The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In response to the communication received on 07/17/2026, the following is a Final Office Action for Application No. 18206094. Examiner acknowledges and appreciates Applicant’s Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 which provides statements of Junfeng QU who is an Associate Professor and Senior Engineer at China University of Mining and Technology and serves as Vice Director of the Xuzhou Institute of Ecological Civilization Construction, and further who has extensive experience with mining ecological restoration, land reclamation, eco-environment monitoring and assessment, and water-soil resources optimization.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12 and 14 are pending.
Claims 4, 6-7, and 13 are cancelled.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on: 18206094 filed 06/06/2023; claims foreign priority to 202210819156.7, filed 07/13/2022.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered. The claim interpretation is maintained as inter alia there exists no structural modifier to the generic placeholders of the plurality of modules. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection with respect to non-transitory issues, and hence the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection with respect to non-transitory issues has been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection, and hence the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in light of overcoming previous grounds of rejection, as necessitated by amendment. Arguments that are not moot are as follows:
As per the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Prong One of Step 2A, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion) and/or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules of instructions). Since the recitation of the claims falls into at least one of the above Groupings, there is a basis for providing further analysis with regard to Prong Two of Step 2A to determine whether the recitation of an abstract idea is deduced to being directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Prong Two of Step 2A, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The memory medium, processor and/or modules is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic processor server limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, memory medium, processor and/or modules to inter alia perform the function of perform the function of perform loss calculation on the n loss evaluation models and perform damage evaluation on a mining eco- environment according to a loss calculation result is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. In other words, the present claims use a generic processing device and memory medium to inter alia perform the function of perform the function of perform loss calculation on the n loss evaluation models and perform damage evaluation on a mining eco- environment according to a loss calculation result which is a concept that can be performed in the human mind. The processor is merely used to perform the function(s), and the processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since there are no meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claims are in favor of eligibility per Step 2B, however Examiner respectfully disagrees. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: memory medium, processor and/or modules. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, memory medium, processor and/or modules to inter alia perform the function of perform loss calculation on the n loss evaluation models and perform damage evaluation on a mining eco- environment according to a loss calculation result is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure. Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include the non-limiting or non-exclusive examples of MPEP § 2106.05. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
In an effort to further expedite prosecution, see: Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples, October 2019 30, Example 46. Livestock Management. Per claim 1 of Example 46, the memory, display and processor are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a memory, display and processor) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. As an exemplary direction for similar claim limitations to be eligible, see claims 2-4 of Example 46.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: modules in claims 8-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3, 5, 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims fall within statutory class of process or machine or manufacture; hence, the claims fall under statutory category of Step 1.
Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
1. A mining eco-environment damage evaluation method, performed by a processor, comprising the following steps: S100: acquiring a data source, determining an environmental condition according to the data source, and obtaining an eco-environment influence factor according to the environmental condition; S200: classifying and screening the data source based on the eco-environment influence factor to obtain evaluation index information of a mining eco-environment damage, wherein the evaluation index information comprises ecological destruction system service function loss index information, agriculture and forestry production loss index information, environmental pollution and health loss index information, protective cost index information, and restoration and governance cost index information; S300: constructing a mine ecological destruction and environmental pollution loss system according to the evaluation index information, wherein the mine ecological destruction and environmental pollution loss system comprises a target layer (S), a constraint layer comprising ecological service function loss (Al), agriculture and forestry production loss (A2), environmental pollution and health loss (A3), protective cost (A4), and restoration and governance cost (A5), a criterion layer comprising arable land ecosystem destruction, grassland ecosystem destruction, forest land ecosystem destruction, water ecosystem destruction, secondary geological disaster loss, arable land resource destruction loss, grassland resource destruction loss, forest land resource destruction loss, water resource destruction loss, atmospheric pollution loss, water pollution loss, solid and soil pollution loss, protective investment in mining process, and post-mining restoration and governance cost, and an index layer comprising index layer information associated with the criterion layer;S400: establishing n loss evaluation models according to the mine ecological destruction and environmental pollution loss system; andS500: performing loss calculation on the n loss evaluation models, and performing damage evaluation on a mining eco-environment according to a loss calculation result, wherein the data source comprises Landsat TM remote sensing images, high-resolution remote sensing images, pollution data, protective cost data, and restoration and governance cost data, and wherein acquiring the data source comprises preprocessing the remote sensing images through radiometric calibration, geometric correction, and atmospheric correction wherein S500 comprises:S510: performing loss calculation according to a loss evaluation model of the n loss evaluation models to obtain a loss calculation result;S520: analyzing physical loss measurement caused by environmental destruction according to the loss calculation result to obtain a physical loss measurement result;S530: monetizing the physical loss measurement result to obtain a monetization result; and S540: performing damage evaluation on the mining eco-environment according to the physical loss measurement result and the monetization result, wherein S510 comprises:S511: giving an nth loss evaluation model, and setting component parameters influencing the nth loss evaluation model;S512: generating a corresponding loss value n (i, j) according to each component parameter nl and n2 of each loss evaluation model, wherein i represents a combined serial number ofnl and n2, j represents s serial number of the nth loss evaluation model, 1 < i < m, and 1 < i n;S514: calculating a maximum loss value of each loss evaluation model: Optimaln=Max((1:n, j));S513: calculating an opportunity cost value of each loss evaluation model, wherein an opportunity cost value Cost(n) of the nth loss evaluation model is calculated by:Cost(n)=|Optimaln-n(i, j)I;S514: calculating a total opportunity cost value: Z = Z_, Cost(n) ;andS515: obtaining the loss calculation result according to the total opportunity cost value..
