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 .
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-2, 7-12, 16, 20-22, 24-25 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3, 6, 14-16, 20, 23 of U.S. Patent 12,323,561 (hereinafter ‘561) in view of BRONDIJK et al (Pub. No: US 2020-0228848). This is a non-provisional double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have issued to patent. Claims 1, 10 of the instant application are each rejected in view of Claim 1 of ‘561. Claims 2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 of the instant application are rejected in view of Claims 3, 14, 6, 6, 14, 15, 16, 20, 20, 20, 23, 23, respectfully, of ‘561. Although the conflicting claim limitations are not recited identically, they are not patentably distinct from each other except for the following:
As per Claims 1-2, 7-12, 16, 20-22, 24-25 ‘561 does not claim but BRONDIJK discloses from an Adaptation Set (Figs. 1-15 adaptive sets [0123] [0194-0195, 0291-0292] plurality of representations [0214] [0362] [0338-0339]), wherein the Adaptation set includes a plurality of Audio Representations (Figs. 1-15 adaptive sets [0123] [0194-0195, 0291-0292] plurality of representations [0214] [0362] [0338-0339]); the plurality of Audio Representations including at least one Audio information (Figs. 1-15 audio feature characteristics information [0123] [0194-0195, 0291-0292] [0341])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include from an Adaptation Set, wherein the Adaptation set includes a plurality of Audio Representations; the plurality of Audio Representations including at least one Audio information as taught by BRONDIJK into the system of ‘561 because of the benefit taught by BRONDIJK to disclose advanced techniques for process and analysis of bundled audio streams for improvements in performance of complex audio datasets and systems as required in the system of ‘561
Claims 1-2, 7-10, 24-25 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3, 6 of U.S. Patent 11,949,957 (hereinafter ‘957) in view of BRONDIJK et al (Pub. No: US 2020-0228848). This is a non-provisional double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have issued to patent. Claims 1, 2, 7 of the instant application are each rejected in view of Claim 1 of ‘957. Claims 8, 9, 10, 24, 15 of the instant application are rejected in view of Claims 6, 6, 3, 2+6, 2+6, respectfully, of ‘957. Although the conflicting claim limitations are not recited identically, they are not patentably distinct from each other except for the following:
As per Claims 1-2, 7-10, 24-25 ‘957 does not claim but BRONDIJK discloses from an Adaptation Set (Figs. 1-15 adaptive sets [0123] [0194-0195, 0291-0292] plurality of representations [0214] [0362] [0338-0339]), wherein the Adaptation set includes a plurality of Audio Representations (Figs. 1-15 adaptive sets [0123] [0194-0195, 0291-0292] plurality of representations [0214] [0362] [0338-0339]); the plurality of Audio Representations including at least one Audio information (Figs. 1-15 audio feature characteristics information [0123] [0194-0195, 0291-0292] [0341])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include from an Adaptation Set, wherein the Adaptation set includes a plurality of Audio Representations; the plurality of Audio Representations including at least one Audio information as taught by BRONDIJK into the system of ‘957 because of the benefit taught by BRONDIJK to disclose advanced techniques for process and analysis of bundled audio streams for improvements in performance of complex audio datasets and systems as required in the system of ‘957.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 12, 16, 21, 24, 25 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 3, 9, 17, 24 of U.S. Patent 11,617,016 (hereinafter ‘016) in view of BRONDIJK et al (Pub. No: US 2020-0228848). This is a non-provisional double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have issued to patent. Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 21 of the instant application are each rejected in view of Claim 1 of ‘016. Claims 2, 12, 16, 24, 25 of the instant application are rejected in view of Claims 3, 9, 24, 17, 17, respectfully, of ‘016. Although the conflicting claim limitations are not recited identically, they are not patentably distinct from each other except for the following:
As per Claims 1-2, 7-9, 12, 16, 21, 24-25 ‘016 does not claim but BRONDIJK discloses from an Adaptation Set (Figs. 1-15 adaptive sets [0123] [0194-0195, 0291-0292] plurality of representations [0214] [0362] [0338-0339]), wherein the Adaptation set includes a plurality of Audio Representations (Figs. 1-15 adaptive sets [0123] [0194-0195, 0291-0292] plurality of representations [0214] [0362] [0338-0339]); the plurality of Audio Representations including at least one Audio information (Figs. 1-15 audio feature characteristics information [0123] [0194-0195, 0291-0292] [0341])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include from an Adaptation Set, wherein the Adaptation set includes a plurality of Audio Representations; the plurality of Audio Representations including at least one Audio information as taught by BRONDIJK into the system of ‘016 because of the benefit taught by BRONDIJK to disclose advanced techniques for process and analysis of bundled audio streams for improvements in performance of complex audio datasets and systems as required in the system of ‘016.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-25 are objected to for the following: The claims recite “Adaptation Set”, “Adaptation set” and/or “adaptation set” whereby Examiner has construed these limitations to be equivalent but respectfully submits the limitations’ recitations should be exact for clarity purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 7-11, 16, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAXENA et al. (Pub. No: US 2016-0381398) in view of BRONDIJK et al (Pub. No: US 2020-0228848) in view of TSUKAGOSHI (Pub. No: US 2018-0007406).
