Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 05/06/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a US Application No. 18/418,654 filed on 01/22/2014 is acknowledged. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a US Application No. 16/659,078 filed on 10/21/2019 is acknowledged. Applicant' s claim for the benefit of a US Application No. 13/668,109 filed on 11/02/2012 is acknowledged. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of US Provisional Application Nos. 61/673,413 filed on 07/19/2012 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 1 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 1 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 1 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 1 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 1 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 1 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “receiving, via an in-app application programming interface (API) of an electronic device, information about items available within an application executed on the electronic device; in response to a request received by the application for an item of the items available within the application, transmitting, via the in-app API of the electronic device, a request to a server, wherein the request identifies at least an identifier that identifies the requested item; obtaining, via the in-app API of the electronic device and from the server, a signed receipt that indicates that a transaction associated with the request has been performed; obtaining, by the electronic device, verification of the signed receipt; and in response to the verification of the signed receipt, unlocking, by the electronic device, content associated with the requested item that is encompassed within the application and configured to be locked prior to the transaction being performed.”
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 2 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 1 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. For example, claim 1 in 12,307,491 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein the content associated with the requested item is further configured to be unlocked in accordance with the transaction being performed.”
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 3 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 2 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 3 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 4 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 2 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 4 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein the verification of the signed receipt comprises comparing a first identifier obtained from the signed receipt to a second identifier that is stored at the device and that is associated with the requested item.”
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 4 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 2 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 4 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 4 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 2 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 4 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein the first identifier and the second identifier comprise either a first item identifier and a second item identifier, respectively, or a first transaction identifier and a second transaction identifier, respectively.”
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 5 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 6 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 5 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 5 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 6 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 5 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein second transaction identifier corresponds to a previous transaction.”
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 6 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 4 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 6 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 2 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 4 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 5 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein the signed receipt is verified by a receipt verification server.”
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 7 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 5 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 7 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 2 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 5 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 2 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein obtaining the verification of the signed receipt comprises receiving the verification of the signed receipt from the verification server.”
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 8 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 1 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 8 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 1 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 1 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 1 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein the signed receipt is verified by the electronic device.”
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 9 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 7 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 9 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 6 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 7 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 6 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “verifying a timestamp of the signed receipt in accordance with the signed receipt being signed contemporaneously with a time associated with the transaction.”
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 10 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 8 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 10 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 17 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 8 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 7 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “ receiving, via an in-app application programming interface (API) of an electronic device, information about items available within an application executed on the electronic device; in response to a request received by the application for an item of the items available within the application, transmitting, via the in-app API of the electronic device, a request to a server, wherein the request identifies at least an identifier that identifies the requested item; obtaining, via the in-app API of the electronic device and from the server, a signed receipt that indicates that a transaction associated with the request has been performed; obtaining, by the electronic device, verification of the signed receipt; and in response to the verification of the signed receipt, unlocking, by the electronic device, content associated with the requested item that is encompassed within the application and configured to be locked prior to the transaction being performed.”
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 11 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 8 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. For example, claim 8 in 12,307,491 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein the content associated with the requested item is further configured to be unlocked in accordance with the transaction being performed.”
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 12 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 9 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 12 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 10 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 9 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 10 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein the verification of the signed receipt comprises comparing a first identifier obtained from the signed receipt to a second identifier that is stored at the device and that is associated with the requested item.”
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 13 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 11 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 13 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 8 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 11 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 8 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein the signed receipt is verified by a receipt verification server.”
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 14 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 11 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 14 is recited in claim 8 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 11 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 8 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein obtaining the verification of the signed receipt comprises receiving the verification of the signed receipt from the verification server.”
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 15 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 14 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 15 is recited in claim 12 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 14 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 12 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein the operations further comprise verifying a timestamp of the signed receipt in accordance with the signed receipt being signed contemporaneously with a time associated with the transaction.”
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 16 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 15 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 16 is recited in claim 7 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 15 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 7 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “receive, via an in-app application programming interface (API) of the electronic device, information about items available within an application executed on the electronic device; in response to a request received by the application for an item of the items available within the application, transmit, via the in-app API of the electronic device, a request to a server, wherein the request identifies at least an identifier that identifies the requested item; obtain, via the in-app API of the electronic device and from the server, a signed receipt that indicates that a transaction associated with the request has been performed; obtain, by the electronic device, verification of the signed receipt; and in response to the verification of the signed receipt, unlock, by the electronic device, content associated with the requested item that is encompassed within the application and configured to be locked prior to the transaction being performed.”
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 17 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 15 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. For example, claim 15 in 12,307,491 B2 comprises the concept of “wherein the content associated with the requested item is further configured to be unlocked in accordance with the transaction being performed.”
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 18 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 16 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 18 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 10 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 16 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 10 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein the verification of the signed receipt comprises comparing a first identifier obtained from the signed receipt to a second identifier that is stored at the device and that is associated with the requested item.”
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 19 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 18 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 19 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 8 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 18 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 8 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein the signed receipt is verified by a receipt verification server.”
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 20 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 18 of US Patent 12,307,491 B2. Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 20 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 8 of US Patent 11,880,808 B2. For example, both claim 18 in 12,307,491 B2 and claim 8 of 11,880,808 B2 comprise the concept of “wherein obtaining the verification of the signed receipt comprises receiving the verification of the signed receipt from the verification server.”
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The independent claim 1 contains allowable subject matter. As per claim 1, the closest prior art of record, United States Patent Application No. 20130132235 to Gandhi teaches techniques and equipment are described for enabling an application developer to provide mobile device users, using the developer's application, an option to purchase digital content items within the application and have the cost of the purchased content billed directly to their respective mobile communications service accounts. The mobile service account for a user or user's mobile device is maintained by a wireless carrier or operator of the mobile communication network to which the user subscribes for mobile communication services. The charges and other transaction details related to the content purchased by a mobile device user via the mobile application on the user's device appear in a billing or account statement periodically provided to the user by the carrier or operator of the mobile communication network. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 20090198620 B1 to Do teaches a mobile commerce receipt system and method providing a user of a mobile telecommunications terminal with a reliable electronic proof of reservation, purchase and/or payment made. By e-commerce means, the user places an order with a vendor or merchant and makes electronic payment. The vendor issues an electronic contract, sending the contract to a Trusted Third Party (TTP) receipt server. The TTP validates the contract, generates an electronic, digital receipt which is sent the vendor. The vendor sends the receipt to the mobile terminal of the user, the mobile terminal storing the receipt for subsequent presentation at the point of delivery of the ordered goods or services In addition, United States Patent Application No. 20130151857 to Agarwal teaches various embodiments of a system and method for a single request-single response protocol with mutual replay attack protection are described. Embodiments include a system that receives multiple single request messages, each of which include a respective nonce, timestamp, and digital signature. The system may create a record of previously received nonces that, at any given time, may include multiple message nonces received within a valid period of time prior to that given time. To validate a given single request message, the system verifies the digital signature of the message, determines that the timestamp of the message indicates a time within the valid period of time prior to the current time, and determines that the nonce of the message is not present within the record of previously received nonces. The system sends a single response message that includes the same nonce as the validated message. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 20120330786 to Paleja teaches an application management system modifies developer-submitted applications, such as mobile applications, to add various types of functionality before such applications are made available for purchase. The added functionality may, for example, enable end users to make in-application purchases of content items from an application store. As another example, Digital Rights Management (DRM) functionality may be added for controlling user access to content items, such as content items available in an application store.
The closest prior art of record fail to teach or suggest, in the context of the ordered combination of the claim, obtaining, via the in-app API of the electronic device and from the server, a signed receipt that indicates that a transaction associated with the request has been performed; obtaining, by the electronic device, verification of the signed receipt; and in response to the verification of the signed receipt, unlocking, by the electronic device, content associated with the requested item that is encompassed within the application and configured to be locked prior to the transaction being performed.
Claims 2-9 are dependent on claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. In addition, claim 10 is analogous to claim 1, and thus contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. Claims 11-15 are dependent on claim 10 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. In addition, claim 16 is analogous to claim 1, and thus contains allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above. Claims 17-20 are dependent on claim 16 and contain allowable subject matter for the same reasons stated above.
A terminal disclaimer may be effective to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection over U.S. Patent No. 12,307,491 B2 and U.S. Patent No. 11,880,808 B2 (37 CFR 1.321(b) and (c)).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY JONES whose telephone number is (469)295-9137. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:30 pm CST (M-Th).
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
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.
/COURTNEY P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699