The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In response to the communication received on 05/02/2025, the following is a Non-Final Office Action for Application No. 19197358.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 05/02/2025 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on: 19197358 filed 05/02/2025 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63642176, filed 05/03/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 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. The claims fall within statutory class of process or machine; hence, the claims fall under statutory category of Step 1.
Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
A system for providing a gamified virtual construction lab, comprising: a game model system having one or more algorithms that are loaded into a working memory of a processor that cause the processor when executed to generate a virtual game environment; an objectives system having one or more algorithms that are loaded into a working memory of a processor that cause the processor when executed to display one or more game objectives to a user in the virtual game environment; a user movement system having one or more algorithms that are loaded into a working memory of a processor that cause the processor when executed to receive object selection data by a user of an object in the virtual environment, user movement data from one or more movement data sources, and user orientation data from one or more user orientation data sources, to determine whether the user movement data and the user orientation data results in a collision between the selected object and the virtual game environment and to generate collision data; and a scoring system having one or more algorithms that are loaded into a working memory of a processor that cause the processor when executed to receive the collision data and the game objectives and to generate score data in response.
[or]
A method for providing a gamified virtual construction lab, comprising: loading one or more algorithms into a working memory of a processor that cause the processor when executed to perform the steps of: generating a virtual game environment; displaying one or more game objectives to a user in the virtual game environment; receiving object selection by the user of an object in the virtual environment; receiving user movement data from one or more movement data sources and user orientation data from one or more user orientation data sources; determining whether the user movement data and the user orientation data results in a collision between the selected object and the virtual game environment; generating collision data if the user movement data and the user orientation data results in the collision; and generating score data in response to the collision data and the game objectives.
The claim(s) recite(s) the following summarization of the abstract idea which includes generating score data in response to collision data and game objectives which is executed by the additional element(s) of memory and/or processor. This falls into at least the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mental Processes since the information can be analyzed by an abstract evaluation judgment process. The above non-boldface portion of the independent claims recites a judicial exception because all of the steps could be performed entirely with the human mind or with pen and paper as a human could define a scoring system responsive to collision data and game objectives. Thus, per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity since the identified recitation falls within Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions).
Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The memory and/or processor is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic memory and/or processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, generating score data in response to collision data and game objectives by a memory and/or processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B.
Per Step 2B, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: memory and processor. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, generating score data in response to collision data and game objectives by a memory and/or processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure at ¶0092 wherein “a software system is a system that operates on a processor to perform predetermined functions in response to predetermined data fields. A software system is typically created as an algorithmic source code by a human programmer, and the source code algorithm is then compiled into a machine language algorithm with the source code algorithm functions, and linked to the specific input/output devices, dynamic link libraries and other specific hardware and software components of a processor, which converts the processor from a general-purpose processor into a specific purpose processor.” Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine/manufacture for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims).
The dependent claims do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pittman (US 20190371196 A1) hereinafter referred to as Pittman.
Pittman teaches:
Claim 1. A system for providing a gamified virtual construction lab, comprising:
a game model system having one or more algorithms that are loaded into a working memory of a processor that cause the processor when executed to generate a virtual game environment (¶0036 The virtual simulation module 74 generates the virtual environment 24 including the simulated heavy equipment vehicle 26 using the object render files and vehicle attribute files stored in the memory device 70. The VR camera module 76 is programmed to establish a VR camera viewpoint location within the virtual environment 24 that is used to render a VR camera viewpoint based on the VR camera viewpoint location. For example, in one embodiment, the VR camera module 76 establishes the VR camera viewpoint location within a cab of the simulated heavy equipment vehicle 26 to provide the user with a first-person view sitting with the cab of the simulated heavy equipment vehicle 26. The VR camera viewpoint is used to render images of the virtual environment on the on the VR head mounted display 42. In some embodiments, the virtual simulation module 74 may include a Unity™ game engine.);
an objectives system having one or more algorithms that are loaded into a working memory of a processor that cause the processor when executed to display one or more game objectives to a user in the virtual game environment (¶0181 Initiating the simulation module 304 can be done remotely or at the simulator. The one or more instruction modes can be selected by either the instructor or student. Instruction modes include at least a practice mode and exam/assessment mode or operational mode. The practice mode includes help functionality not present in the assessment mode. One example of the help mode includes a graphical control icon that appears on the display after a set time has elapsed without completing an exercise goal. The help mode may include instruction feed text on the display, such as on the bottom of the display. The practice mode optionally does not score a user, but can be graded against the exam mode criteria. ¶0182 If in exam mode or scored in practice mode, results are compiled 310 either at the simulator or remotely (e.g., wirelessly transmitted to a remote device or computer). In the assessment mode, there may be section instructions to assist with the flow of the exercise. These can be displayed across a portion of a display screen. The instruction module accepts one or more parameters to indicate what exercise to start, what map to start, whether to start in practice mode or assessment mode, and various other parameters set through instruction module by an instructor or user. The operator (i.e., student or user) interacts 308 with one or more simulation modes, such as simulation exercises. Interacting 308 includes performing one or more simulated exercises substantially similar to an OEM exercise for the non-simulated heavy equipment model.);
a user movement system having one or more algorithms that are loaded into a working memory of a processor that cause the processor when executed to receive object selection data by a userof an object in the virtual environment, user movement data from one or more movement data sources, and user orientation data from one or more user orientation data sources, to determine whether the user movement data and the user orientation data results in a collision between the selected object and the virtual game environment and to generate collision data (¶0205 Referring to FIG. 32, method 500 of simulating a physical interaction in a simulator is shown, according to some embodiments. Simulated physical contact zones between two or more simulated objects can be identified 502. One or more interactions in the contact zones can be defined 504 separately from the simulated environmental or equipment object rules. For example, when the environment (i.e., dirt or ground) and a piece of equipment (e.g., bucket) interact, the physical rules for their interaction are defined similar to many types of collisions found written into the software package. An example of physical contact zone includes regions in which objects in the environment are expected to collide or interact. In order to smooth the visual look of the interaction, reduce the resource drain to calculate the physics of the interaction and overall optimize the interaction, the specific zone can be isolated and defined (by rules separate from other interactions in the environment). ¶0206 In order for equipment interactions to display realistically without significantly affecting performance, virtual contact zones or joints can be created between components. For example, once a component moves into a physical contact zone, real time physics of movement is eliminated or altered and a separate rules system is enacted, such as removing harsh collisions between objects. Such a system allows for smoother, more realistic physical interactions between components on screen, without dragging performance.); and
a scoring system having one or more algorithms that are loaded into a working memory of a processor that cause the processor when executed to receive the collision data and the game objectives and to generate score data in response (¶0181 The practice mode includes help functionality not present in the assessment mode. One example of the help mode includes a graphical control icon that appears on the display after a set time has elapsed without completing an exercise goal. The help mode may include instruction feed text on the display, such as on the bottom of the display. The practice mode optionally does not score a user, but can be graded against the exam mode criteria. ¶0182 If in exam mode or scored in practice mode, results are compiled 310 either at the simulator or remotely (e.g., wirelessly transmitted to a remote device or computer). In the assessment mode, there may be section instructions to assist with the flow of the exercise. These can be displayed across a portion of a display screen. The instruction module accepts one or more parameters to indicate what exercise to start, what map to start, whether to start in practice mode or assessment mode, and various other parameters set through instruction module by an instructor or user. The operator (i.e., student or user) interacts 308 with one or more simulation modes, such as simulation exercises. Interacting 308 includes performing one or more simulated exercises substantially similar to an OEM exercise for the non-simulated heavy equipment model. For example, the specific exercises that an OEM designates for training an operator on a “real world” machine are substantially simulated within the simulator. Further, the evaluation and criteria by which the operator is judged in the simulation substantially or exactly mimics the criteria used to evaluate “real world” operators of non-simulated machines or heavy equipment.).
Pittman teaches:
Claim 2. The system of claim 1 further including a timer system having one or more algorithms that are loaded into a working memory of a processor that cause the processor when executed to generate a timer display in the virtual game environment (¶0143 Once the simulation reaches the completion point (Key Off machine) all controls will be locked out. Not user input through the controls will be recognized or cause any response within the simulation. The simulation will display “Exercise Complete!” text at the bottom of the screen. The text will display in a green color. The screen will fade from color display to black and white display over the course of 15 seconds before completely shutting down. The simulation will write the exercise metrics and data to an XML file for SimU Campus™ Training Records Management software to display within a report (shown in FIG. 26). ¶0146 WarningTimer—parameter defined in the configuration file to set the amount of time between when an instruction is displayed until the simulation starts warning the user for NOT completing the instruction, Default WarningTimer value is 20 seconds. FailureTimer—parameter defined in the configuration file to set the amount of time between when an instruction is moved to a warning and when the simulation fails the user for NOT completing the instruction, Default FailureTimer value is 15 seconds ¶0181 The practice mode includes help functionality not present in the assessment mode. One example of the help mode includes a graphical control icon that appears on the display after a set time has elapsed without completing an exercise goal. The help mode may include instruction feed text on the display, such as on the bottom of the display. The practice mode optionally does not score a user, but can be graded against the exam mode criteria).
Pittman teaches:
Claim 3. The system of claim 2 wherein the scoring system is configured to receive timer data from the timer system and to modify the score data in response to the timer data (¶0146 WarningTimer—parameter defined in the configuration file to set the amount of time between when an instruction is displayed until the simulation starts warning the user for NOT completing the instruction, Default WarningTimer value is 20 seconds. FailureTimer—parameter defined in the configuration file to set the amount of time between when an instruction is moved to a warning and when the simulation fails the user for NOT completing the instruction, Default FailureTimer value is 15 seconds. ¶0144 The simulation will display the failure reason at the bottom of the screen. Text will be displayed as, “FAILURE: [InstructionString” or “FAILURE: [FailureReason”: Where [InstructionString is the current instruction; Where [FailureReason is the explanation for cause of failure. The Text will display in a red color. Normal exercise completion routine will commence, but instead of “Exercise Complete!” it will display the Failure information until the simulation closes. The screen will fade from color display to black and white display over the course of 15 seconds before completely shutting down. The simulation will write the exercise metrics, data and failure information to an XML file for SimU Campus™ Training Records Management software to display within a report.).
Pittman teaches:
Claim 4. The system of claim 1 further comprising a level management system having one or more algorithms that are loaded into a working memory of a processor that cause the processor when executed to input data as a function of a scoring algorithm and to modify the score data as a function of level score (¶0042 The performance measurement module 88 is programmed to receive the monitored performance parameters from the performance tracking module 86 and generate various evaluation scores based on the performance parameters and output various performance reports to display the evaluation scores. In some embodiments, the performance tracking module 86 and/or performance measurement module 88 include SimU Campus™ Training Management software. ¶0132 c) Scoring: The score in each lesson is generated based on time, productivity, equipment damage (number of contacts with objects), and exercise success. The simulator system 10 tracks/reports numerous metrics and generates student scores based on performance measures being recorded with the “final score” for a lesson being expressed in terms of exercise success as well as reporting of performance measures and metrics.).
Pittman teaches:
Claim 5. The system of claim 1 wherein the user movement system is configured to receive the object data and to modify a view of the virtual game environment to simulate a restricted field of view of the virtual game environment as a function of the user orientation data and the virtual game environment (¶0032 The display stand 40 has three display monitors 38, which are connected to the computer processing device 54 graphics card 62 over HDMI and/or DisplayPort for rendering a simulated view. The display monitors 38 may include LED displays, LCD displays, or any suitable display device for displaying computer-generate images. The heavy equipment simulation system 10 currently has three displays 38 acting as a single view, but it is to be understood that the teachings herein can be modified for other presently known or future combinations of displays acting as multiple views.).
Pittman teaches:
Claim 6. The system of claim 1 wherein the user movement system is configured to receive the object data and to modify a view of the virtual game environment to simulate a collision of the object in the virtual game environment as a function of the user orientation data and the virtual game environment (¶0205 when the environment (i.e., dirt or ground) and a piece of equipment (e.g., bucket) interact, the physical rules for their interaction are defined similar to many types of collisions found written into the software package. An example of physical contact zone includes regions in which objects in the environment are expected to collide or interact. In order to smooth the visual look of the interaction, reduce the resource drain to calculate the physics of the interaction and overall optimize the interaction, the specific zone can be isolated and defined (by rules separate from other interactions in the environment). In order for equipment interactions to display realistically without significantly affecting performance, virtual contact zones or joints can be created between components. For example, once a component moves into a physical contact zone, real time physics of movement is eliminated or altered and a separate rules system is enacted, such as removing harsh collisions between objects.).
Pittman teaches:
Claim 7. The system of claim 1 wherein the user movement system is configured to receive the object data and to modify a view of the virtual game environment to simulate placement of the object in the virtual game environment as a function of the user orientation data and the virtual game environment (¶0201 The first simulated terrain can be editable terrain, such as earth, debris, or other material that may interact with a simulated piece of machinery or equipment. The simulated component, such as an implement of heavy equipment, contacts 402 the first simulated terrain. The implement can be a bucket, blade or other attachment on a vehicle or heavy equipment. Contacting 402 can be digging, pushing, scraping, breaking, grabbing or other motion in which the simulated component and first simulated terrain interact. Once the first simulated terrain is contacted 402, an amount of first simulated terrain is calculated 404. For example, if a simulated bucket digs a portion of simulated earth from the first simulated terrain, a calculation is made as to the amount dug or interacted with. The calculation may be a volumetric calculation, for example. The first simulated terrain contacted can be formed into discrete shapes 406, such as spheres or irregular shapes that visually represent the terrain being interacted with. The size and number of shapes formed 406 may affect the performance and processing needs of the simulation. Once the shapes are formed 406, such as dirt clods in a bucket, they can be moved 408 within the simulation to near or within proximity to a second simulated terrain.).
Pittman teaches:
Claim 8. The system of claim 1 wherein the user movement system is configured to receive the object data and to modify a view of the virtual game environment to simulate placement of the object in the virtual game environment as a function of the user orientation data and the virtual game environment and the scoring system is configured to generate a score as a function of the placement of the object (¶0051 The VRDeviceConnectionManager.cs script controls the majority of the informational displays (VR ready/not ready, remove headset, and calibration instructions displays), but also controls what cameras are active to reduce rendering overhead. Cameras can be added to this script to enable and disable cameras depending on if the user is wearing the headset or not. Beyond switching cameras; one of this scripts main duties is to enable/disable VR depending on certain conditions. Since one of the main goals of the simulator is to give operators the feeling of the realistic controls and their placement; VR is not enabled until after the machine has been started and is ready to move. ¶0184 Examples of training exercises include walkaround, controls familiarization, bucket placement, “raking the green”, “over the moon”, loading & off loading the machine from a trailer, trenching, truck loading, bench loading, setting trench box and pipe, backfilling, production cycle, quick coupler and open training.).
Pittman teaches:
Claim 9. The system of claim 1 wherein the user movement system is configured to receive the object data and to modify a view of the virtual game environment to simulate placement of the object relative to a second object in the virtual game environment as a function of a first location of the object and a second location of the second object (¶0032 A specific example of a suitable VR headset unit 20 is the Oculus Rift™ but it is to be understood that the teachings herein can be modified for other presently known or future Head Mounted Displays. The VR headset unit 20 also interacts with the positional tracking sensors 66 over infrared using outside-in tracking to send specific locations of the HMD to the software 48. The heavy equipment simulation system 10 contains a hand tracking component 46 which is mounted on the VR headset unit 20 but communicates directly with the computer processing device 54 over USB.).
Pittman teaches:
Claim 10. The system of claim 1 further comprising a detection system having one or more algorithms that are loaded into a working memory of a processor that cause the processor when executed to identify potential safety hazards in construction environments, and detect the positions of a user's body joints, compare the posture of the user with ergonomic standards, and determine whether the body movements are potentially harmful when lifting, bending, or carrying heavy loads (¶0009 The heavy equipment vehicle control assembly is configured to generate first input signals based on the user's interaction with the heavy equipment vehicle control assembly. The VR headset unit includes a VR head mounted display and a position sensor. The VR head mounted display is configured to display the virtual environment including the simulated heavy equipment vehicle. The position sensor is configured to detect an orientation of the VR headset unit and generate second input signals based on the detected orientation of the VR headset unit. The control system includes a processor coupled to a memory device. ).
As per claims 11-20, the method tracks the system of claims 1-10, respectively, resulting in substantially similar limitations. The same cited prior art and rationale of claims 1-10 are applied to claims 11-20, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250273341 A1
Sharotry; Abhimanyu et al.
PREDICTING FATIGUE AND INJURY RISK USING DIGITAL TWIN OF USER
US 11043138 B2
Nissen; Jeffrey Paul et al.
VR emulator
US 20190130781 A1
MCCALL D B et al.
Virtual reality flight emulator, has head mounted display worn by user, where emulator allows user of emulator to virtually teleport into slave flight emulator connected through network, and control interface of emulator receives feedback
WO 2016135472 A1
COLOSIMO N et al.
Mixed reality vehicle control simulator e.g. immersive flight simulator, for training operatives to control aircraft moving in three dimensional environment, has processor for updating virtual scenery displayed on screen
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KURTIS GILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3315. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 PM.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/KURTIS GILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights