DETAILED ACTION
AIA
PNG
media_image1.png
337
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 examined.
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 1-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a method, and claims 9-16 are directed to a system, therefore the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A- Prong 1: Independent claim 1 comprises steps of: storing a plurality of segments; receiving characteristics for a plurality of digital signage; executing a matching algorithm for comparing the characteristics of the plurality of digital signage contents with the plurality of items of the segments for the plurality of digital signage displays to identify at least one of the segments matching the characteristics of each one of the digital signage contents; the matching including a match value for each item of each segment and a global match value for the combined items of each segment, the segment with the highest global match value being identified as target segment for the digital signage content; and transmitting the target segment for the digital signage contents to the computing devices of the customers.
These claimed steps are steps of collecting/tracking data (storing, storing, receiving), analyzing data, making determinations/correlations/comparisons, and displaying/presenting data. The claimed determinations consist of analyzing the gathered/received segment information; define target segmentation criteria (tiers) and define desired metrics; use a matching algorithm to match the received segment information with the target criteria; and displaying/presenting data. All these steps, but for the use of generic computer components that execute them, are generic functions performed by general-purpose computers, which relate to concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements or opinions.
Limiting content via a loop metric is a constraint on supply, fundamental economics.
The independent claim 1 is directed to a method for displaying content on digital signs, in which the content is optimized by virtue of selecting a targeted audience for presentation of said content. Accordingly, the claimed steps represent a method of organizing commercial interactions comprising advertising, marketing and sales activities, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping, wherein all the claim steps can be seen as being part of the abstract idea of displaying content on digital signs.
Claim 9 recites substantially similar subject matter and same subsequent analysis should be applied.
Step 2A- Prong 2: Additional elements include: digital signage platform, digital signage content, memory of the digital signage space platform; a processing unit of the digital signage space platform; a communication interface; a matching algorithm; computing devices of the customers.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and the steps that they execute represent generic functions which can be performed by a general-purpose computer without any novel programming or improvement in the operation of the computer itself. These additional elements are merely invoked as tools to perform an abstract idea (mere instructions to apply the exception) as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The mere nominal recitation of generic computer components does not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping (see 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
The claimed “executing” step consists of merely using a matching algorithm, and therefore represent mere instructions to apply the exception as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
As mentioned above, the claimed determinations consist of analyzing the gathered/received segment information; define target segmentation criteria (tiers) and define desired metrics; use a matching algorithm to match the received segment information with the target criteria; and displaying/presenting data. It follows that the internet/network and digital signage features of the invention only represent a particular technological environment, merely a particular technical field of use to which the judicial exception is linked to, and this technological environment is used to merely transmit, receive, store, gather, analyze, make determinations/correlations with, and display data.
In the claimed invention, conventional, generic computers are programmed with one or more matching algorithms, however there is no indication that the technology of these computers, is improved in any way with this algorithm. The computers are still used to do what they always do, execute programming instructions and provide an output. A mere programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility.
Accordingly, the additional elements when the claim elements are viewed individually and as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Based on the reasoning provided under Step 2A- Prong 2, the claims under Step 2B do not recite “significantly more” than the abstract idea. At this point, either under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping scenario where all the claim steps can be seen as being part of the abstract ideas, or under the “Mental Processes” grouping scenario, the analysis is terminated because the same analysis with respect to Step 2A Prong Two applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
That is, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and the steps that they execute represent conventional functions which can be performed by a general-purpose computer without any improvement to the programming technique or improvement in the operation of the computer itself.
Dependent claims 2-6 10-14, describe data gathering and data gathered in comparing, idea itself.
Dependent claims 7 15 idea itself, data type for limiting supply aka frequency capping ads/display, idea itself.
Dependent claims 8 16 idea itself, describe data for limiting supply frequency cap ads/display, idea itself.
When considered as a whole, the same analysis with respect to Step 2A Prong Two and step 2B, apply to these additional elements. They cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for obviousness rejections:
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.
MPEP 2123: “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for ALL they contain” In re Heck, 699 F2d 1331 (Fed Cir 1983) A reference may be relied upon for ALL that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments Merck & Co v Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed Cir), cert denied, 493 US 975 (1989)
Claims 1-16, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Opdycke (US 20110016002) (“Opdycke6002”) in view of Zschocke (US 20100138290) (“Zschocke8290”) in view of
Mongeau US20180101872 in view of Mongeau US20210192572 and Mongeau US20200186865
claims 1, 9, Opdycke6002 discloses:
(method for optimizing, at a digital signage platform, placement of digital signage content based on segments of digital signage displays)
Computing system for deploying content to digital signage networks (see at least Opdycke6002, abstract, ¶24-26). In another embodiment, the facility provides a web-based work-flow system that allows users to deploy content to digital signage networks. Advertisers/content providers utilize the facility to specify a goal and one or more constraints (e.g., parameters such as advertising content, time, locale, etc.) of an advertising campaign to measure the effectiveness of a campaign conducted on digital signage network. The facility directly or indirectly collects data from the deployed digital signage network and from systems that measure audience behavior, and then analyzes the collected data to measure correlation and to generate intelligent heuristics or parameters for optimizing how the campaign is executed on the digital signage network. (see at least Opdycke6002, abstract, ¶24-26).
(receiving at the digital signage platform characteristics for a plurality of digital signage contents from computing devices of a plurality of customers, the characteristics including at least one of the following: a minimum number of display for the digital signage content, a minimum frequency at which the digital signage content s to be displayed, a geographical area in which the digital signage content is to be displayed, a time of day at which the digital signage content is to be displayed, a minimum number of daily viewers for the display of the digital signage content).
Examiner’s note: Even though Opdycke6002 teaches most of the claimed “characteristics”, claimed language “including at least one of the following:” is taken to be met if only one characteristic (at least one) is taught.
Ad content, time (a time of day), locale (geographical area), etc (see at least Opdycke6002, abstract, ¶24).
A playlist (digital signage contents) is a list of content entries and specifications that govern how the digital signage network will feature content (see at least Opdycke6002, ¶26).
A playlist may include the following parameters, such as, by way of example, a list of play-ready clips, content parts, timing parameters such as start date and time of repeat characteristics (frequency) (a time of day), locale specifications such as network, nodes, channels, geographic regions, demographic associations, and conditional rules, such as, by way of example, if shopper is purchasing product X then display a picture of product Y, etc (see at least Opdycke6002, abstract, ¶26).
In one embodiment, independent input variables are user-defined and may include elements such as, by way of example: what content to play (such as play ready media clips, or the metadata that describes a set of media clips to be played) (digital signage contents), temporal (such as date, daypart, time, and repeat play characteristics) (frequency) (a time of day) (a minimum frequency at which the digital signage content is to be displayed), locale (such as store site, channel, retailer, network parameters) (a geographical area in which the digital signage content is to be displayed), demographics (such as income and education levels, or observed behavioral profile clusters mapping to particular geographies such as census blocks or groups of census blocks) and conditional rules. (see at least Opdycke6002, ¶87).
Facility 202 creates a database that stores and relates the parameters to each other and to the network nodes. Additional specifications might include content, temporal, and conditional parameters for the campaign such as, by example: content should only run between 4:00 pm and 7:00 pm local time, or content should repeat itself ten times per hour all day long; rotate content A, content B, and content C, display content B or C only when consumer has purchased item X otherwise display content A, etc. (see at least Opdycke6002, ¶97).
(executing by a processing unit of the digital signage platform a matching algorithm for comparing the characteristics of the plurality of digital signage contents with the plurality of items of the segments for the plurality of digital signage displays to identify at least one of the segments matching the characteristics of each one of the digital signage contents, the matching including a match value for each item of each segment and a global match value for the combined items of each segment, the segment with the highest global match value being identified as target segment for the digital signage content).
Claim construction: The instant application ¶42, defines “items of the segments for the plurality of digital signage displays” as “categories of data in an audience segment”.
Playlists (digital signage contents) are matched (matching) to categories of data in an audience segment, such as demographics data comprising income and education levels, or observed behavioral profile clusters mapping to particular geographies such as census blocks or groups of census blocks and conditional rules (“items of the segments for the plurality of digital signage displays” as claimed) (see at least Opdycke6002, ¶87).
Furthermore, matching can be based on groups of global, regional or local geographical locations (from individual stores to regional, national, or global groupings) or customer segments (see at least Opdycke6002, ¶87).
(a matching algorithm) The facility may use one or more dynamic stochastic optimization algorithms to accomplish this automatically vs. having a user attempt to manually vary, test, measure, and modify playlist parameters (see at least Opdycke6002, ¶31, 55, 104, 129).
(memory for storing a plurality of segments associated to digital signage displays) (a communication interface) (a processing unit). System comprising computing devices, processors, servers, memory, computer readable media, interfaces, modules and software instructions stored in memory that enable the system to execute the steps of the method over network communications and to enable interaction between participants and the system (see at least Opdycke6002, fig. 1-2, ¶40-61) (processor) (memory) (computer readable media).
Opdycke6002 teaches segments (see at least Opdycke6002, ¶43, 87); and likewise teaches individual basis and aggregate basis matching criteria.
However even if Opdycke6002 is not used alone to teach: (storing in a memory of the digital signage platform a plurality of segments for each of the digital signage displays, the segments including a low tier, a middle tier and a precise tier, the low tier including items with no precise data for low targeting, the middle tier including items with limited number and/or precision for limited accuracy, the precise tier including items with precise data for precise targeting). Zschocke8290 teaches this.
Target segments (see at least Zschocke8290, ¶4-5, 18, 75). Targeting parameters (see at least Zschocke8290, ¶6, 11, 18, 75, 126). Audience aggregation (see at least Zschocke8290, ¶25, 77-78). Asset providers (advertisers) pay the online system when the advertisement content in an ad request is displayed (see at least Zschocke8290, ¶10, 55).
Matching score (fit score), based on a comparison of the audience classification parameters of the asset to the audience classification parameters of the current user(s). This may involve how well an individual user classification parameter matches a corresponding target audience parameter and/or how many of the target audience parameters are matched by the user's classification parameters. (see at least Zschocke8290, ¶93).
A fit score may be generated for particular asset options based on a comparison of the audience classification to the target audience. This score may be on any scale, e.g., 1-100. Goodness of fit may be determined based on this raw score or based on characterization of this score such as "excellent", "good", etc (a precise tier, a middle tier, a low tier, etc,). Again, this may depend on how well an individual audience classification parameter of a user matches a corresponding target audience parameter and/or how many of the target audience parameters are matched by the user's audience classification parameters. This information may in turn be provided to the asset provider, at least in an aggregated form. (see at least Zschocke8290, ¶100).
As per above, both, Opdycke6002 and Zschocke8290, teach a “base” method (device, method or product) for matching advertisement content with audience segment information for display in a digital signage network, comprising individual basis and aggregate basis matching criteria. Since Zschocke8290 teaches that fit scores may be in any tier characterization of such as "excellent", "good", etc”, and/or in any scale, e.g., 1-100, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to characterize the fit score as “a precise tier, a middle tier, and a low tier”, and/or subdivide the numerical scale 1-100 into three tiers (or into any number of tiers), since doing so is one of a finite number of predictable scenarios (a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions) to the recognized need of defining fit-score characterizations, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, this scaled/tiered segmentation enables a more balanced monetization of the segment data; wherein implementing this modification is applying a known technique (the segment tiers of Zschocke8290) to improve a similar matching method in the same way, and gaining wherein this improved functionality is a predictable result within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Opdycke6002 does not disclose: (the matching including a match value for each item of each segment and a global match value for the combined items of each segment, the global match value of each segment being determined based on the match values determined for each item of the segment, the segment with the highest global match value being identified as target segment for the digital signage content); but Zschocke8290 teaches this limitation.
Since Zschocke8290 teaches: fit score (match) involving how well an individual user classification parameter matches a corresponding target audience parameter, and/or how many of the target audience parameters are matched by the user's classification parameters (see at least ¶93, 100) (global match), then a match where of all the user's audience classification parameters are partially matched (the global match value of each segment being determined based on the match values determined for each item of the segment), is one of a finite number of predictable scenarios. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to define a target audience requirement based on the claimed “global match value” by which the fit score requires that all classification parameters are matched to a certain degree, i.e., "excellent", "good", etc”, since doing so is one of a finite number of predictable scenarios (a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions) to the recognized need of defining fit-score characterizations based on how many of the target audience parameters are matched by the user's audience classification parameters, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. This functionality to implement a fit score (match) involving how well an individual user classification parameter matches a corresponding target audience parameter, and/or how many of the target audience parameters are matched by the user's classification parameters, greatly enhances the matching scope of Opdycke6002.
Opdycke6002 does not specifically teach: (transmitting the target segment for the digital signage contents to the computing devices of the customers).
However, Zschocke8290 further discloses: transmitting the target segment requirements (see at least Zschocke8290, ¶18). Asset providers (advertisers) pay the online system when the advertisement content in an ad request is displayed (see at least Zschocke8290, ¶10, 55).
It is further noted that since common sense dictates that an advertiser (“customers” as claimed) would not agree to pay for display of content based on a targeted audience segment without receiving information about the composition of the particular targeted audience, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the above formulated Opdycke6002 /Zschocke8290 combination, further in view of this common sense feature about Zschocke8290, since transmitting the target segment for the digital signage contents to the computing devices of the customers, is one of a finite number of predictable scenarios (a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions) to the recognized need of justification for requesting payment from an advertiser based on a target audience, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
O storing in the memory of the digital signage server metric thresholds of respective corresponding metrics for each of the digital signage players, the metric thresholds comprising for each digital signage player a display loop metric threshold of a display loop metric related to a display loop
Zschocke8290 frequency deliver asset ¶ 102, dissemination frequency ¶ 104, run frequency ¶ 151
NOT EXPLICT IN Opdycke6002 is loop
But see
Mongeau 20210192572 ¶ 45-50 loop
Although
Opdycke6002 US 20110016002 ¶ 24
[0024] In another embodiment, the facility provides a web-based work-flow system that allows users to deploy content to digital signage networks, e.g., content distribution and display systems. Users utilize the facility to specify a goal and one or more constraints (e.g., parameters such as advertising content, time, locale, etc.) of an advertising campaign to measure the effectiveness of a campaign conducted on digital signage network. The facility directly or indirectly collects data from the deployed digital signage network and from systems that measure audience behavior, and then analyzes the collected data to measure correlation and to generate intelligent heuristics or parameters for optimizing how the campaign is executed on the digital signage network.
Although further
Zschocke8290 ¶ 17 19 21 36 53 58 e.g. select asset (asset ≈ content)
NOT EXPLICT IN Opdycke6002 is all of
O selecting by the processing unit of the digital signage server a digital signage content among the plurality of digital signage contents
Zschocke8290 ¶ 17 19 21 36 53 58 e.g. select asset (asset ≈ content)
Opdycke6002 US ¶ 24
Mongeau US 20200186865
[0023] In a traditional digital signage infrastructure, the digital signage server 100 controls the digital signage content 270 displayed on the plurality of digital signage players 200. More specifically, the digital signage server 100 determines which digital signage content 270 is displayed on each digital signage player 200, when a digital signage content 270 shall be displayed, how often a digital signage content 270 shall be repeated, at which position of a screen a digital signage content 270 shall be displayed, etc. For this purpose, the digital signage server 100 generates a signage loop to rotate digital signage contents 270 on each digital signage player 200. Each digital signage player 200 receives from the digital signage server 100 its own signage loop, and the digital signage contents 270 referred to in the signage loop. The digital signage player 200 then displays the retrieved digital signage contents 270 in accordance with the signage loop.
NOT EXPLICT IN Opdycke6002
O determining by the processing unit of the digital signage server a plurality of candidate digital signage players among the plurality of digital signage players, each candidate digital signage player having the target segment of the selected digital signage content
Mongeau US 20180101872 ¶ 36 37 41 56 83 84 92 97 99
O for each candidate digital signage player, verifying by the processing unit of the digital signage server whether a current value of each metric is within the corresponding metric threshold, the verification comprising determining if a current value of the display loop metric is within the corresponding display loop metric threshold
Mongeau 20210192572 Abstract ¶ 7 9 70 74
O identifying by the processing unit of the digital signage server one or more target digital signage players from the plurality of candidate digital signage players for displaying the selected digital signage content, a current value of each metric of the one or more target digital signage players being within the corresponding metric threshold
Mongeau 20210192572 Abstract
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to combine Opdycke6002 and Mongeau 20210192572. Each is digital signage; they are analogous to not only each other but also the claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably prompted to make the combination because the advantage of using influence in an advertising system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Therefore all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This is Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods. It would have been obvious looking at Mongeau US 20180101872 to look for Mongeau US 20200186865 – all 3 Mongeau references are by same inventor addressing same subject and are like 3 sides of 1 triangle (tantamount to 1 reference). “It is common sense that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. … As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Obvious to put together 3 references by same inventor addressing on same subject.
claims 2, 4, 10, 12
Opdycke6002: (items of the segments). Playlists (digital signage contents) are matched (matching) to categories of data in an audience segment, such as demographics data comprising income and education levels, or observed behavioral profile clusters mapping to particular geographies such as census blocks or groups of census blocks and conditional rules (see at least Opdycke6002, ¶87).
However even if it could be argued that Opdycke6002 does not specifically disclose: “ranges of” some of these demographics data such as income and education levels, Zschocke8290 discloses ranges (see at least Zschocke8290, ¶71, 186) (at least one of data related to a gender) (at least one of the following: a target gender). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to expand the targeting based on demographics in Opdycke6002, to include target gender data as taught by Zschocke8290, since this implementation would be a simple substitution of one known target characteristic or element (i.e., target gender data taught by Zschocke8290) for another known element (i.e., other demographic data taught by Opdycke6002), to obtain the predictable result of further enhancing the relevance of the matching and the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Also see
Mongeau US20180101872 items and characteristics Abstract ¶ 4 6 8 38 40 Table 1
Mongeau US20210192572 items and characteristics ¶ 4 8 18 33-41 Fig 3 4
Mongeau US20200186865 items and characteristics ¶ 33
claims 3, 11
Opdycke6002: (wherein at least one of the segments corresponds to a plurality of digital signage displays located in a same geographical area). Behavioral profile clusters mapping to particular geographies such as census blocks or groups of census blocks (see at least Opdycke6002, ¶87, see also ¶26, 28, 73, 81, 95).
claims 5, 13
Opdycke6002: (time availabilities for displaying the digital signage content on the digital signage displays). Available programming inventory, e.g., available advertising time in a schedule, on one or more of the digital signage systems comprising the federated network. (see at least Opdycke6002, fig. 10, ¶124, claim 2).
claims 6, 14
Opdycke6002 does not specifically teach: (wherein some of the plurality of segments stored in the memory of the digital signage space platform are received via a communication interface of the digital signage space platform from at least one third party computing device which generates the plurality of segments).
However, Zschocke8290 discloses: The audience characteristics may be gathered from third-party data repositories such as, for example, credit reporting agencies that collect and maintain audience information relating to hundreds of audience characteristics (see at least Zschocke8290, ¶18). This information is collected from third-party sources (e.g., Experian, Acxiom, Equifax) and stored in a third-party database on the headend 808 and may be used to match assets to households or users and to select appropriate assets for large or small groups of UEDs or even individual UEDs (see at least Zschocke8290, ¶80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Opdycke6002 in view Zschocke8290, in order to expand the pool of data used in the targeting methodology of Opdycke6002.
claims 7 15
claim 1 9, wherein the display loop metric consists of: a number of digital contents in the display loop, a duration of the display loop, a duration of a digital content in the display loop, a number of digital contents of a type in the display loop, a budget for each digital content in the display loop, a time ratio for digital contents of a type in the display loop, or a time ratio per targeted demographics in the display loop.
Mongeau 20210192572 ¶ 45-50
claims 8 16
claim 1 9, further comprising transmitting to each target digital signage player via a communication interface of the digital signage server at least one of: the selected digital signage content and a unique identifier of the selected digital signage content.
Mongeau 20210192572
“7. The method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting to at least one computing device associated to each target location via a communication interface of the server at least one of: the digital content and a unique identifier of the digital content.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20080060003 (Nocifera); US20140180804 (Jordan); US20140297400 (Sandholm).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BREFFNI X BAGGOT whose telephone number is (571)272-7154. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8a-10a, 12p-6p teleworking.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on 571-270-39485491. 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.
/BREFFNI BAGGOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621