[or]
8. A mining eco-environment damage evaluation system, comprising: a preprocessing module, configured to acquire a data source, determine an environmental condition according to the data source, and obtain an eco-environment influence factor according to the environmental condition; a classification module, connected to the preprocessing module and configured to classify and screen the data source based on the eco-environment influence factor to obtain evaluation index information of a mining eco-environment damage, wherein the evaluation index information comprises ecological destruction system service function loss index information, agriculture and forestry production loss index information, environmental pollution and health loss index information, protective cost index information, and restoration and governance cost index information; a construction module, connected to the classification module and configured to construct a mine ecological destruction and environmental pollution loss system according to the evaluation index information, wherein the mine ecological destruction and environmental pollution loss system comprises a target layer (S), a constraint layer comprising ecological service function loss (A1), agriculture and forestry production loss (A2), environmental pollution and health loss (A3), protective cost (A4), and restoration and governance cost (A5), a criterion layer comprising arable land ecosystem destruction, grassland ecosystem destruction, forest land ecosystem destruction, water ecosystem destruction, secondary geological disaster loss, arable land resource destruction loss, grassland resource destruction loss, forest land resource destruction loss, water resource destruction loss, atmospheric pollution loss, water pollution loss, solid and soil pollution loss, protective investment in mining process, and post-mining restoration and governance cost, and an index layer comprising index layer information associated with the criterion layer; a processing module, connected to the construction module and configured to establish n loss evaluation models according to the mine ecological destruction and environmental pollution loss system; and a calculation module, connected to the processing module and configured to perform loss calculation on the n loss evaluation models, and perform damage evaluation on a mining eco- environment according to a loss calculation result, wherein the data source comprises Landsat TM remote sensing images, high-resolution remote sensing images, pollution data, protective cost data, and restoration and governance cost data, and wherein the data source is acquired by the preprocessing module by preprocessing the remote sensing images through radiometric calibration, geometric correction, and atmospheric correction, wherein the calculation module is configured to perform loss calculation on the n loss evaluation models, and perform damage evaluation on the mining eco-environment according to a loss calculation result by performing loss calculation according to a given loss evaluation model of the n loss evaluation models to obtain a loss calculation result; analyzing physical loss measurement caused by environmental destruction according to the loss calculation result to obtain a physical loss measurement result; monetizing the physical loss measurement result to obtain a monetization result; and performing damage evaluation on the mining eco-environment according to the physical loss measurement result and the monetization result, wherein the performing loss calculation according to the given loss evaluation model of the n loss evaluation models to obtain the loss calculation result comprises: giving an nth loss evaluation model, and setting component parameters influencing the nth loss evaluation model; generating a corresponding loss value n (i, j) according to each component parameter nl and n2 of each loss evaluation model, wherein i represents a combined serial number of n1 and n2, j represents s serial number of the nth loss evaluation model, 1 < i < m, and 1 < j < n; calculating a maximum loss value of each loss evaluation model:Optimaln=Max((1:n, j)); calculating an opportunity cost value of each loss evaluation model, wherein an opportunity cost value Cost(n) of the nth loss evaluation model is calculated by:Cost(n)=|Optimaln-n(i, i);calculating a total opportunity cost value:Z = E_, Cost(n)and obtaining the loss calculation result according to the total opportunity cost value.
[or]
10. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing computer readable instructions, wherein the computer readable instructions, when executed by a processor, implement steps of the mining eco-environment damage evaluation method according to claim 1.
The claim(s) recite(s) the following summarization of the abstract idea which includes a mining eco-environment damage evaluation system executed by the additional element(s) of memory medium, processor and/or modules. This falls into at least the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mental Processes since the information can be analyzed by an abstract evaluation judgment process. Thus, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity since the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion).
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within the Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation judgment, opinion).
Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The memory medium, processor and/or modules is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing/transmitting data. This generic memory medium, processor and/or modules limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, perform damage evaluation on a mining eco-environment by a memory medium, processor and/or modules is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, the 2019 PEG flowchart is directed to Step 2B.
Per Step 2B, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: memory medium, processor and/or modules. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, perform damage evaluation on a mining eco-environment by a memory medium, processor and/or modules is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic computer/memory type structure at ¶0134 wherein “In still another aspect, Embodiment 1 of the present invention further provides a computer readable storage medium storing computer readable instructions, wherein the computer readable instructions, when executed by a processor, implement the steps of the mining eco-environment damage evaluation method.” Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine/manufacture for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims).
The dependent claims do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 KURTIS GILLS whose telephone number is (571)270-3315. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on 5712726787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KURTIS GILLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights