DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s amendments filed on 12/22/2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 15, 17, and 18 are amended.
Claims 28, 33, 35, and 36 are canceled.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 12/22/2025 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 12, 15-19, 24, 26, 29, 31, and 34 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1 and 15 (pages 8-9) in a reply filed 12/22/2025 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the now cancelled claims 28 and 33 (pages 10-11) in a reply filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding cancelled claims 28 and 33:
Applicant contends, in page 10, that “Hwang also fails to reach, disclose, or suggest prior to the user device determining that the corresponding condition is satisfied … determining, by the source base station, to release the first conditional configuration previously sent to the user device recited by independent claim 1 and missing from Bae.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of the cancelled claim 28 (and claim 33) do not specifically state that the “determining, by the source base station, to one of: release a configuration previously sent to the user device, …” occurs “prior to the user device determining that the corresponding condition is satisfied” and only states that the “determining …” step occurs “after the receiving of the first message, …”.
Bae teaches wherein “prior to the user device determining that the corresponding condition is satisfied … determining, by the source base station, to release the first conditional configuration previously sent to the user device” (see, Bae: Fig. 10A and 10B wherein the Source BS 110a performs CHO modification with the Target BS 110b (in steps 10-310 to 10-360) wherein the source BS 110a replaces a first conditional configuration previously sent to the terminal (in step 10-290, i.e., RRC Connection Reconfiguration with Transaction ID 1) with a second conditional configuration to the terminal (in step 10-370, i.e., RRC Connection Reconfiguration with Transaction ID 2), prior to the Terminal 120 determines that the corresponding condition is satisfied (in step 10-400)). Accordingly, the newly added limitation of “determining, by the source base station, to release the first conditional configuration previously send to the user device” in claim 1 is an inherent feature of the source BS 110a in Bae.
Therefore, the disclosure of Hwang in view of Bae reads on the limitations as claimed in the amended claim 1 (see further detailed discussion below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 12, 15-19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2020/0077314 A1, hereinafter Hwang) in view of Bae et al. (US 2022/0279391 A1, hereinafter Bae), claiming benefit to and fully-supported by KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2019-0097536 filed on 8/9/2019.
Regarding claim 1:
Hwang teaches a method (see, Hwang: Figs. 5A and 5B), in a source base station (i.e., S-gNB 120), comprising:
receiving, from a candidate base station (i.e., T-gNB comprising Cell1, Cell2, and Cell3) while a user device (i.e., UE 110) is operating in a source cell of the source base station (see, Hwang: Figs. 5A and 5B, wherein the UE 110 is operating in the S-gNB 120 (e.g., steps 510, 513, and 515)), a first message (i.e., step 525, “HO request ack”) that indicates a first conditional configuration providing information for user device operation within a candidate target cell of the candidate base station (e.g., T-gNB (cell1) 130) and that does not indicate a corresponding condition that is to be satisfied before the user device hands over to the candidate target cell (see, Hwang: Fig. 20, step 2025 (equivalent to step 525 in Figs. 5A and 5B), “Request ACK (configuration to be used in UE)”, wherein the Request ACK in step 2025 is equivalent to the first message, and the Request ACK message indicates configuration to be used in the UE (e.g., candidate target cell ID to be added as a CHO candidate) during a conditional handover (CHO) with the candidate target cell 130 in response to a CHO request to the candidate target cell 130 in step 2020 based on the measurement report by the UE in step 2010 similar to Fig. 18, steps 1810 and 1820 and para. [0121]. Here, the Request ACK does not indicate a corresponding condition for a CHO.);
generating, by the source base station, the corresponding condition for handing over to the candidate target cell (see, Hwang: Fig. 20, step 2030, “Making condition for CHO”, wherein the serving cell 120 makes a CHO condition for the candidate target cell 130 similar to Fig. 18, step 1840 and para. [0121], and wherein making a CHO condition for the candidate target cell 130 is equivalent to generating a corresponding conditional handover (CHO) condition to be satisfied before the UE hands over to the candidate target cell.);
sending, to the user device, a second message (i.e., step 527, “RRC Connection Reconfiguration incl. UE HO condition, add indication”) that indicates the first conditional configuration and the corresponding condition (see, Hwang: Fig. 20, step 2040 (equivalent to step 527 in Figs. 5A and 5B), “{referring measID, delta info, target candidate cell ID}”, wherein the serving cell 120 (S-gNB 120) sends a message (equivalent to the second message of the instant application) to the UE in step 2040, wherein the message in step 2040 is equivalent to an RRC Connection Reconfiguration message comprising a mobilityControlInfo IE (see, Hwang: para. [0055]), which also comprises a reference measurement ID to be reused, delta info to be newly applied to a measurement in addition to the reuse, and a candidate target cell ID, and the RRC Connection Reconfiguration message is sent to the terminal 110 similar to Fig. 18, step 1850 and para. [0121]. Para [0055] discloses wherein the mobilityControlInfo IE includes a condition for UE HO execution along with the addition and release indication. Accordingly, the RRC Connection Reconfiguration message to the UE in step 527 (similar to step 2040) indicates a condition for UE HO execution (equivalent to the corresponding condition of the instant application) and a candidate target cell ID (equivalent to the conditional handover configuration) with the addition indication.).
Hwang does not explicitly teach wherein prior to the user device determining that the corresponding condition is satisfied: sending, by the source base station and to the candidate base station, a handover request message; receiving, by the source base station from the candidate base station and in response to the handover request message, a handover request acknowledgement message indicating a second conditional configuration for the user device to handover to the candidate target cell; determining, by the source base station, to release the first conditional configuration previously sent to the user device; and sending, by the source base station and to the user device, a third message that indicates the second conditional configuration.
In the same field of endeavor, Bae teaches wherein prior to the user device determining that the corresponding condition is satisfied (see, Bae: Fig. 10B, Step 10-400 and para. [0117], “In step 10-400, upon discovering a cell of a potential target/candidate BS which satisfies a CHO condition included in the RRC connection reconfiguration message, a handover to the potential target/candidate BS is determined.”, support is found in Fig. 10B of KR 2021-0017761.):
sending, by the source base station and to the candidate base station, a handover request message (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, Step 10-310 and para. [0116], “the source BS 110a transmits a CHO modification request message to the potential target/candidate BSs in step 10-310 while performing related resource modification of the source BS 110a.”, wherein the CHO modification request message is equivalent to the handover request message of the instant application. Support is found in Fig. 10A of KR 2021-0017761.);
receiving, by the source base station from the candidate base station and in response to the handover request message, a handover request acknowledgement message indicating a second conditional configuration for the user device to handover to the candidate target cell (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, Step 10-360 and para. [0116], “When the resource for the CHO is successfully modified in the CU-UP and the DU, in step 10-360, the CU-CP transmits a CHO modification response message to the source BS 110a. This message includes RRC connection reconfiguration information including radio connection configuration information which is newly configured in the DU, CU-UP, and CU-CP of the potential target/candidate BS to serve the terminal 120, and sets and includes a new RRC transaction ID value to be used as an index for this radio configuration.”, wherein the CHO modification response message which indicates new conditional configuration is equivalent to the handover acknowledgement message of the instant application. Support is found in Fig. 10A of KR 2021-0017761.);
determining, by the source base station, to release the first conditional configuration previously sent to the user device (see, Bae: Fig. 10A and 10B wherein the Source BS 110a performs CHO modification with the Target BS 110b (in steps 10-310 to 10-360), wherein the source BS 110a places a first conditional configuration previously sent to the terminal (in step 10-290, i.e., RRC Connection Reconfiguration with Transaction ID 1) with a second conditional configuration to the terminal (in step 10-370, i.e., RRC Connection Reconfiguration with Transaction ID 2), prior to the Terminal 120 determines that the corresponding condition is satisfied (in step 10-400)). Accordingly, this is an inherent feature of the source BS in Bae); and
sending, by the source base station and to the user device, a third message that indicates the second conditional configuration (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, Step 10-370 and para. [0116], “Upon receiving the CHO modification response message from the potential target/candidate BSs, in step 10-370, the source BS 110a transmits an RRC connection reconfiguration message including the RRC connection reconfiguration information of the potential target/candidate BSs to the terminal 120.”, wherein the RRC connection reconfiguration message of 10-370 is equivalent to the third message of the instant application, which is performed prior to step 10-400 in Bae. Support is found in Fig. 10A of KR 2021-0017761.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hwang in combination of the teachings of Bae in order to support a CHO modification in a wireless system before the terminal executes a handover to a target BS (see, Bae: Fig. 10A and Fig. 10B; para. [0114], supports are found in Fig. 10A and 10B of KR 2021-0017761 and page 14-15 of English Translation).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Hwang in view of Bae teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Bae further teaches wherein: the handover request message is a second handover request message (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, step 10-310, “CHO Modification Request” to Target BS 110b is a second handover request message after the first handover request message in step 10-230, “HO request (CHO indicator)” to Target BS 110b.) and the handover request acknowledgement message is a second handover request acknowledgement message (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, step 10-360, “CHO Modification Response” from Target BS 110b is a second handover request acknowledgement message after the first handover request acknowledgement message in step 10-280, “HO Request ACK” from Target BS 110b.);
the method further comprises, prior to the receiving of the first message (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, step 10-280, “HO Request ACK” which is equivalent to the first message of the instant application.), sending a first handover request message to the candidate base station (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, step 10-230, “HO Request (CHO indicator)” from Source BS 110a to Target BS 110b, which is equivalent to the first handover request message of the instant application.); and
the first message is a first handover request acknowledgment message received from the candidate base station (i.e., Target BS 110b) in response to the first handover request message (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, step 10-280, “HO Request ACK” which is equivalent to the first message of the instant application is a handover request acknowledgment message received from the Target BS 110b in response to the first handover request message 10-230 in Bae which is equivalent to the first handover request message of the instant application. Support is found in Fig. 10A of KR 2021-0017761.).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Hwang in view of Bae teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Bae further teaches wherein the second conditional configuration (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, Steps 10-360 and 10-370 with HO Command-RRCConnectionReconfiguration-TransactionID==2) is to replace the first conditional configuration (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, Steps 10-280 and 10-290 with HO Command-RRCConnectionReconfiguration-TransactionID==1) (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, Step 10-360 and para. [0116], “This message includes RRC connection reconfiguration information including radio connection configuration information which is newly configured in the DU, CU-UP, and CU-CP of the potential target/candidate BS to serve the terminal 120, and sets and includes a new RRC transaction ID value to be used as an index for this radio configuration.”, wherein the CHO modification response message indicates new conditional configuration (e.g., TransactionID==2) which is equivalent to the second conditional configuration of the instant application. Support is found in Fig. 10A of KR 2021-0017761.).
Regarding claim 6:
As discussed above, Hwang in view of Bae teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Bae further teaches wherein: the corresponding condition is a first corresponding condition (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, Steps 10-230, 10-280 and 10-290 with HO Command-RRCConnectionReconfiguration-TransactionID==1; para. [0115], “When the source BS 110a decides to execute the CHO, in step 10-230, the source BS 110a transmits a handover request message including a CHO indication to the CU-CP of the potential target/candidate BS.”. Supports are found in Fig. 10A of KR 2021-0017761 and page 14-15 of English Translation.); and
the third message (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, step 370) further includes a second corresponding condition (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, Steps 10-310, 10-360 and 10-370 with HO Command-RRCConnectionReconfiguration-TransactionID==2; para. [0116], “After receiving a message related to the bearer or PDU session modification from the CN 130, the source BS 110a transmits a CHO modification request message to the potential target/candidate BSs in step 10-310 while performing related resource modification of the source BS 110a. The CHO modification request message may include modified bearer or PDU session information.”. Supports are found in Fig. 10A of KR 2021-0017761 and page 14-15 of English Translation) that is to be satisfied before the user device hands over to the candidate target cell using the second conditional configuration (see, Bae: Fig. 10B, Step 10-400 and para. [0117], “In step 10-400, upon discovering a cell of a potential target/candidate BS which satisfies a CHO condition included in the RRC connection reconfiguration message, a handover to the potential target/candidate BS is determined. The terminal 120 starts a handover procedure by using the BS determined in step 10-400 as the target BS. In step 10-410, the handover is executed based on the radio resource configuration of the target BS 110b, which is last received by the terminal 120 via the source BS 110a.”, supports are found in Fig. 10B of KR 2021-0017761 and page 14-15 of English Translation).
Regarding claim 7:
As discussed above, Hwang in view of Bae teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Bae further teaches wherein receiving, by the source base station and from the user device, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) reconfiguration complete message (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, step 10-380, “RRC Connection Reconfiguration Complete”) in response to the user device receiving the third message (see, Bae: Fig. 10A, step 10-370, “RRC Connection Reconfiguration (TransactionID==2)”; para. [0116], “Upon receiving the CHO modification response message from the potential target/candidate BSs, in step 10-370, the source BS 110a transmits an RRC connection reconfiguration message including the RRC connection reconfiguration information of the potential target/candidate BSs to the terminal 120. If the modified RRC connection reconfiguration information of the source BS 110a is included in the RRC connection reconfiguration message transmitted to the terminal 120, in step 10-380, the terminal 120 transmits an RRC connection reconfiguration complete message to the source BS 110a.”, support is found in Fig. 10A of KR 2021-0017761.).
Regarding claim 12:
As discussed above, Hwang in view of Bae teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Hwang further teaches wherein the sending of the second message (see, Hwang: Fig. 5A, step 527, “RRC Connection Reconfiguration incl. UE HO condition, add indication”, which is equivalent to Fig. 2A, step 225) includes sending a radio resource control (RRC) container message that includes (i) an RRC reconfiguration message that includes the first conditional configuration and (ii) the corresponding condition (see, Hwang: para. [0055], “A mobilityControlInfor IE may be include in the signaling corresponding to step 210 or 225” wherein the signaling is equivalent to (i) the RRC reconfiguration message, and “The mobilityControlInfo IE may include a condition for UE HO execution along with the addition and release indication” wherein the addition and release indication is equivalent to (i) the conditional handover configuration and the condition for UE HO execution is equivalent to (ii) the corresponding condition.).
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed towards a source base station (see, Hwang: Fig. 17, Base Station; Fig. 19, Serving NodeB 120) comprising processing hardware (see, Hwang: Fig. 17, Controller 1720) configure to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is directed towards the source base station of claim 15 that is further limited to similar features to claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is directed towards the source base station of claim 15 that is further limited to similar features to claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is directed towards the source base station of claim 17 that is further limited to similar features to claim 6. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is directed towards the source base station of claim 15 that is further limited to similar features to claim 7. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 24:
Claim 24 is directed towards the source base station of claim 15 that is further limited to similar features to claim 12. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 12 above.
Claims 26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Bae further in view of Keskitalo et al. (US 2021/0321298 A1, hereinafter Keskitalo).
Regarding claim 26:
As discussed above, Hwang in view of Bae teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Hwang in view of Bae does not explicitly teach wherein the receiving of the second conditional configuration is responsive to at least one of: a change in congestion, or a change in an amount of data the source base station is to transmit to the user device.
In the same field of endeavor, Keskitalo teaches wherein the receiving of the second conditional configuration is responsive to at least one of: a change in congestion, or a change in an amount of data the source base station is to transmit to the user device (see, Keskitalo: Fig. 3, Fig. 6B, and para. [0086], “The condition that triggers the transmission of the indication (see e.g. block 304) may be a certain pre-defined (e.g. preconfigured or configured by the network) condition or conditions. For example, the condition may be a quality condition, e.g. quality of the connection between the device 600 and node 610 exceeds a certain threshold or is below a certain threshold, and thus the device 600 transmits the indication. One specific example of such quality threshold is data throughput. So, if data throughput, calculated/determined/obtained by the device 600, equals or is below a certain threshold, the indication transmission may be triggered. The condition (e.g. threshold) may be set such that the connection towards the source node 610 is still operational so that the data forwarding or duplication is beneficial, and possibly so that the indication can be transmitted to the source node 610. The condition may be similar to the triggers of handover or conditional handover triggers. In one example, the condition is such that it is a quality condition between triggering conditions of event 1 and event 2 of the CHO process. So, if event 1 triggers transmission of early handover command and event 2 triggers actual handover execution, the data forwarding or duplication may be configured to be triggered between events 1 and 2.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hwang in view of Bae in combination of the teachings of Keskitalo in order for the UE to trigger a handover of a conditional handover from a source node to a target node if data throughput with the source node equals or below a certain threshold (see, Keskitalo: Abstract and para. [0086]).
Regarding claim 31:
Claim 31 is directed towards the source base station of claim 15 that is further limited to similar features to claim 26. Therefore, claim 31 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 26 above.
Claims 29 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Bae further in view of Hampel et al. (US 2018/0041930 A1, hereinafter Hampel).
Regarding claim 29:
As discussed above, Hwang in view of Bae teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Hwang in view of Bae does not explicitly teach wherein the handover request message includes a new security key generated by the source base station, and the handover request acknowledgement message includes a new security configuration based on the new security key.
In the same field of endeavor, Hampel teaches wherein the handover request message includes a new security key generated by the source base station (see, Hampel: para. [0130], “the source AN 405-j may transmit a Handover (HO) Request message to the target AN 405-k (e.g., based at least in part on the measurement report received at 1425). … The Handover Request message may also include a temporary security key, which may be referred to as K.sub.AN*, which is derived from (e.g., based at least in part on) the first security key, K.sub.AN. The temporary security key may be derived using a KDF (e.g., a KDF as described in 3GPP TS 33.401 for the derivation of K.sub.eNB* from K.sub.eNB).”), and the handover request acknowledgement message includes a new security configuration based on the new security key (see, Hampel: para. [0131], “upon accepting the Handover Request, the target AN 405-k may respond to the source AN 405-j with a Handover Request acknowledgment (ACK) message. The target AN 405-k may include in the Handover Request ACK message a container holding the RRC configuration that enables the wireless device 115-j to connect to the target AN 405-k. … The container may also hold a temporary security key usage policy indicating how the temporary security key, K.sub.AN*, may be used to securely communicate with the LAN 440-d (e.g., a LAN DS 446 of the LAN 440-d) via the target AN 405-k.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Hwang in view of Bae in combination of the teachings of Hampel in order to perform a handover of a wireless device having a secure connection with a local access network (LAN) from a source access node (AN) to a target access node (AN) (see, Hampel: Abstract and para. [0122]).
Regarding claim 34:
Claim 34 is directed towards the source base station of claim 16 that is further limited to similar features to claim 29. Therefore, claim 34 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 29 above.
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 CFR 1.136(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 shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471