As per Claim 1 SAXENA discloses A system for receiving at least one first Audio Stream (Figs. 1-14 data streams [0109-0111]); Audio Representations each including the at least one audio signal (Figs. 1-14 incoming data signal [0036-0038] [0040-0041] [0095] [0109-0111] [0125-0127]); including at least one Audio information message to be also received, the system comprising (Figs. 1-14 [0036-0038] [0040-0041] depending upon the application setting metadata with SEI containing audio message information is sent to HMD for rendering/reproduction [0095] [0125-0127]): at least one media Audio decoder configured to decode at least one Audio signal from the at least one first Audio Stream (Figs. 1-14 [0036-0038] encoder/decoder [0040-0041] [0095] data streams [0109-0111] [0125-0127]) or Adaptation Set (either or) to represent an Audio scene (Figs. 1-14 [Abstract] represent the scene associated with 3D content [0036-0038]);
a processor, configured to (Figs. 1-14 processor 140 [0036-0038]): decide, whether the Audio information message is to be reproduced (Figs. 1-14 [0036-0038] [0040-0041] decided when instruction sent to display/render/reproduce [0095] [0109-0111] [0125-0127]); and cause, at the decision that the Audio information message is to be reproduced, the reproduction of the Audio information message (Figs. 1-14 [0036-0038] [0040-0041] send to HMD for rendering/reproduction – decided when instruction sent to display/render/reproduce [0095] [0109-0111] [0125-0127])
SAXENA does not disclose but BRONDIJK discloses from an Adaptation Set (Figs. 1-15 adaptive sets [0123] [0194-0195, 0291-0292] plurality of representations [0214] [0362] [0338-0339]), wherein the Adaptation set includes a plurality of Audio Representations (Figs. 1-15 plurality of representations [0214] [0362] [0338-0339] [0354]) the plurality of Audio Representations including at least one Audio information (Figs. 1-15 audio feature characteristics information [0123] [0194-0195, 0291-0292] [0341])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include from an Adaptation Set, wherein the Adaptation set includes a plurality of Audio Representations; the plurality of Audio Representations including at least one Audio information as taught by BRONDIJK into the system of SAXENA because of the benefit taught by BRONDIJK to disclose advanced techniques for process and analysis of bundled audio streams for improvements in performance of complex audio datasets and systems as required in the system of SAXENA.
SAXENA and BRONDIJK do not disclose but TSUKAGOSHI discloses decide based on the user's current head orientation (either or) and/or movement data (either or ) and/or Audio information message metadata (Figs. 6-8, 12-18 [0040-0046] multiplex audio related subtitles with the audio stream [0076-0077 [0082-0084 [0091-0092]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include decide based on the user's current head orientation and/or movement data and/or Audio information message metadata as taught by TSUKAGOSHI into the system of SAXENA and BRONDIJK because of the benefit taught by TSUKAGOSHI to disclose multiplexing message and data information to bundle relative interdependent data to assist with improved processing whereby said systems utilize audio data information and would benefit from the merged data for improved performance.
As per Claim 7 SAXENA discloses The system of claim 1, further configured to obtain the Audio information message metadata from the Audio Representation (See said analysis for Claim 1) in which the Audio information message is encoded (Figs. 1-14 [0020-0021] SEI frame data [0047-0051] [0125-0127])
SAXENA does not disclose but BRONDIJK discloses Audio Representation of the adaptation set (See said analysis for Claim 1)
As per Claim 8 SAXENA discloses The system of claim 1, further comprising: an Audio information message metadata generator configured to generate Audio information message metadata (Figs. 1-14 produce for use generated for the message information and related sub-data [0036-0042] [0095] [0109-0111] [0125-0127]) on the basis of the decision that Audio information message is to be reproduced (Figs. 1-14 [0036-0038] [0040-0041] send to HMD for rendering/reproduction – decided when instruction sent to display/render/reproduce [0095] [0109-0111] [0125-0127]).
As per Claim 9 SAXENA discloses The system of claim 1, further configured to: generate or modify (either or) Audio information message metadata (Figs. 1-14 produce for use generated for the message information and related sub-data [0036-0042] [0095] [0109-0111] [0125-0127]) on the basis of the decision that Audio information message is to be reproduced (Figs. 1-14 [0036-0038] [0040-0041] send to HMD for rendering/reproduction – decided when instruction sent to display/render/reproduce [0095] [0109-0111] [0125-0127]).
As per Claim 10 SAXENA discloses The system of claim 1,
Audio metadata and/or Audio information message metadata (Figs. 1-14 produce for use generated for the message information and related sub-data [0036-0042] [0095] [0109-0111] [0125-0127]),
SAXENA and BRONDIJK do not disclose but TSUKAGOSHI discloses configured to control a muxer or multiplexer to merge, on the basis of the Audio, packets of the Audio information message Stream with packets of the at least one first Audio Stream in one Stream to add the Audio information message to the at least one first Audio Stream (Figs. 6-8, 12-18 [0040-0046] multiplex audio related subtitles with the audio stream [0076-0077 [0082-0084 [0091-0092]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applied equally to Claim 10).
As per Claim 11 SAXENA discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the Audio information message metadata is encoded in a configuration frame and (either) /or in a data frame (Figs. 1-14 [0020-0021] metadata and SEI frame data [0047-0051] [0125-0127]) including at least one of: a type of the message including at least one of (one of), an indication of dependency/non-dependency from the scene (one of), positional data (Figs. 1-14 [0020-0021] metadata and SEI location and viewpoints [0048-0052] [0069] [0095] [0125-0127]), gain data (one of), an indication of the presence of associated text label (one of), number of available languages (one of), language of the Audio information message (one of).
As per Claim 16 SAXENA discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the Audio Stream or Adaptation Set (or) is according to MPEG-H 3D Audio Stream format (Figs. 1-14 rendering capabilities [0036-0042] [0046]).
As per Claim 20 SAXENA discloses The system of claim 1, configured to receive one Audio Representation having the at least one first audio stream encoded therein (Figs. 1-14 [0020-0021] SEI frame data [0047-0051] [0125-0127])
SAXENA does not disclose but BRONDIJK discloses Audio Representation of the adaptation set (See said analysis for Claim 1)
As per Claim 21 SAXENA discloses The system of claim 1, wherein at least one Audio Representation includes the audio information message encoded therein (Figs. 1-14 [0020-0021] included metadata with SEI [0047-0051] [0125-0127])
SAXENA does not disclose but BRONDIJK discloses Audio Representation of the adaptation set (See said analysis for Claim 1)
As per Claim 22 SAXENA discloses The system of claim 1, wherein at least one Audio Representation includes audio information message metadata encoded therein (Figs. 1-14 [0020-0021] included metadata with SEI [0047-0051] [0125-0127])
SAXENA does not disclose but BRONDIJK discloses one Audio Representation of the adaptation set (See said analysis for Claim 1)
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAXENA et al. (Pub. No: US 2016-0381398) in view of BRONDIJK et al (Pub. No: US 2020-0228848) in view of TSUKAGOSHI (Pub. No: US 2018-0007406), as applied in Claims 1, 7-11, 16, 20-22, and further in view of DOLINAR et al (US Pub. No: 2013-0190981)
As per Claim 2 SAXENA discloses The system according to claim 1, wherein the Audio information message (See said analysis for Claim 1)
SAXENA BRONDIJK and TSUKAGOSHI do not disclose but DOLINAR discloses message is uncompressed (additional data used to inform user – message [0316-0317]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include message is uncompressed as taught by DOLINAR into the systems of SAXENA BRONDIJK and TSUKAGOSHI because of the benefit taught by DOLINAR to disclose additional considerations for processing message data to include unprocessed audio data whereby said systems are directed towards processing audio data and would benefit from the natural extension of including the ability for additional types of data to improve upon system capabilities.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 3-6, 12-15, 17-19, 23-25 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and but for the outstanding double patenting rejections contained herein.
