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 .
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-13 are directed to a method, claim 14 is directed to an information processing apparatus comprising: an estimation unit configured and a rotation angle correction unit configured to perform the method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
An information processing method comprising:
performing an estimation of posture information of a moving body including a first rotation angle around an axis in a gravity direction and a second rotation angle around an axis orthogonal to the gravity direction on a basis of an output from a gyro sensor attached to the moving body; and
performing a correction of the first rotation angle in a case where a condition regarding the second rotation angle is satisfied.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“performing an estimation of posture information of a moving body including a first rotation angle around an axis in a gravity direction and a second rotation angle around an axis orthogonal to the gravity direction on a basis of an output from a gyro sensor attached to the moving body” is directed to math because the estimation of those specific posture angles—a first rotation around the gravity axis (often referred to as yaw or heading) and a second rotation around a horizontal axis (pitch or roll)—from a gyro sensor's output requires sophisticated mathematical modeling and computation.
“performing a correction of the first rotation angle in a case where a condition regarding the second rotation angle is satisfied” is directed to math because the operation is fundamentally intertwined with mathematics. From the basic trigonometry used to measure the angles to the advanced linear algebra and control theory used to model, assess, and execute the corrections, mathematics is the language through which the entire system communicates and functions.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor, body part, and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "performing an estimation of posture information of a moving body including a first rotation angle around an axis in a gravity direction and a second rotation angle around an axis orthogonal to the gravity direction on a basis of an output from a gyro sensor attached to the moving body; and performing a correction of the first rotation angle in a case where a condition regarding the second rotation angle is satisfied” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“performing an estimation of posture information of a moving body including a first rotation angle around an axis in a gravity direction and a second rotation angle around an axis orthogonal to the gravity direction on a basis of an output from a gyro sensor attached to the moving body” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“performing a correction of the first rotation angle in a case where a condition regarding the second rotation angle is satisfied” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“performing an estimation of posture information of a moving body including a first rotation angle around an axis in a gravity direction and a second rotation angle around an axis orthogonal to the gravity direction on a basis of an output from a gyro sensor attached to the moving body” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“performing a correction of the first rotation angle in a case where a condition regarding the second rotation angle is satisfied” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 14 is similar to claim 1 but recites an information processing apparatus comprising: an estimation unit configured and a rotation angle correction unit configured. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 14 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 14.
Regarding claim 2, “wherein the condition includes that the second rotation angle has a predetermined relationship with a second reference angle, and the correction of the first rotation angle includes correcting the first rotation angle using a first reference angle corresponding to the second reference angle” is directed to math because "the second rotation angle has a predetermined relationship with a second reference angle, and the correction of the first rotation angle includes correcting the first rotation angle using a first reference angle corresponding to the second reference angle" describes a system that uses specific geometric relationships and corrections between different reference points or angles to achieve a desired outcome, which is a core concept in the mathematical modeling of physical systems.
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the predetermined relationship includes a relationship in which a difference between the second rotation angle and the second reference angle is equal to or less than a threshold” is directed to math because the relationship is fundamentally related to mathematics, specifically involving concepts from geometry, trigonometry, and algebra, particularly the use of inequalities.
Regarding claim 4, “calibrating the gyro sensor; estimating posture information for registration of the moving body on a basis of an output obtained from the gyro sensor while the moving body takes a posture for the registration after the calibration; and registering the first rotation angle included in the posture information for the registration as the first reference angle, and registering the second rotation angle included in the posture information for the registration as the second reference angle” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 5, “displaying a guidance screen configured to guide the moving body to take the posture for the registration after the calibration” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 6, “wherein the correction of the first rotation angle is a correction of making the one rotation angle close to the first reference angle over time” is directed to math because fundamentally relates to several mathematical fields, particularly control theory, calculus, and linear algebra. The described process is a classic feedback loop designed to minimize the error between a desired state (the "first reference angle") and a measured state (the "one rotation angle") over time. Mathematical tools like transfer functions, stability analysis, and feedback control laws (such as PID controllers) are used to design and analyze how effectively this correction happens. The "correction over time" aspect involves rates of change. The system's behavior is modeled using differential equations, which describe how the angle changes in response to the correction applied. Concepts like derivatives (rate of change) and integrals (accumulation of correction) are essential.
Regarding claim 7, “performing a correction of the first rotation angle on a basis of a fact that a predetermined operation input is performed” is directed to math because the manipulation of rotation angles is fundamentally a geometric concept. Corrections often involve calculating new angles, which requires trigonometric functions like sine, cosine, and tangent to determine spatial relationships and orientations. Rotations are often represented using vectors or matrices. Correcting an angle involves vector rotation operations, such as matrix multiplication (using rotation matrices) or quaternion multiplication, to achieve the desired orientation.
Regarding claim 8, “constructing a relational model between the first rotation angle and the second rotation angle by learning on a basis of a plurality of learning data including the first rotation angle and the second rotation angle, wherein the first reference angle is a first rotation angle estimated from the second rotation angle of the moving body on a basis of the relational model” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). .
Regarding claim 9, “evaluating the relational model using a plurality of test data including the first rotation angle and the second rotation angle; and extracting, as the second reference angle, the second rotation angle at which an estimation error of the first rotation angle is equal to or less than a threshold in the evaluation using the plurality of test data” is directed to math because the process involves generating and using a "plurality of test data" to evaluate a model's performance and identify thresholds. This requires statistical methods to measure "estimation error" and compare it against a "threshold.". The "relational model" being evaluated is inherently a mathematical construct designed to represent a real-world relationship between variables (in this case, rotation angles). "Rotation angles" are fundamental concepts in trigonometry and geometry, which are branches of mathematics. The "relational model" itself likely uses trigonometric functions (like sine and cosine) or matrix transformations to describe how these angles interact and relate to the estimation error. The "extracting... the second rotation angle at which an estimation error... is equal to or less than a threshold" is a form of optimization or finding a specific solution within a defined parameter space, a common task in applied math.
Regarding claim 10, “wherein the gyro sensor is attached to a plurality of parts of the moving body, and the correction of the first rotation angle includes the correction of the first rotation angle for a part in a case where a condition regarding the second rotation angle for the part is satisfied” is directed to math because calculating and correcting rotation angles (the "first" and "second" rotation angles) involves spatial relationships, vector analysis, and trigonometric functions to determine orientation and movement in 3D space. Gyro sensors measure angular velocity, which is the derivative of angular position with respect to time. Integrating these measurements over time is necessary to calculate the actual rotation angle. The "correction" process likely involves algorithms (like Kalman filters or complementary filters) to process the raw sensor data, filter noise, and ensure accuracy and stability. The phrase "in a case where a condition regarding the second rotation angle for the part is satisfied" directly refers to the use of conditional logic to decide when and how to apply corrections. Therefore, while the direct application is in technology and physics, the system is fundamentally based on applied mathematics.
Regarding claim 11, “wherein the posture information of the moving body includes a third rotation angle around an axis orthogonal to both the axis in the gravity direction and the axis orthogonal to the gravity direction, and the condition is a condition regarding the second rotation angle and the third rotation angle” is directed to math because the "second rotation angle" and "third rotation angle" likely refer to specific Euler angles, such as pitch and roll, which describe the orientation of the moving body in 3D space. These are inherently mathematical concepts based on trigonometry and linear algebra.
Regarding claim 12, “estimating position information indicating a position of the moving body, wherein the condition includes a condition regarding the position of the moving body” is directed to math because the condition regarding the position of the moving body implies the use of specific mathematical models and algorithms. Geometry and Trigonometry are used to calculate distances, angles, and coordinates based on various inputs like signals from GPS satellites or ground stations. Calculus may be used to analyze rates of change (velocity and acceleration) and predict future positions. Probability and Statistics (such as the use of Kalman filters) are fundamental for integrating noisy sensor data and handling uncertainties in position estimations.
Regarding claim 13, “wherein a geomagnetism sensor is attached to the moving body, and the condition includes a condition regarding a geomagnetism value obtained from the geomagnetism sensor” is directed to math because geomagnetic fields are vector fields, meaning they have both magnitude and direction at any given point in space. Their analysis and manipulation rely on vector mathematics. The behavior of the Earth's magnetic field and how a sensor interacts with it are described by the laws of physics, which are expressed mathematically through equations and models. The data collected from a sensor is a raw signal that must be filtered, analyzed, and interpreted. This involves mathematical techniques like Fourier analysis, filtering algorithms, and statistical analysis. To use the sensor data for navigation or positioning, the measurements must be transformed between different coordinate systems (e.g., the sensor's frame of reference, the body's frame of reference, and the Earth's frame of reference). This requires linear algebra and trigonometry.
Hence the claims 1-14 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to software per se.
Claim 15 is directed to a “program” per se (for causing a computer to function as: - being intended use of the program) and therefore fails at Step 1 and is not a statutory category.
Applicant has claimed “[a] computer program” and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer program”, and thus, these features recite software per se, which is non-statutory subject matter. Further, in the recitation of “a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computing device to cause the computing device to ...,” the limitation of “the program instructions executable by a computing device to cause the computing device to ...” recited as a condition precedent, wherein the instructions being executed by the computing device is not positively recited as necessarily being performed in the claim, and for this reason, the computing device is outside the scope of the claim. As a result, these claims must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non- statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takenaka et al. (EP 1504855 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, Takenaka et al. disclose an information processing apparatus, program, and method comprising:
performing an estimation of posture information (posture angle) of a moving body (3) including a first rotation angle (yaw) around an axis in a gravity direction (z-axis) and a second rotation angle (roll/pitch) around an axis orthogonal to the gravity direction (X-/Y-Axis; see paragraph [0049] and figure 2) on a basis of an output from a gyro sensor (54) attached to the moving body (3; see paragraph [0031] and figure 1); and
performing a correction of the first rotation angle (correct a yaw rate) in a case where a condition regarding the second rotation angle is satisfied (see e.g. paragraph [0155] f: An absolute value of a detected gyro value (a detected posture angular velocity value) is a predetermined value or less - which particularly implies that also the velocity of the second rotation angle [roll/pitch] has to be less than said predetermined value).
Regarding claim 2, Takenaka et al. disclose wherein the condition includes that the second rotation angle has a predetermined relationship with a second reference angle, and the correction of the first rotation angle includes correcting the first rotation angle using a first reference angle corresponding to the second reference angle (paragraph [0155]d - the second rotation angle has a predetermined relationship with a second reference angle: a difference between a posture angular velocity of a desired gait [second reference angle] and a detected gyro value (a detected posture angular velocity value) [second rotation angle] is a predetermined value or less; paragraph [0159] - first reference angle: component in a detection direction of the yaw rate sensor of the body posture of a desired gait).
Regarding claim 3, Takenaka et al. disclose wherein the predetermined relationship includes a relationship in which a difference between the second rotation angle and the second reference angle is equal to or less than a threshold (paragraph [0155]d - the second rotation angle has a predetermined relationship with a second reference angle: a difference between a posture angular velocity of a desired gait [second reference angle] and a detected gyro value (a detected posture angular velocity value) [second rotation angle] is a predetermined value or less) paragraph [0159] - first reference angle: component in a detection direction of the yaw rate sensor of the body posture of a desired gait).
Regarding claim 6, Takenaka et al. disclose wherein the correction of the first rotation angle is a correction of making the one rotation angle close to the first reference angle over time (paragraphs [0158]-[0160]).
Regarding claim 7, Takenaka et al. disclose performing a correction of the first rotation angle on a basis of a fact that a predetermined operation input is performed (paragraph [0160] and figure 13; predetermined operation input: input of the feedback control law to the block 318).
Regarding claim 11, Takenaka et al. disclose wherein the posture information of the moving body includes a third rotation angle around an axis orthogonal to both the axis in the gravity direction and the axis orthogonal to the gravity direction, and the condition is a condition regarding the second rotation angle and the third rotation angle (paragraphs [0031], [0155] and figure 1; second and third rotation angles: Mx and My).
Regarding claim 12, Takenaka et al. disclose estimating position information indicating a position of the moving body, wherein the condition includes a condition regarding the position of the moving body (paragraph [0155]; position information indicating a position of the moving body: Contact between a sole and a floor is considered to be good with no slippage).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka et al. (EP 1504855 A1) in view of Ziyaee et al. (US 10,860,034).
Regarding claim 8, Takenaka et al. disclose wherein the first reference angle is a first rotation angle estimated from the second rotation angle of the moving body on a basis of the relational model.
Takenaka et al. fail to disclose constructing a relational model between the first rotation angle and the second rotation angle by learning on a basis of a plurality of learning data including the first rotation angle and the second rotation angle.
Ziyaee et al. teach constructing a relational model between the first rotation angle and the second rotation angle by learning on a basis of a plurality of learning data including the first rotation angle and the second rotation angle (e.g. Col.6, line 63-Col.7, line 7: this approach may be used to expand the set of training data by a factor equal to the number of rotation angles in the set of rotation angles). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ziyaee et al. with the teaching of Takenaka et al. in order to provide a technique includes augmenting training data by applying rotations to derive additional training data in operation (Ziyaee , Col.6, line 63-65).
Regarding claim 9, Takenaka et al. disclose evaluating the relational model using a plurality of test data including the first rotation angle and the second rotation angle; and extracting, as the second reference angle, the second rotation angle at which an estimation error of the first rotation angle is equal to or less than a threshold in the evaluation using the plurality of test data (paragraph [0155]d - the second rotation angle has a predetermined relationship with a second reference angle: a difference between a posture angular velocity of a desired gait [second reference angle] and a detected gyro value (a detected posture angular velocity value) [second rotation angle] is a predetermined value or less) paragraph [0159] - first reference angle: component in a detection direction of the yaw rate sensor of the body posture of a desired gait and an estimate body posture is used to extract the angular velocity error component in a detection direction of the yaw rate sensor).
Claim(s) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takenaka et al. (EP 1504855 A1) in view of Clark et al. (US 2016/0220186).
Regarding claim 10, Takenaka et al. teach the correction of the first rotation angle includes the correction of the first rotation angle for a part in a case where a condition regarding the second rotation angle for the part is satisfied (paragraphs [0153]-[0155]).
Takenaka et al fail to disclose wherein the gyro sensor is attached to a plurality of parts of the moving body.
Clark et al. teach wherein the gyro sensor (22) is attached to a plurality of parts of the moving body (shoe) (Fig.7, paragraph [0077]; plurality of parts of the moving body: shoes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Clark et al. with the teaching of Takenaka et al. in order to provide a motion sensing device (para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 13, Clark et al. teach wherein a geomagnetism sensor is attached to the moving body, and the condition includes a condition regarding a geomagnetism value obtained from the geomagnetism sensor. (paragraphs [0064] and [0065]; geomagnetism sensor: Magnetic sensors).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, none of the prior art of record teaches or suggests calibrating the gyro sensor; estimating posture information for registration of the moving body on a basis of an output obtained from the gyro sensor while the moving body takes a posture for the registration after the calibration; and registering the first rotation angle included in the posture information for the registration as the first reference angle, and registering the second rotation angle included in the posture information for the registration as the second reference angle. It is these limitations as they are claimed in the combination with other limitations of claim, which have not been found, taught or suggested in the prior art of record, that make these claims allowable over the prior art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857