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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al (US 2019/0206364 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Jeong discloses a method, comprising:
decreasing, by one or more processors [e.g., Fig. 2: 110, 111; Fig. 3: 210, 211], a value component [e.g., Paragraph 60: brightness] of a pixel input [e.g., Paragraphs 60, 227: pixel] in a hue-saturation-value (HSV) color space to generate a decreased value component [e.g., Fig. 14: 1040, 1050; Paragraph 272: the tone mapping curve provides a decrease in brightness];
modifying, by the one or more processors, a saturation component [e.g., Fig. 14: 1060, increase saturation] of the pixel input based on a hue-adaptive saturation mapping function [e.g., Paragraph 279: to increase cognitive luminance, the image processing controller 110 generates a saturation gain for increasing saturation according to hue of each of pixels] to generate a modified saturation component [e.g., Fig. 14: 1060, increased saturation] to offset the decrease in the value component [e.g., Paragraph 279: to increase cognitive luminance, the image processing controller 110 generates a saturation gain for increasing saturation according to the previously decreased luminance of each of pixels];
generating, by the one or more processors, modified HSV components [e.g., Fig. 14: 1060, 2nd image frame data] of the pixel input comprising the decreased value component and the modified saturation component; and
providing, by the one or more processors, an output [e.g., Fig. 14: 1080] for an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel [e.g., Fig. 1: 10, 200, P; Paragraph 61: organic light-emitting diode] based on the modified HSV components of the pixel input (e.g., see Paragraphs 51-289).
Regarding claim 23, Jeong discloses modifying the saturation component of the pixel input based on the hue-adaptive saturation mapping function comprises:
applying the hue-adaptive saturation mapping function from a plurality of saturation mapping functions [e.g., Paragraph 279: to increase cognitive luminance, the image processing controller 110 generates a saturation gain for increasing saturation according to hue of each of pixels] to the saturation component based on a hue component [e.g., Paragraph 279: to increase cognitive luminance, the image processing controller 110 generates a saturation gain for increasing saturation according to hue of each of pixels] of the pixel input in HSV color space,
wherein the plurality of saturation mapping functions comprises
a first saturation mapping function corresponding to a green hue [e.g., Paragraphs 229-233: data of a green sub-pixel],
a second saturation mapping function corresponding to a blue hue [e.g., Paragraphs 229-233: data of a blue sub-pixel], and
a third saturation mapping function corresponding to a red hue [e.g., Paragraphs 229-233: data of a red sub-pixel] (e.g., see Paragraphs 63-289).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US 2019/0206364 A1) in view of Lee (US 2005/0047657 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Jeong doesn’t appear to expressly disclose converting components of the pixel input from a first color space to HSV components of the pixel input in the HSV color space.
However, Lee discloses a method, comprising:
decreasing, by one or more processors [e.g., Fig. 3: 100], a value component [e.g., Fig. 2: white=1 to black=0; Fig. 3: V] of a pixel input in a hue-saturation-value (HSV) color space [e.g., Fig. 3: HSV; Paragraphs 5-6, 20-22: a user can adjust the brightness/intensity/amplitude of light as desired] to generate a decreased value component [e.g., Fig. 2: white=1 to black=0; Fig. 3: V];
modifying, by the one or more processors, a saturation component [e.g., Fig. 3: S; Paragraph 32: increase color saturation value] of the pixel input based on a hue-adaptive saturation mapping function [e.g., Fig. 4: R, Y, G, C, B, M, R Gains] to generate a modified saturation component [e.g., Fig. 3: S’] to offset the decrease in the value component;
generating, by the one or more processors, modified HSV components [e.g., Fig. 3: HS’V] of the pixel input comprising the decreased value component and the modified saturation component;
providing, by the one or more processors, an output [e.g., Fig. 3: R’, G’, B’] for a display panel [e.g., Paragraph 33: display screen] based on the modified HSV components of the pixel input;
converting, by the one or more processors, components of the pixel input from a first color space [e.g., Fig. 3: RGB] to HSV components of the pixel input in the HSV color space [e.g., Fig. 3: HSV, HS’V]; and
converting, by the one or more processors, modified HSV components [e.g., Fig. 3: HS’V] of the pixel input to modified components [e.g., Fig. 3: R’G’B’] of the pixel input in the first color space (e.g., see Paragraphs 19-49).
Jeong and Lee are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of saturation control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combined Lee’s conversion process with Jeong’s method, so as to correct color unbalances.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Lee’s conversion process with Jeong’s method as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US 2019/0206364 A1) in view of Frisken et al (US 6,603,484 B1).
Regarding claim 24, Jeong doesn’t appear to expressly disclose a three-dimensional (3D) look up table.
Frisken discloses applying interpolating points of a three-dimensional (3D) look up table (LUT) [e.g., Column 24, Lines 40-56: three-dimensional look-up table (LUT)] to generate a modified saturation component [e.g., Column 24, Lines 40-56: if the color does not lie at sample points in the LUT, the Boolean test results from neighboring sample points in the LUT are averaged using some interpolation scheme (e.g., trilinear interpolation) to predict the Boolean test result for the given color].
Jeong and Frisken are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of color control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combined Frisken’s 3D LUT and interpolation with Jeong’s method, so as to reproduce colors correctly.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Frisken’s 3D LUT and interpolation with Jeong’s method as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US 2019/0206364 A1) in view of Lee (US 2005/0047657 A1) and the instant application’s Admitted Prior Art (APA).
Regarding claim 25, Jeong doesn’t appear to expressly disclose a hue-adaptive slope increase function.
However, Lee discloses the hue-adaptive saturation mapping function is based on a hue-adaptive mapping function [e.g., Fig. 4: endpoint saturation values are functionally mapped based on hue, interpolated saturation values between endpoints are functionally mapped based on hue; Paragraph 40: the new color saturation value OUT_S beyond 512 is clipped (=cut off) into the maximum value of 512] and a hue-adaptive slope increase function [e.g., Fig. 4: slope of the connecting interpolation line between adjacent endpoint saturation values varies/increases based on hue].
Lee doesn’t appear to expressly disclose the hue-adaptive slope increase function is a product of a maximum slope as a function of the hue component and a saturation increase slope shape as a function of the hue component and the value component.
However, the APA discloses a hue-adaptive slope increase function [e.g., Specification Paragraph 31: (1 – ((H/H) × kmax )) × V× (H/H)],
wherein the hue-adaptive slope increase function is a product of
a maximum slope [e.g., Specification Paragraph 31: (1 – ((H/H) × kmax ))] as a function of the hue component and
a saturation increase slope shape [e.g., Paragraph 31: V× (H/H)] as a function of the hue component and the value component (e.g., see Specification Paragraphs 31-32).
Jeong, Lee and the APA are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of color control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combined the APA’s hue-adaptive slope increase function with Jeong’s and Lee’s method, so as to reduce power.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the the APA’s hue-adaptive slope increase function with Jeong’s and Lee’s method as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US 2019/0206364 A1) in view of Lee (US 2005/0047657 A1) and Granger (US 2009/0040564 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Jeong doesn’t appear to expressly disclose the hue-adaptive saturation mapping function is non-linear.
However, Lee discloses the hue-adaptive mapping function is non-linear due to clipping [e.g., Paragraphs 39-40: OUT_S=S*GAIN/64; the new color saturation value OUT_S beyond 512 is clipped (=cut off) into the maximum value of 512; thus OUT_S including both the unclipped and clipped portions is necessarily non-linear].
Jeong and Lee don’t appear to expressly disclose a hue-adaptive mapping function is non-linear prior to clipping.
However, Granger discloses a hue-adaptive mapping function is non-linear [e.g., Fig. 6: non-linear portion of the illustrated plot roughly between 70-80%] (e.g., see Paragraphs 116-119).
Jeong, Lee and Granger are analogous art because they are from the shared inventive field of image control.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combined Granger’s non-linear function with Jeong’s and Lee’s method, so as to provide perceptually accurate image reproduction.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined Granger’s non-linear function with Jeong’s and Lee’s method as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., Docket No. 04-1350 (U.S. 30 April 2007).
Double Patenting
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 21-25 and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,961 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations in 21-25 and 27 of the instant application are met by the recited limitations in and are fully encompassed by claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,961 B2.
Regarding instant claim 21, U.S. Patent No. 12,307,961 B2 recites subject matter encompassing decreasing, by one or more processors, a value component of a pixel input in a hue-saturation-value (HSV) color space to generate a decreased value component;
modifying, by the one or more processors, a saturation component of the pixel input based on a hue-adaptive saturation mapping function to generate a modified saturation component to offset the decrease in the value component;
generating, by the one or more processors, modified HSV components of the pixel input comprising the decreased value component and the modified saturation component; and
providing, by the one or more processors, an output for an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel based on the modified HSV components of the pixel input (e.g., see claim 1).
Regarding instant claim 22, U.S. Patent No. 12,307,961 B2 recites subject matter encompassing converting, by the one or more processors, components of the pixel input from a first color space to HSV components of the pixel input in the HSV color space; and
converting, by the one or more processors, modified HSV components of the pixel input to modified components of the pixel input in the first color space (e.g., see claim 2).
Regarding instant claim 23, U.S. Patent No. 12,307,961 B2 recites subject matter encompassing modifying the saturation component of the pixel input based on the hue-adaptive saturation mapping function comprises:
applying the hue-adaptive saturation mapping function from a plurality of saturation mapping functions to the saturation component based on a hue component of the pixel input in HSV color space,
wherein the plurality of saturation mapping functions comprises
a first saturation mapping function corresponding to a green hue,
a second saturation mapping function corresponding to a blue hue, and
a third saturation mapping function corresponding to a red hue (e.g., see claim 3).
Regarding instant claim 24, U.S. Patent No. 12,307,961 B2 recites subject matter encompassing applying the hue-adaptive saturation mapping function comprises interpolating points of a three-dimensional (3D) look up table (LUT) to generate the modified saturation component (e.g., see claim 4).
Regarding instant claim 25, U.S. Patent No. 12,307,961 B2 recites subject matter encompassing the hue-adaptive saturation mapping function is based on a hue-adaptive slope increase function,
wherein the hue-adaptive slope increase function is a product of
a maximum slope as a function of the hue component and
a saturation increase slope shape as a function of the hue component and the value component (e.g., see claim 5).
Regarding instant claim 27, U.S. Patent No. 12,307,961 B2 recites subject matter encompassing the hue-adaptive saturation mapping function is non-linear (e.g., see claim 1).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 3 and Invention I in the reply filed on 11 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “FIG. 2 is labeled as “prior art”, and no claims are directed to FIG. 2. Thus, no claims are included in Species I. Second, the Office has failed to meet the burden established by MPEP §803 to justify restriction. For such a restriction to be proper, MPEP §803 requires that the Office must establish that: (A) the inventions must be independent or distinct as claimed; and (B) there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. The Office fails to properly establish either of these points.” This is not found persuasive.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species 1, drawn to the mapping function of Fig. 2;
Species 2, drawn to the mapping function of Fig. 4 (e.g., see claims 26, 33, 39); and
Species 3, drawn to the mapping function of Fig. 5 (e.g., see claims 27, 32, 40).
The species are independent or distinct, from each other, because as disclosed the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics (e.g., mutually exclusive structures and/or operations) for each identified species. In addition, the species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Currently, no claims appear to be generic.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: The species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries for the mutually exclusive characteristics).
There’s no rule preventing the inclusion of an embodiment labeled as “prior art” in a list of patentably distinct species. There’s also no rule preventing an Applicant from potentially deleting the “prior art” label in a future amendment.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is additionally required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 21-27, drawn to a 1st method, classified in class G09G 3/3233.
II. Claims 28-33, drawn to a 2nd method, classified in class G09G 2340/06.
III. Claims 34-40, drawn to a device, classified in class H04N 9/64.
The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
“Invention I” and “Invention II” are related respectively as combination and subcombination.
Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that: (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)).
(1) In the instant case, the Combination does not require the particulars of the Subcombination as claimed because:
The Combination as claimed does not require:
“converting, by the one or more processors, the modified HSV color space pixel input to a first color space pixel input,” as claimed in independent claim 28; and
“providing, by the one or more processors, an output for an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel to drive a pixel of the OLED display panel based on the first color space pixel input,” as claimed in independent claim 28 of “Invention II.”
(2) Furthermore, the Subcombination has separate utility, such as:
The Subcombination as claimed can be used without requiring:
“providing, by the one or more processors, an output for an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel based on the modified HSV components of the pixel input,” as claimed in independent claim 21 of “Invention I.”
“Invention III” and “Invention I” are related as product and process of use.
The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h).
In the instant case, the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product.
For example, the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product without at least:
“modifying, by the one or more processors [the same of which also decrease a value component of a pixel input in a hue-saturation-value (HSV) color space to generate a decreased value component], a saturation component of the pixel input based on a hue-adaptive saturation mapping function to generate a modified saturation component to offset the decrease in the value component,” as claimed in independent claim 21; and
“generating, by the one or more processors [the same of which also decrease a value component of a pixel input in a hue-saturation-value (HSV) color space to generate a decreased value component and modify a saturation component of the pixel input based on a hue-adaptive saturation mapping function to generate a modified saturation component to offset the decrease in the value component], modified HSV components of the pixel input comprising the decreased value component and the modified saturation component,” as claimed in independent claim 21 of “Invention I.”
“Invention III” and “Invention II” are related as product and process of use.
The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h).
(1) In the instant case, the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product.
For example, the process as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product not including at least:
“one or more processors to:… provide an output for an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel based on the modified HSV components of the pixel input,” as claimed in independent claim 34 of “Invention III.”
(2) In the instant case, the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product.
For example, the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product without at least:
“converting, by the one or more processors, the modified HSV color space pixel input to a first color space pixel input,” as claimed in independent claim 28; and
“providing, by the one or more processors, an output for an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel to drive a pixel of the OLED display panel based on the first color space pixel input,” as claimed in independent claim 28 of “Invention II.”
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply: The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). For example:
Examining of Invention I requires employing uniquely different search queries for “modifying, by the one or more processors [the same of which also decrease a value component of a pixel input in a hue-saturation-value (HSV) color space to generate a decreased value component], a saturation component of the pixel input based on a hue-adaptive saturation mapping function to generate a modified saturation component to offset the decrease in the value component,” as claimed in independent claim 21;
“generating, by the one or more processors [the same of which also decrease a value component of a pixel input in a hue-saturation-value (HSV) color space to generate a decreased value component and modify a saturation component of the pixel input based on a hue-adaptive saturation mapping function to generate a modified saturation component to offset the decrease in the value component], modified HSV components of the pixel input comprising the decreased value component and the modified saturation component,” as claimed in independent claim 21; and/or
“providing, by the one or more processors, an output for an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel based on the modified HSV components of the pixel input,” as claimed in independent claim 21 of “Invention I.”
The above search queries would not be required when examining Inventions II or III.
Examining of Invention II requires employing uniquely different search queries for “converting, by the one or more processors, the modified HSV color space pixel input to a first color space pixel input,” as claimed in independent claim 28; and
“providing, by the one or more processors, an output for an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel to drive a pixel of the OLED display panel based on the first color space pixel input,” as claimed in independent claim 28 of “Invention II.”
The above search queries would not be required when examining Inventions I or III.
Examining of Invention III requires employing uniquely different search queries for “one or more processors to:… provide an output for an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel based on the modified HSV components of the pixel input,” as claimed in independent claim 34 of “Invention III.”
The above search queries would not be required when examining Invention II.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 26 and 28-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to at least a nonelected species/invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11 November 2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached 'Notice of References Cited' are cited to further evidence the state of the art pertaining to display methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Piziali whose telephone number is (571)272-7678. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (7:30AM - 4PM). 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.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
25 November 2025
Prosecution Insights