Claims 3-6, 12-15, 17-19, 23-25 is/are allowed, but for the outstanding rejections contained herein. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 3 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, wherein the Adaptation Set comprises at least one Audio scene Adaptation Set, which includes the at least one first Audio Stream, and at least one Audio message Adaptation Set, which includes the at least one Audio information message, wherein the system is configured to select, from the at least one Audio scene Adaptation Set, the at least one first Audio Stream, and, from the at least one Audio message Adaptation Set, the at least one Audio information message”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 4 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, further configured to: receive at least one Audio metadata describing the at least one Audio signal encoded in the at least one first Audio Stream of the Adaptation Set; receive Audio information message metadata describing the at least one Audio information message; at the decision that the information message is to be reproduced, modify the Audio information message metadata and cause a reproduction of the Audio information message, in addition to the reproduction of the at least one Audio signal”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 5 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, further configured to: receive at least one Audio metadata describing the at least one Audio signal encoded in the at least one first Audio Stream of the Adaptation Set; receive Audio information message metadata describing the at least one Audio information message of the Adaptation Set; at the decision that the Audio information message is to be reproduced, modify the Audio information message metadata to enable the reproduction of the Audio information message, in addition to the reproduction of the at least one Audio signal; and modify the Audio metadata describing the at least one Audio signal to allow a merge of the at least one first Audio Stream of the Adaptation Set and the at least one additional Audio Stream”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 6 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, further configured to: receive at least one Audio metadata describing the at least one Audio signal encoded in the at least one first Audio Stream of the Adaptation Set; receive Audio information message metadata describing the at least one Audio information message from the at least one first Audio Stream of the Adaptation Set; at the decision that the Audio information message is to be reproduced, merge the at least one first Audio Stream or Adaptation Set and the synthetic Audio Stream”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 12 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, configured to perform at least one of the following operations: embed metadata back in an Audio Stream; feed the Audio Stream to an additional media decoder; modify Audio metadata of the least one first Audio Stream so as to take into consideration the existence of the Audio information message and allow merging”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 13 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform a local search for an additional Audio Stream in which the Audio information message is encoded and/or Audio information message metadata and, in case of non-retrieval, request the additional Audio Stream and/or Audio information message metadata to a remote entity”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 14 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to perform a local search for an additional Audio Stream and/or the Audio information message metadata and, in case of non-retrieval, cause a synthetic Audio generator to generate the Audio information message Stream and/or Audio information message metadata”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 15 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, further comprising: at least one first Audio decoder for decoding the at least one Audio signal from at least one first Audio Stream or Adaptation Set; at least one additional Audio decoder for decoding the at least one Audio information message from an additional Audio Stream; and at least one mixer and/or renderer for mixing and/or superimposing the Audio information message with the at least one Audio signal from the at least one first Audio Stream”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 17 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to choose, in the case the Audio information message is one of a plurality of Audio information messages to be reproduced, to reproduce one first Audio information message of the plurality of Audio information messages before a second Audio information message of the plurality of Audio information messages”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 18 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, further configured to: receive data about availability of a plurality of adaptation sets, the available adaptation sets including at least one Audio scene adaptation set for the at least one first Audio Stream and at least one Audio message adaptation set for at least one additional Audio Stream containing the Audio information message; create, based on the processor's decision, selection data identifying which of the adaptation sets are to be retrieved, the available adaptation sets including at least one Audio scene adaptation set and/or at least one Audio message adaptation set; and request and/or retrieve the data for the adaptation sets identified by the selection data, wherein each Adaptation Set groups different encodings for different bitrates”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 19 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, wherein each adaptation set is formed by a plurality of Audio Representations containing interchangeable versions of the respective audio stream, the system being configured to adapt the audio stream to the current network condition”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 23 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, further comprising a Download and Switching module configured to receive the at least one first Audio Stream, in form of Audio Representation of an Adaptation Set, based on selection data identifying which of the Adaptation Sets, or Audio Representations of Adaptation Set, are to be received”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 24 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to decide whether the Audio information message is to be reproduced based on an indication of an accessibility feature, or accessibility feature indication metadata, associated with objects in the scene”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 25 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one first processor is configured to decide whether the Audio information message is to be reproduced based on an indication of an accessibility feature, or accessibility feature indication metadata, associated with objects in the scene”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
Regarding Claims 3-6, 12-15, 17-19, 23-25, the closest prior art of record SAXENA et al. (Pub. No: US 2016-0381398) does not teach alone or in a reasonable combination with additional prior art does not teach said claim limitations as recited herein. SAXENA only teaches an audios stream associated with an audio scene that is to be decoded and reproduced as well as disclosing receiving at least one first audio stream associated to an audio scene to be reproduced, the at least one first audio stream having at least one audio signal encoded therein. The prior art also discloses deciding, based on an application setting, whether an audio information message is to be reproduced, wherein the audio information message is independent from the at least one audio signal and causing, at the decision that the audio information message is to be reproduced, the reproduction of the audio information message.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
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 any 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.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights