`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMlVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`13/979,893
`
`07/16/2013
`
`HirOki Kazuno
`
`HOKUP0183WOUS
`
`5190
`
`03/23/2017 —MARK D. SARALINO (PAN) m
`7590
`51921
`RENNER, OTTO, BOIS SELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`QUIGLEY’ KYLE ROBERT
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19TH FLOOR
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44115
`
`2865
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/23/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ipdocket @rennerott0.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 13/979,893 KAZUNO ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`KYLE R. QUIGLEY its“ 2865
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/3/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:l This action is non-final.
`2a)|Z| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1-10 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| Claim(s)_1-10 is/are rejected.
`8)|:I Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit
`:/'/\W¢W.LISI>I‘.0. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`iindex.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Xl The drawing(s) filed on 7/16/2013 is/are: a)lX| accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)IXI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)IZl All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.IXI Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170313
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/979,893
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`Please amend “the separate setting pa_rt” to “the separate setting.”
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
`
`directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does not fall within at least one of
`
`the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is
`
`directed to a judicial exception (Le, a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
`
`abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are directed to the abstract
`
`idea of an algorithm for determining usage permission periods. The claim(s) does/do
`
`not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than
`
`the judicial exception because the additional element(s) or combination of elements in
`
`the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: mere
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/979,893
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer
`
`structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood,
`
`routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry [The
`
`recited “circuit” amounts to the use of a general purpose computer for implementing the
`
`algorithm.]. 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 § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis
`
`for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described
`as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the
`time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
`matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was
`made.
`
`Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Sakuramoto et al. (JP04-274796)[hereinafter “Sakuramoto”](English
`
`translation provided), in further view of Simard et al. (US 20100025210 A1 )[hereinafter
`
`“Simard”].
`
`Regarding Claim 1, Sakuramoto discloses a resource management system [Fig.
`
`2— schedule controller 20], monitoring a usage period during which a resource is used
`
`by each operation of a plurality of loads located in a predetermined space [Paragraph
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/979,893
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`[0028] — “Since control output is performed as mentioned above, if time difference data
`
`is assigned to each apparatus and is been [ time difference data / it] clear and set to it,
`
`as shown, for example in Fig.5, it can perform easily changing operation time and
`
`stopping time, respectively and setting up various kinds of equipments in accordance
`
`with opening time and closing time, such as a large-sized volume retailer. And even if it
`
`changes opening time and closing time, it is not necessary to reset up the control time
`
`of an equipment. ’1, comprising:
`
`a circuit [Fig. 2— schedule controller 20] configured to:
`
`periodically acquiring information relating to usage state of the resource, as
`
`usage information [Paragraph [0005] — “The current time time measuring means 11
`
`clocks current time. ’1;
`
`data generating and modifying data of usage permission periods during which
`
`use of the resource is permitted [Paragraph [0006] — “The reference time setting-out
`
`means 12 sets up any reference time.”
`
`Paragraph [0010] — “Thereby, schedule control of a plurality of apparatus can be
`
`performed only by setting out of reference time.”
`
`See Paragraph [0030] and Figs. 3 & 5.];
`
`period setting a usage permission period for each of the plurality of loads based
`
`on data of the usage permission periods [Paragraph [0006] — “The time-difference-data
`
`memory means 13 memorizes multiple time difference data with the reference time set
`
`up by the reference time setting-out means 12.”
`
`See Paragraph [0028], above.].
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/979,893
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Sakuramoto fails to disclose determining whether or not the use of the resource
`
`corresponding to the usage information is performed within the usage permission
`
`penod;and
`
`displaying the usage period of the resource so as to distinguish whether or not
`
`the usage period of the resource is within the usage permission period, using the
`
`determination result.
`
`However, Simard discloses an electric timer for controlling power to a load [Title]
`
`that determines the status of a load and indicates that status on a display along with the
`
`current time [Paragraph [0038] — “the status of the load is off, as indicated by "Off" icon
`
`66/] and also indicates time periods that the load is supposed to be turned either on or
`
`off [See Paragraph [0070]].
`
`It would have been obvious to use such a display in
`
`conjunction with the teachings of Sakuramoto because doing so would have allowed a
`
`user to be easily able to determine the status and schedule of a load.
`
`Sakuramoto further disclose that the data generating and modifying generates
`
`data of one first usage permission period, and data of one or more second usage
`
`permission periods [See Figs. 3 & 5.], wherein the period setting unit comprises:
`
`collective setting the first usage permission period collectively, as usage
`
`permission periods for all of the plurality of loads [See the use of reference times T1 and
`
`T2 in Fig. 5. Paragraph [0028] — “if time difference data is assigned to each apparatus
`
`and is been [ time difference data / it] clear and set to it, as shown, for example in
`
`Fig. 5”] ;
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/979,893
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`separate setting the second usage permission periods separately, as usage
`
`permission periods for loads, among the plurality of loads [See the “time difference
`
`data” shifting the usage period differently for each apparatus in Fig. 5. Paragraph
`
`[0028] — “time difference data is assigned to each apparatus’];
`
`storing in a relevance information memory relevance information that is obtained
`
`by relating each of starting times and ending times of the second usage permission
`
`periods to a starting time or an ending time of the first usage permission period; and
`
`registering the relevance information in the relevance information memory [Paragraph
`
`[0021] — “Next, the first reference time T1 is read from the storage area concerned of
`
`RAM23. Time-difference-data ti-1 corresponding to the apparatus which should be
`
`processed is read from RAM23, and it is substituted for the variable register t1.” See
`
`the “time difference data” shifting the usage period differently for each apparatus in Fig.
`
`5, relative to reference times T1 and T2.],
`
`wherein the collective setting does not set the first usage permission period as
`
`usage permission periods for loads to which the second usage permission periods have
`
`been set, when performing the collective setting [See the “time difference data” shifting
`
`the usage period differently for each apparatus in Fig. 5, relative to reference times T1
`
`and T2.], and
`
`Although Sakuramoto discloses the use of a first usage permission period in
`
`controlling the starting/ending times of electrical loads [the period defined by reference
`
`times T1 and T2], Sakuramoto fails to disclose that, when the data generating and
`
`modifying modifies data of the first usage permission period, the separate setting
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/979,893
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`modifies the starting times and the ending times of the second usage permission
`
`periods so as to interlock with the starting time or the ending time of the first usage
`
`permission period related in the relevance information.
`
`However, Simard discloses that it was known to modify the operating schedules
`
`of electrical loads in order to have them correspond to changes in the current time
`
`[Paragraph [0060] — “In some embodiments, the DLS setting may automatically change
`
`the time of the electric timer 30 according to daylight savings time. For example, on the
`
`appropriate date in the spring, the DLS setting may cause the controller 12 to adjust the
`
`time (i.e. move one hour ahead) for daylight savings time for the summer and, on the
`
`appropriate date in the fall, the DLS setting may cause the controller 12 to adjust the
`
`time (i.e. move one hour back) for normal time for the winter. ”].
`
`It would have been
`
`obvious to implement such a feature by adjusting reference times T1 and T2 (i.e., by
`
`moving them forward or back one hour) in Sakuramoto because doing so would have
`
`been a simple and effective manner of correcting for daylight savings time changes that
`
`would simultaneously update all of the controlled electrical loads. Doing so would read
`
`on “modif[ing] the starting times and the ending times of the second usage permission
`
`periods so as to interlock with modified content for the starting time or the ending time of
`
`the first usage permission period” as the “time difference data” shifts the usage period
`
`for each apparatus relative to reference times T1 and T2 [See Fig. 5 of Sakuramoto].
`
`Regarding Claim 2, Sakuramoto discloses that the registering the relevance
`
`information in the relevance information memory based on each of setting contents that
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/979,893
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`are set for the starting time and the ending time of the first usage permission period and
`
`the starting times and the ending times of the second usage permission periods
`
`[Paragraph [0018] — “These time-difference-data ti-1 and ti-2 are preliminarily set up for
`
`every apparatus, and they are memorized by RAM23. ”
`
`Paragraph [0021] — “the first reference time T1 is read from the storage area concerned
`
`of RAM23. ”
`
`Paragraph [0023] — “the second reference time T2 will be shortly read from the storage
`
`area concerned of RAM23 first. ’1.
`
`Regarding Claims 3 and 6, although Sakuramoto discloses the use of a first
`
`usage permission period in controlling the starting/ending times of electrical loads [the
`
`period defined by reference times T1 and T2], Sakuramoto fails to disclose that, when
`
`the generating and modifying modifies the first usage permission period, the separate
`
`setting shifts the starting times and the ending times of the second usage permission
`
`periods by a time difference between times before and after the modification for the
`
`starting time or the ending time of the first usage permission period related in the
`
`relevance information. However, Simard discloses that it was known to modify the
`
`operating schedules of electrical loads in order to have them correspond to changes in
`
`the current time [Paragraph [0060] — “In some embodiments, the DLS setting may
`
`automatically change the time of the electric timer 30 according to daylight savings time.
`
`For example, on the appropriate date in the spring, the DLS setting may cause the
`
`controller 12 to adjust the time (i.e. move one hour ahead) for daylight savings time for
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/979,893
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`the summer and, on the appropriate date in the fall, the DLS setting may cause the
`
`controller 12 to adjust the time (i.e. move one hour back) for normal time for the
`
`winter. ’1.
`
`It would have been obvious to implement such a feature by adjusting
`
`reference times T1 and T2 (i.e., by “shifting” them forward or back one hour) in
`
`Sakuramoto because doing so would have been a simple and effective manner of
`
`correcting for daylight savings time changes that would simultaneously update all of the
`
`controlled electrical loads. Doing so would read on “shift[ing] the starting times and the
`
`ending times of the second usage permission periods by a time difference between
`
`times before and after the modification for the starting time or the ending time of the first
`
`usage permission period” as the “time difference data” shifts the usage period for each
`
`apparatus relative to reference times T1 and T2 [See Fig. 5 of Sakuramoto].
`
`Regarding Claim 4, although Sakuramoto discloses the use of a first usage
`
`permission period in controlling the starting/ending times of electrical loads [the period
`
`defined by reference times T1 and T2], Sakuramoto fails to disclose that, when the
`
`generating and modifying modifies the first usage permission period so as to be
`
`shortened, if a reduced time length for the first usage permission period is equal to or
`
`more than a time length of a second usage permission period, among the second usage
`
`permission periods, the registering frees the relationship between the starting time and
`
`the ending time of the second usage permission period and the starting time and the
`
`ending time of the first usage permission period.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/979,893
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Regarding Claims 5 and 9, the combination of Sakuramoto and Simard would
`
`disclose that, when the generating and modifying modifies the first usage permission
`
`period so as to be shortened [See Paragraph [0065] of Simard, including — “In some
`
`cases, the correction factor may be set as zero, minus one hour, plus one hour, or any
`
`other suitable value, as desired. ’1,
`
`if a reduced time length for the first usage permission
`
`period is equal to or more than a time length of a second usage permission period,
`
`among the second usage permission periods, the collective setting sets the first usage
`
`permission period as the usage permission period for a load corresponding to the
`
`second usage permission period [See Fig. 5 of Sakuramoto, all loads make use of the
`
`first usage permission period set by T1 and T2]. Shortening the first usage permission
`
`period as taught by Simard would have been obvious in order to “achieve a more
`
`accurate and/or an offset for the sunset and/or sunrise times” [See Paragraph [0065] of
`
`Simard.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Claims 4, 7, 8, and 10 are currently rejected under 35 USC 112 and 35 USC
`
`101. However, were those rejections to be overcome, the following would be an
`
`examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
`
`Claims 4 and 7 are allowed because the closest prior art, Sakuramoto et al.
`
`(JP04-274796) and Simard et al. (US 20100025210 A1 )[hereinafter “Simard”], either
`
`singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious a resource management
`
`system configured to, when the data generating and modifying modifies the first usage
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/979,893
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`permission period so as to be shortened, if a reduced time length for the first usage
`
`permission period is equal to or more than a time length of a second usage permission
`
`period, among the second usage permission periods, the registering frees the
`
`relationship between the starting time and the ending time of the second usage
`
`permission period and the starting time and the ending time of the first usage
`
`permission period, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and
`
`defined by the Applicant.
`
`Claims 8 and 10 are allowed based on their dependence from Claims 4 and 7.
`
`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."
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant argues:
`
`The interpretation of the Claims as invoking 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph and
`
`corresponding rejections under 35 USC 112 should be withdrawn in light of the claim
`
`amendments.
`
`Examiner’s Response:
`
`The corresponding interpretation of the Claims as invoking 35 USC 112, sixth
`
`paragraph and corresponding rejections under 35 USC 112 are hereby withdrawn.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/979,893
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Applicant argues:
`
`fit.
`
`CLAIM REJECTIONfi UNQER ’35 U.S,C: § it}?
`
`The Office Action rejected eieizme 1—1:: under 35 USC § 191 as directed te nerv-
`
`stetetery subject rrietter. The Gftiee Exciter; sortetuded that the edditienet e-iemerite er
`
`combinetien of elements in the claims tame-um to HG mere than “mere inetrustieee to
`
`imptemeent the idea an e computer“ . The eteime have been amended herein to {Bette
`
`eleer thet the eteim eemprieee e “circuit" which is eetentebte subject matter under the
`
`statute {ie a machine er menuteeture) and is met an abstract idea but eenorete
`
`structure: Withdraws-zit of the rejectiens under § 30’? is re-spesttuity requested
`
`Examiner’s Response:
`
`The Claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101 because the recited “circuit”
`
`amounts to the use of a general purpose computer for implementing the algorithm.
`
`Applicant argues:
`
`Hewetrer, in Sekuremseto: eh Operetien time end a step time at art epeeretue are
`
`set, and te the set times, e time at which the epeeretus is turned on and a time at which
`
`the apparatus is turned eff ere set, That is, ten Sekuremete: at the eperetieh time and the
`
`step time, the apparatus is neeesserity centretted to be turned en and turned eff: end
`
`such e system eerresponde it: the centrei system. Mereeverl in Sekur‘emete, the
`
`apparatus is not turned en; or off at times ether then the eperetien time and the step
`
`time.
`
`Examiner’s Response:
`
`Nothing in the recited Claims precludes the use of the usage permission periods
`
`in such a manner.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/979,893
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`Applicant argues:
`
`Moreover, in claim “l, a time period {usage permission period) which is a certain
`
`length of time is set as a usage permission period within which a iced is preferabiy
`
`used.
`
`However, in Saix'tiramtito= the operation time and this stop time of the apparatus
`
`are set, and to the set times. a timing at which the apparatus is turned on and a timing
`
`at which the apparatus is turned off are set. That is, in claim 1, a time period which is a
`
`certain: length of time is set as a usage permission period. whereas in Sakuramoto,
`
`timings which are the operation time and the stop time of the apparatus ars sst This
`
`point is also a distinction between staim “l and Sakuramoto
`
`Examiner’s Response:
`
`The Examiner respectfully disagrees that this represents a difference between
`
`the recitations of Claim 1 and Sakuramoto as a start time with corresponding stop time
`
`can be seen to correspond to a length of time.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
`
`§ 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
`
`CFR1.136(a).
`
`A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE
`
`MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
`
`In the event a first reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not
`
`mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/979,893
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to KYLE R. QUIGLEY whose telephone number is
`
`(313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00AM - 5:30PM (EST).
`
`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, Gregory Toatley can be reached on 571-272—2059. The fax phone number
`
`for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 13/979,893
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2865
`
`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.
`
`/KYLE R QUIGLEY/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2865
`
`/GREGORY J TOATLEY JR/
`
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2865
`
`