DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of amendment with remarks/arguments, dated November 26, 2025. Claims 1-7 and 9 have been amended.
Upon entering the amendment, claims 1-9 remain pending. This communication is considered fully responsive and sets forth below.
Double Patenting
3. 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 obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
4. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,674,514.
Regarding claim 1, it recites, “A radio communication system to perform radio communication between a communication terminal and a base station using a plurality of subcarriers,
wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers.”
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,674,514 recites, “A communication system comprising:
a plurality of communication terminal devices; and
a base station device configuring a cell in which said base station device is configured to perform radio communication with said communication terminal devices,
wherein said base station device is configured to set, for each communication terminal device of said communication terminal devices, a radio format and a subcarrier interval, for signals transmitted to and received from each of said communication terminal devices,
the subcarrier interval being set according to a moving speed of each communication terminal device.”
Both claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,674,514 are system claim, i.e., “communication system.” The following shows the limitation mappings/teaching:
for the preamble in claim 1 of the instant application, i.e., “A radio communication system to perform radio communication between a communication terminal and a base station using a plurality of subcarriers,”
the limitation of “said base station device is configured to perform radio communication with said communication terminal devices” as indicated in italics in claim 1 of the patent teaches “perform radio communication between a communication terminal and a base station;”
the limitation of “the subcarrier interval being set according to a moving speed of each communication terminal device” as indicated in italics in claim 1 of the patent teaches “using a plurality of subcarriers;”
in fact, the limitations of “A communication system comprising: a plurality of communication terminal devices; and a base station device configuring a cell in which said base station device is configured to perform radio communication with said communication terminal devices,” and “the subcarrier interval being set according to a moving speed of each communication terminal device,” in claim 1 of the patent teaches this limitation.
for the wherein-clause limitation in claim 1 of the instant application, i.e., “wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of a size of internial interval of each of the subcarriers,”
the limitation of “a subcarrier interval” as indicated in italics in claim 1 of the patent teaches “a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers;”
in fact, the limitation of “wherein said base station device is configured to set, for each communication terminal device of said communication terminal devices, a radio format and a subcarrier interval, for signals transmitted to and received from each of said communication terminal devices,” in claim 1 of the patent reads on this limitation.
Consequently, claim 1 of the instant application would be obvious to one skilled in the art based on claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,674,514.
Same rationale applies to claims 6, 7, and 9 as follows:
5. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,674,514 (Examiner’s Note: claim 6 includes similar limitations as in claim 1 of the patent, though claim 6 is written in from a base station perspective and claim 1 of the patent is from a communication system perspective).
6. Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,674,514 (Examiner’s Note: claim 7 includes similar limitations as in claim 1 of the patent, though claim 7 is written in from a communication terminal perspective and claim 1 of the patent is from a communication system perspective).
7. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,674,514.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouchi et al. (US 2014/0198747) in view of Seki (US 2007/0297323).
Regarding claim 1, Ouchi et al. teach the radio communication system to perform radio communication between a communication terminal and a base station using a plurality of subcarriers (paragraphs [0097] lines 1-29 & [0104] lines 1-16; Examiner’s Notes: mobile station apparatus 200 depicted in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a communication terminal;” base station apparatus 100 depicted in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a base station;” the subcarriers regards to resource elements in the prior art teaches the limitation of “using a plurality of subcarriers;”
in fact, the communication system comprising the base station apparatus 100 and the mobile station apparatus 200 using subcarriers regards to the resource elements, as shown in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “radio communication system to perform radio communication between a communication terminal and a base station using a plurality of subcarriers” in the instant application),
wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of an interval between the subcarriers (paragraph [0106] lines 1-22; Examiner’s Notes: the subcarrier interval in the prior art teaches the limitation of “an interval between the subcarriers;”
in fact, base station apparatus 100 notifying mobile station apparatus 200 of resource allocation information, e.g., the subcarrier interval, as shown in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of an interval between the subcarriers” in the instant application).
Ouchi et al. teach the radio communication system without explicitly teaching a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers.
Seki from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers (paragraph [0071] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: the subcarrier frequency interval in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers;”
in fact, the base station comparing/notifying the mobile station of the subcarrier frequency interval in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers” in the instant application), and
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Seki in the system of Ouchi et al.
The motivation for implementing a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers, is to enhance the mechanism of performing OFDM data communication by dividing a band region into a plurality of bands and assigning each band to a mobile station, wherein a base station monitors transmission characteristics of the bands and state of use of adjacent bands, then sets whether to use or not use guard band regions between bands for data transmission based upon the transmission characteristics, and the state of use of the adjacent bands.
Regarding claim 2, Ouchi et al. further teach the radio communication system, wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of the internal interval between the subcarriers per time domain (paragraph [0046] lines 1-18; Examiner’s Notes: a unit resource in time domain in the prior art teaches the limitation of “per time domain;”
in fact, base station apparatus 100 notifying mobile station apparatus 200 of downlink control information (DCI), e.g., the unit resource in time domain regards to the subcarriers, as shown in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of the internal interval between the subcarriers per time domain” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 3, Ouchi et al. further teach the radio communication system, wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of the internal interval between the subcarriers per frequency domain (paragraph [0106] lines 1-22; Examiner’s Notes: base station apparatus 100 notifying mobile station apparatus 200 of resource allocation information, e.g., the subcarrier interval in frequency domain, as shown in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of the internal interval between the subcarriers per frequency domain” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 4, Ouchi et al. further teach the radio communication system, wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of the internal interval between the subcarriers per time and frequency domain (paragraphs [0046] lines 1-18 & [0106] lines 1-22; Examiner’s Notes: distributing information on resource elements in time and frequency domains in the prior art teaches the limitation of “per time and frequency domain;”
in fact, base station apparatus 100 notifying mobile station apparatus 200 of downlink control information (DCI), e.g., the information on resource elements in time and frequency domains regards to the subcarriers, as shown in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of the internal interval between the subcarriers per time and frequency domain” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 6, Ouchi et al. teach the base station to perform radio communication with a communication terminal using a plurality of subcarriers (paragraphs [0097] lines 1-29 & [0104] lines 1-16; Examiner’s Notes: mobile station apparatus 200 depicted in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a communication terminal;” base station apparatus 100 depicted in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a base station;” the subcarriers regards to resource elements in the prior art teaches the limitation of “using a plurality of subcarriers;”
in fact, the base station apparatus 100 communicating with the mobile station apparatus 200 using subcarriers regards to the resource elements, as shown in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “base station to perform radio communication with a communication terminal using a plurality of subcarriers” in the instant application),
wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of an interval between the subcarriers (paragraph [0106] lines 1-22; Examiner’s Notes: the subcarrier interval in the prior art teaches the limitation of “an interval between the subcarriers;”
in fact, base station apparatus 100 notifying mobile station apparatus 200 of resource allocation information, e.g., the subcarrier interval, as shown in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of an interval between the subcarriers” in the instant application).
Ouchi et al. teach the base station without explicitly teaching a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers.
Seki from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers (paragraph [0071] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: the subcarrier frequency interval in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers;”
in fact, the base station comparing/notifying the mobile station of the subcarrier frequency interval in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the base station notifies the communication terminal of a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers” in the instant application), and
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Seki in the system of Ouchi et al.
The motivation for implementing a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers, is to enhance the mechanism of performing OFDM data communication by dividing a band region into a plurality of bands and assigning each band to a mobile station, wherein a base station monitors transmission characteristics of the bands and state of use of adjacent bands, then sets whether to use or not use guard band regions between bands for data transmission based upon the transmission characteristics, and the state of use of the adjacent bands.
Regarding claim 7, Ouchi et al. teach the communication terminal to perform radio communication with a base station using a plurality of subcarriers (paragraphs [0097] lines 1-29 & [0104] lines 1-16; Examiner’s Notes: mobile station apparatus 200 depicted in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a communication terminal;” base station apparatus 100 depicted in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a base station;” the subcarriers regards to resource elements in the prior art teaches the limitation of “using a plurality of subcarriers;”
in fact, the mobile station apparatus 200 communicating the base station apparatus 100 using subcarriers regards to the resource elements, as shown in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “communication terminal to perform radio communication with a base station using a plurality of subcarriers” in the instant application),
wherein the communication terminal receives notification of an interval between the subcarriers from the base station (paragraph [0106] lines 1-22; Examiner’s Notes: the subcarrier interval in the prior art teaches the limitation of “an interval between the subcarriers;”
in fact, base station apparatus 100 notifying mobile station apparatus 200 of resource allocation information, e.g., the subcarrier interval, as shown in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the communication terminal receives notification of an interval between the subcarriers from the base station” in the instant application).
Ouchi et al. teach the communication terminal without explicitly teaching a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers.
Seki from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein the communication terminal receives notification of a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers from the base station (paragraph [0071] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: the subcarrier frequency interval in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers;”
in fact, the base station comparing/notifying the mobile station of the subcarrier frequency interval in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the communication terminal receives notification of a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers from the base station” in the instant application), and
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Seki in the system of Ouchi et al.
The motivation for implementing a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers, is to enhance the mechanism of performing OFDM data communication by dividing a band region into a plurality of bands and assigning each band to a mobile station, wherein a base station monitors transmission characteristics of the bands and state of use of adjacent bands, then sets whether to use or not use guard band regions between bands for data transmission based upon the transmission characteristics, and the state of use of the adjacent bands.
10. Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouchi et al. (US 2014/0198747) in view of Seki (US 2007/0297323) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Shen et al. (US 2012/0021794).
Regarding claim 5, Ouchi et al. and Seki teach the radio communication system without explicitly teaching implementing the base station is a first base station as a moving source of handover.
Shen et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein the base station is a first base station as a moving source of handover or a second base station as a moving destination of handover (paragraphs [0006] lines 1-8 & [0015] lines 1-9; Examiner’s Notes: the service base station before handover in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the base station is a first base station as a moving source of handover;” in fact, the cited art teaches the limitation of “wherein the base station is a first base station as a moving source of handover or a second base station as a moving destination of handover” in the instant application), and
the first base station notifies the second base station of the internal interval between the subcarriers (paragraph [0008] lines 1-16; Examiner’s Notes: adjacent base station in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the second base station;” in fact, the service base station sending information of carriers to the adjacent base station in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the first base station notifies the second base station of the internal interval between the subcarriers” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Shen et al. in the system of Ouchi et al. and Seki.
The motivation for implementing the base station is a first base station as a moving source of handover, is to enhance the mechanism of transmitting a scanning request based on a multicarrier system, wherein a terminal obtains multicarrier information transmitted by a service base station, and when a handover is needed to be performed, the terminal transmits a scanning request signaling to the service base station, to request for scanning carriers for performing the handover to a neighbor base station.
11. Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouchi et al. (US 2014/0198747) in view of Seki (US 2007/0297323) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Inumaru (US 2012/0034920).
Regarding claim 8, Ouchi et al. and Seki teach the radio communication system without explicitly teaching implementing the base station, which is a moving source of handover, via an X2 interface transmits a handover request to another base station, which is a moving destination of the handover.
Inumaru from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein the base station, which is a moving source of handover, via an X2 interface transmits a handover request to another base station, which is a moving destination of the handover (paragraph [0024] lines 1-14; Examiner’s Notes: the movement source base station A 101 depicted in Fig. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “the base station, which is a moving source of handover;”
the movement destination base station B 102 depicted in Fig. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “another base station, which is a moving destination of the handover;”
in fact, the movement source base station A 101 transmitting a handover notification/request, via an X2 interface 201, to the movement destination base station B 102, as illustrated in Fig. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the base station, which is a moving source of handover, via an X2 interface transmits a handover request to another base station, which is a moving destination of the handover” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Inumaru in the system of Ouchi et al. and Seki.
The motivation for implementing the base station, which is a moving source of handover, via an X2 interface transmits a handover request to another base station, which is a moving destination of the handover, is to enhance the mechanism of preventing handover failure caused when notification information is updated after a movement source base station transmitted parameter information necessary for a handover, wherein a time stamp is given to a parameter necessary for a mobile communication terminal to move to another cell and the parameter is transmitted to a movement destination base station from a movement source base station, the movement destination base station transmits difference information with the movement source base station of the parameter to the mobile communication terminal together with the time stamp as notification information, the mobile communication terminal compares the time stamp of the difference information acquired from the movement destination base station and the time stamp of notification information acquired from the movement source base station, and selects whether or not to perform a handover when the time stamps do not match.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Regarding claim 9, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach "wherein the internal interval of each of the subcarriers is set based on a moving speed of the communication terminal” in combination with other limitation of the claim(s).
Response to Remarks/Arguments
13. Claim Double Patenting Rejection: Applicants indicated to hold the rejection in abeyance until a patentability determination is made for this application. The previous claim double patenting rejection is maintained consequently.
14. Claims Art Rejections: Applicants’ amendments with arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-9 of the Response with respects to claim 1, Applicants assert the prior art doesn't teach “the base station notifies the communication terminal of a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers.”
The prior art teaches that the first embodiment of the communication system comprising the base station apparatus 100 and the mobile station apparatus 200 is described below. In the first embodiment, the base station apparatus 100 notifies the mobile station apparatus 200 of the DCI format. The DCI format comprises resource allocation information as to whether to allocate DMRS in localized resource allocation or distributed resource allocation, and information on a frequency offset of the DMRS. The frequency offset of the DMRS is a mobile station apparatus specific parameter (or a UE specific parameter). If distributed resource allocation is enabled based on the resource allocation information transmitted using the DCI format, the mobile station apparatus 200 determines the DMRS resource allocation using the frequency offset of the DMRS. The DCI format comprising information as to the availability of frequency offset hopping for the DMRS may be notified to the mobile station apparatus 200 (paragraph [0097] lines 1-17, Ouchi et al.). The mobile station apparatus 200 may further determine a frequency domain starting position n.sup.SC.sub.offset of subcarrier (resource element) mapping of the DMRS on the basis of a frequency offset n.sup.UE.sub.offset and a offset hopping pattern n.sup.cell.sub.hop, which the frequency offset n.sup.UE.sub.offset is a mobile station apparatus specific parameter, and which the offset hopping pattern n.sup.cell.sub.hop is a cell specific parameter. Also, n.sup.SC.sub.offset may be a frequency offset of the subcarrier(s) comprising the DMRS in the resource block. For example, the mobile station apparatus 200 determines the frequency offset n.sup.SC.sub.offset of the subcarrier(s) in accordance with Equation (3) (paragraph [0104] lines 1-11, Ouchi et al.; Examiner’s Notes: mobile station apparatus 200 depicted in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a communication terminal;” base station apparatus 100 depicted in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “a base station;” the subcarriers regards to resource elements in the prior art teaches the limitation of “using a plurality of subcarriers;”
in fact, the communication system comprising the base station apparatus 100 and the mobile station apparatus 200 using subcarriers regards to the resource elements, as shown in FIG. 1 of the prior art teaches the limitation of “radio communication system to perform radio communication between a communication terminal and a base station using a plurality of subcarriers” in the instant application).
The prior art further teaches that FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B illustrate configuration examples of DMRS resource allocation of the first embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 4A is a resource allocation chart in a case in which localized resource allocation is enabled based on resource allocation information for the DMRS notified by the base station apparatus 100. The resource allocation remains the same as related art resource allocation. FIG. 4B is a resource allocation chart in a case in which distributed resource allocation is enabled based on resource allocation information for the DMRS notified by the base station apparatus 100 dictates. In a case that the resource allocation with the distributed resource allocation is enabled, subcarriers are allocated at constant intervals (same subcarrier spacing) to keep PAPR low (this allocation may also be referred to as a comb spectrum allocation). The base station apparatus 100 notifies the mobile station apparatus 200 information (repetition factor) that indicates the number of subcarrier intervals (subcarrier spacings) at which DMRS is allocated. The frequency domain starting position of the subcarrier(s) (resource element(s)) mapping of the DMRS is determined by the frequency offset n.sup.SC.sub.offset calculated in accordance with Equation (3) (paragraph [0106] lines 1-22, Ouchi et al.). The base station uses pilot symbols that are time multiplexed with each of the OFDM subcarriers and measures the amount of frequency offset for each user of the uplink. Also, the base station compares the difference in the frequency offsets of two adjacent bands with the subcarrier frequency interval, and when the difference in the frequency offsets is greater than a preset threshold value, the base station notifies the mobile stations to use the guard band region between two bands as a guard band and not for data transmission ((C) of FIG. 1 (paragraph [0071] lines 1-10, Seki et al.; Examiner’s Notes: the subcarrier frequency interval in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers;”
in fact, the base station comparing/notifying the mobile station of the subcarrier frequency interval in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the base station notifies the communication terminal of a size of internal interval of each of the subcarriers” as Applicants argued).
Based on the fact, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the prior art cited does not teach the independent claim 1 as mentioned by Applicants. The elements of independent claims 6 and 7 that Applicants argued are similar to claim 1’s, so the cited passages also teach claims 6 and 7. Furthermore, the cited passages teach dependent claims 2-5, and 8 as well.
Conclusion
15. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5672. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00AM to 5:00PM Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAE Y. LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. 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.
/WEI ZHAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479