refresh rate (VRR) (e.g., Fig. 3; video signal with a variable refresh rate), and wherein determining whether the display device is able to perform display comprises: switching in sequence among a plurality of verification rates determined in advance for the first candidate video output setting (e.g., Fig. 3; video signal can be switched in sequence among a plurality of predetermined refresh rate); and determining whether a display abnormality occurs while switching between the plurality of verification rates (e.g., Fig. 3; display abnormality occurs when a first refresh rate of one display is switched to a second refresh rate and the second refresh rate does not match the refresh rate of the other displays). As another reference, KATO (Figs. 1-6) also discloses wherein the one or more candidate video output settings comprise a first candidate video output setting for outputting the video signal using a variable refresh rate (VRR) (e.g., Figs. 3 and 6 and [0040]; video signal with a variable refresh rate), and wherein determining whether the display device is able to perform display comprises: switching in sequence among a plurality of verification rates determined in advance for the first candidate video output setting (e.g., Figs. 3 and 6; switching in sequence among a plurality of predetermined refresh rate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from KATO to the display device of TOMOHIRO. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image display device with a reduced image stuttering and an improved image quality.
Regarding claim 11, TOMOHIRO in view of KATO discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, TOMOHIRO discloses wherein the plurality of verification rates comprise at least a maximum refresh rate and a minimum refresh rate of a usage rate range corresponding to the first candidate video output setting (e.g., Fig. 3; refresh rate has a range from 60Hz to 75Hz). KATO also discloses wherein the plurality of verification rates comprise at least a maximum refresh rate and a minimum refresh rate of a usage rate range corresponding to the first candidate video output setting (e.g., Figs. 3 and 6 and [0040], [0081], [0095], [0098]; refresh rate range).
Regarding claim 12, TOMOHIRO in view of KATO discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, KATO discloses wherein switching in sequence among the plurality of verification rates comprises alternately switching between a first verification rate and a second verification rate in a switching cycle of a predetermined duration (e.g., Figs. 2-3 and 6 and [0081], [0095], [0098]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from KATO to the display device of TOMOHIRO for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 15, TOMOHIRO discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 14, further comprising: identifying a high-performance video output setting that is supported by the display device and excluded from the one or more candidate video output settings based on the pre- existing video output setting (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0041], [0053]-[0055]; excluding a video output setting including resolution and refresh rate of a display, which does not match the video output setting including resolution and refresh rate of the other displays); but does not disclose presenting a message prompting the user to change the pre-existing video output setting to cause the high-performance video output setting to be included in the one or more candidate video output settings for verification. However, KATO discloses presenting a message prompting the user to change the pre-existing video output setting to cause the high-performance video output setting to be included in the one or more candidate video output settings for verification ([0082], [0090], and [0092]; notification regarding the verification frame rate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from KATO to the display device of TOMOHIRO for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 18, TOMOHIRO discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein identifying the one or more candidate video output settings that are supported by the display device comprises: analyzing the support information to determine whether the display device is compatible with a variable refresh rate (VRR) (e.g., Fig. 3; variable refresh rate from 60Hz to 75Hz); and extracting one or more rate range candidates within a range of refresh rates supported by the display device as indicated in the support information (e.g., Fig. 3; a range of refresh rate from 60Hz to 75Hz). As another reference, KATO discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein identifying the one or more candidate video output settings that are supported by the display device comprises: analyzing the support information to determine whether the display device is compatible with a variable refresh rate (VRR) ([0040]; variable refresh rate); and extracting one or more rate range candidates within a range of refresh rates supported by the display device as indicated in the support information ([0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from KATO to the display device of TOMOHIRO for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 21, TOMOHIRO discloses the system of claim 20, wherein the one or more candidate video output settings comprise a first candidate video output setting for outputting the video signal using a variable refresh rate (VRR) (e.g., Fig. 3; video signal with a variable refresh rate), and wherein determining whether the display device is able to perform display comprises: switching in sequence among a plurality of verification rates determined in advance for the first candidate video output setting (e.g., Fig. 3; video signal can be switched in sequence among a plurality of predetermined refresh rate); and determining whether a display abnormality occurs while switching between the plurality of verification rates (e.g., Fig. 3; display abnormality occurs when a first refresh rate of one display is switched to a second refresh rate and the second refresh rate does not match the refresh rate of the other displays). As another reference, KATO (Figs. 1-6) also discloses wherein the one or more candidate video output settings comprise a first candidate video output setting for outputting the video signal using a variable refresh rate (VRR) (e.g., Figs. 3 and 6 and [0040]; video signal with a variable refresh rate), and wherein determining whether the display device is able to perform display comprises: switching in sequence among a plurality of verification rates determined in advance for the first candidate video output setting (e.g., Figs. 3 and 6; switching in sequence among a plurality of predetermined refresh rate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from KATO to the display device of TOMOHIRO. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image display device with a reduced image stuttering and an improved image quality.
Regarding claim 22, TOMOHIRO in view of KATO discloses the system of claim 21, TOMOHIRO discloses wherein the plurality of verification rates comprise at least a maximum refresh rate and a minimum refresh rate of a usage rate range corresponding to the first candidate video output setting (e.g., Fig. 3; refresh rate has a range from 60Hz to 75Hz). KATO also discloses wherein the plurality of verification rates comprise at least a maximum refresh rate and a minimum refresh rate of a usage rate range corresponding to the first candidate video output setting (e.g., Figs. 3 and 6 and [0040], [0081], [0095], [0098]; refresh rate range).
Regarding claim 23, TOMOHIRO in view of KATO discloses the system of claim 21, KATO discloses wherein switching in sequence among the plurality of verification rates comprises alternately switching between a first verification rate and a second verification rate in a switching cycle of a predetermined duration (e.g., Figs. 2-3 and 6 and [0081], [0095], [0098]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from KATO to the display device of TOMOHIRO for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 26, TOMOHIRO discloses the system of claim 25, further comprising: identifying a high-performance video output setting that is supported by the display device and excluded from the one or more candidate video output settings based on the pre- existing video output setting (Figs. 2-3 and [0037]-[0041], [0053]-[0055]; excluding a video output setting including resolution and refresh rate of a display, which does not match the video output setting including resolution and refresh rate of the other displays); but does not disclose presenting a message prompting the user to change the pre-existing video output setting to cause the high-performance video output setting to be included in the one or more candidate video output settings for verification. However, KATO discloses presenting a message prompting the user to change the pre-existing video output setting to cause the high-performance video output setting to be included in the one or more candidate video output settings for verification ([0082], [0090], and [0092]; notification regarding the verification frame rate). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from KATO to the display device of TOMOHIRO for the same reason above.
9. Claims 13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over TOMOHIRO (JP 2001356752 A) in view of JUENGER (US 7898535 B2).
Regarding claim 13 and claim 24, TOMOHIRO discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8 and the system of claim 20, but does not disclose discloses wherein the video signal provided for output comprises a video of a content that changes in a predetermined pattern for a predetermined period of time to verify whether the display device refreshes frame images at an intended update timing. However, JUERDER (Figs. 2-3) discloses wherein the video signal provided for output comprises a video of a content that changes in a predetermined pattern for a predetermined period of time to verify whether the display device refreshes frame images at an intended update timing (col. 7, lines 43-47, col. 7, line 58-col. 8, line 1, col. 10, lines 19-23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from JUERDER to the display device of TOMOHIRO. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image display device with a reduced image stuttering and an improved image quality.
10. Claims 16 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over TOMOHIRO (JP 2001356752 A) in view of MORIIE (US 20170353759 A1).
Regarding claim 16 and claim 27, TOMOHIRO discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8 and system of claim 20, but does not disclose wherein the one or more candidate video output settings comprise at least one setting related to an audio signal to be output to the display device in addition to the video signal. However, MORIIE discloses a computer-implemented method (Figs. 1-8), wherein the one or more candidate video output settings comprise at least one setting related to an audio signal to be output to the display device in addition to the video signal (Figs. 2-4; audio and video signals), and wherein verifying whether the display device is able to perform display comprises: outputting the audio signal with a predetermined pattern; and receiving a response from a user indicating whether the audio signal is properly reproduced by a speaker of the display device (Figs. 3, 5, and 7-8, audio signal with a predetermined format; Figs. 2 and 4, audio signal is reproduced by a speaker 400 of the display device 100). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching from MORIIE to the display device of TOMOHIRO. The combination/motivation would be to provide an image display device with an improved audio and video quality.
Response to Arguments
11. Regarding new independent claims 1, 20, and 28, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. In view of amendments, the references of TOMOHIRO (JP 2001356752 A), KATO (US 20180007311 A1), KIM (US 20020135605 A1), MORIIE (US 20170353759 A1), and JUENGER (US 7898535 B2) have been used for new ground rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUZHEN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1407. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00-18:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7772. 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.
/YUZHEN SHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights