DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-17 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A ship monitoring system, comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
estimate an estimated position of a first ship after a first period of time in each direction, based on first ship data including a position and a velocity of the first ship, by using a first formula, in case assuming that the first ship travels after the first ship changed the course at the current position into an arbitrary direction,
estimate an estimated course of a second ship and an estimated position of the second ship after a second period of time, that is included in the estimated course of the second ship, based on second ship data including a position and a velocity of the second ship, by using a second formula, and
determine that, among the estimated course of the second ship, a side closer to the current position of the second ship than a matched point at which the estimated position of the first ship matches with the estimated position of the second ship, when the first period of time is equal to the second period of time, is a range where the first ship passes through either one of the front and the rear of the second ship, and a side far away from the current position of the second ship than the matched point is a range where the first ship passes through the other of the front and the rear of the second ship.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation in the claim is only: processing circuitry. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structure performing a generic computer function of processing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component). Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Saito et al. US 2017/0284807 (hereinafter, Saito), (claim 6 and Fig. 2), and Jin et al. CN 111899567 A (hereinafter, Jin), ([0005], [0139]). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-14, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 15, recites addition element of “wherein the processing circuitry display a range where the first ship passes through the front of the second ship and a range where the first ship passes through the rear of the second ship on the estimated course of the second ship”. However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a computer structure performing a generic computer function of displaying or outputting information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Saito, (Figs. 6-8), and Jin, (Figs. 7-8). Therefore, claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 16 and 17, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
7. Claim 1 recites the limitations “estimate an estimated position of a first ship after a first period of time in each direction, based on first ship data including a position and a velocity of the first ship, by using a first formula, in case assuming that the first ship travels after the first ship changed the course at the current position into an arbitrary direction, estimate an estimated course of a second ship and an estimated position of the second ship after a second period of time, that is included in the estimated course of the second ship, based on second ship data including a position and a velocity of the second ship, by using a second formula.” However, the meaning of claim language “estimate an estimated position of a first ship,…and estimate an estimated course of a second ship” is unclear. The expression “estimate an estimated” is not clear or vague, has no well-defined meaning in the art, and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical features that is referred to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter unclear.
Further, the limitation “…in case assuming that the first ship travels after the first ship changed the course at the current position into an arbitrary direction.” However, the claim language “in case assuming” is unclear. The phrase "in case assuming" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This phrase is not clearly defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Furthermore, The claim does not include any earlier recitation or limitation of a “the course at the current position into an arbitrary direction” and as a result, it is not clear what elements the description “the course” and “the current position” refer to.
In addition, the meaning of the limitations “determine that, among the estimated course of the second ship, a side closer to the current position of the second ship than a matched point at which the estimated position of the first ship matches with the estimated position of the second ship, when the first period of time is equal to the second period of time, is a range where the first ship passes through either one of the front and the rear of the second ship, and a side far away from the current position of the second ship than the matched point is a range where the first ship passes through the other of the front and the rear of the second ship”, is unclear. The expression “a side closer to the current position of the second ship than a matched point”, and “a side far away from the current position of the second ship than the matched point”, are not clear, has no well-defined meaning in the art, and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical features that are referred to, thereby rendering the definition of the subject-matter unclear. Also, the claim does not include any earlier recitation or limitation of “ the other of the front and the rear of the second ship”, and as a result, it is not clear what elements the description “the other of the front and the rear” refer to.
The meaning of the limitation “where the first ship passes through the other of the front and the rear of the second ship” is unclear. It is not clear how the first ship passes through the other front and rear of the second ship at the same time. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
8. Claim 2 recites “determines that a side closer to the current position of the second ship than a first matched point from the current position of the second ship is a range where the first ship passes through the rear of the second ship, and a side far away from the current position of the second ship than the matched point is a range where the first ship passes through the front of the second ship.” The meaning of “determines that a side closer to the current position of the second ship than a first matched point from the current position of the second ship is a range where the first ship passes through the rear of the second ship” is unclear. Also, it is not clear if each recitations of “a side closer”, “a range” and “a side far away” is meant to refer to the same or different elements recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 2.
9. Claim 6 recites “determines the range where the first ship passes through the front of the second ship, and the range where the first ship passes through the rear of the second ship, based on a solution of simultaneous inequalities including the first formula and the second formula under a condition that the second period of time is larger than the first period of time, or a condition that the second period of time is smaller than the first period of time.” The meaning of “determines the range where the first ship passes through the front of the second ship, and the range where the first ship passes through the rear of the second ship” is unclear. It is not clear how the first ship passes through the front and rear of the second ship at the same time. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 6.
10. Claim 15 recites “display a range where the first ship passes through the front…and a range where the first ship passes through the rear…” However, it is not clear if each recitations of “a range” is meant to refer to the same or different element recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
11. Claim 16 recites “create a first formula indicative of an estimated position of the first ship after a first period of time in each direction, based on the first ship data, when assuming that the first ship travels after the first ship changed the course at the current position into an arbitrary direction.” The claim language “when assuming” is unclear. The phrase "when assuming" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. This phrase is not clearly defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Further, the meaning of the limitation “a range where the first ship passes through the front of the second ship and a range where the first ship passes through the rear of the second ship, among an estimated course of the second ship indicated by the second formula” is unclear. It is not clear how the first ship passes through the front and rear of the second ship at the same time. Also, it is not clear if each recitations of “a range” is meant to refer to the same or different element recited in the claim. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
13. Claims 1-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. US 2017/0284807 (hereinafter, Saito), in view of Jin et al. CN 111899567 A (hereinafter, Jin), in further view of Tabri et al. “Model-scale experiments of symmetric ship collisions”, June 2007 (hereinafter, Tabri).
14. Regarding claim 1, Saito discloses a ship monitoring system, comprising:
processing circuitry configured to: estimate an estimated position of a first ship after a first period of time in each direction, based on first ship data including a position and a velocity of the first ship, by using a first formula, in case assuming that the first ship travels after the first ship changed the course at the current position into an arbitrary direction ([0028], [0055], Fig. 1: the AIS device 12 periodically transmits AIS information that includes a variety of information on the ship 11 mounted therewith through wireless communication. AIS information includes, for example, information such as a position represented by latitude and longitude, a ship name, a point of time, a direction of a bow of the ship 11,… The extraction unit 41 calculates a risk of collision at each point of time from a trajectory (ship track) of a position of each of the extracted two ships at each point of time, and narrows a set of ships to only a set of ships with a risk of collision therebetween being reduced. For example, the extraction unit 41 calculates, as a risk of collision at each point of time, a distance of closest approach (DCPA) between two ships in a case where each of the two ships maintains a course and a speed thereof at each point of time);
estimate an estimated course of a second ship and an estimated position of the second ship after a second period of time, that is included in the estimated course of the second ship, based on second ship data including a position and a velocity of the second ship, by using a second formula ([0028], [0055], Fig. 1), and
determine that, among the estimated course of the second ship, a side closer to the current position of the second ship than a matched point, is a range where the first ship passes through either one of the front and the rear of the second ship, and a side far away from the current position of the second ship than the matched point is a range where the first ship passes through the other of the front and the rear of the second ship ([0061], [0079]).
Saito does not disclose:
determine that, among the estimated course of the second ship, a side closer to the current position of the second ship than a matched point at which the estimated position of the first ship matches with the estimated position of the second ship, when the first period of time is equal to the second period of time.
However, Jin discloses:
determine that, among the estimated course of the second ship, a side closer to the current position of the second ship than a matched point at which the estimated position of the first ship matches with the estimated position of the second ship, when the first period of time is [compared] to the second period of time ([0010], [0049]-[0050], [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Saito to use determine that, among the estimated course of the second ship, a side closer to the current position of the second ship than a matched point at which the estimated position of the first ship matches with the estimated position of the second ship, when the first period of time is [compared] to the second period of time as taught by Jin. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to improve the accuracy of ship collision hazard warning (Jin, [0017]).
Saito in view of Jin does not disclose:
determine that when the first period of time is equal to the second period of time.
However, Tabri discloses:
determine that when the first period of time is equal to the second period of time (page 79, Section 5.1 Analysis of a collision experiment, and Fig. 11,).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Saito in view of Jin to use determine that when the first period of time is equal to the second period of time as taught by Tabri. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to identify the exact time of collision (Tabri, page 79).
15. Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
16. Regarding claim 2, Saito in view of Jin in view of Tabri disclose ship monitoring system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Saito further discloses wherein the processing circuitry determines that a side closer to the current position of the second ship than a first matched point from the current position of the second ship is a range where the first ship passes through the rear of the second ship, and a side far away from the current position of the second ship than the matched point is a range where the first ship passes through the front of the second ship ([0061], [0079]). See also Jin ([0049]-[0050], [0096]).
17. Regarding claim 3, Saito in view of Jin in view of Tabri disclose ship monitoring system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Saito further discloses wherein the processing circuitry determines that a side closer to the current position of a second ship than the second matched point from the current position of the second ship is a range where the first ship passes through the front of the second ship, and a side far away from the current position of the second ship than the matched point is a range where the first ship passes through the rear of the second ship ([0061], [0079]). See also Jin ([0049]-[0050], [0096]).
18. Regarding claim 4, Saito in view of Jin in view of Tabri disclose ship monitoring system of claim 2, as disclosed above.
Saito further discloses wherein the processing circuitry determines that a side closer to the current position of a second ship than the second matched point from the current position of the second ship is a range where the first ship passes through the front of the second ship, and a side far away from the current position of the second ship than the matched point is a range where the first ship passes through the rear of the second ship ([0061], [0079]). See also Jin ([0049]-[0050], [0096]).
19. Regarding claim 5, Saito in view of Jin in view of Tabri disclose ship monitoring system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Saito further discloses wherein the processing circuitry determines that a given range including the matched point is a risk area where there is a risk of the first ship and the second ship colliding each other ([0055], [0061]). See also Jin ([0022]-[0023]).
20. Regarding claim 6, Saito in view of Jin in view of Tabri disclose ship monitoring system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Saito further discloses wherein the processing circuitry determines the range where the first ship passes through the front of the second ship, and the range where the first ship passes through the rear of the second ship, based on a solution of simultaneous inequalities including the first formula and the second formula ([0058]-[0059], [0061], Figs. 3-4).
Saito in view of Tabri does not disclose:
a condition that the second period of time is larger than the first period of time, or a condition that the second period of time is smaller than the first period of time.
However, Jin discloses:
a condition that the second period of time is larger than the first period of time, or a condition that the second period of time is smaller than the first period of time ([0009]-[0010], [0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Saito in view of Tabri to use a condition that the second period of time is larger than the first period of time, or a condition that the second period of time is smaller than the first period of time as taught by Jin. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to improve the accuracy of ship collision hazard warning (Jin, [0017]).
21. Regarding claims 7 and 8, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 6.
22. Regarding claim 9, Saito in view of Jin in view of Tabri disclose ship monitoring system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Saito further discloses wherein the first formula is expressed as follows, when the first period of time to, a speed of the first ship is Vo, a position of the first ship, and an initial position of the first ship ([0028], [0055], [0059]). Further, Jin discloses based on the real-time predicted lines of the two ship navigation trajectories, the possible
intersection points of any two ships in the plane are determined, and the intersection points are the suspected collision points of the two ships (see, [0029]).
Saito in view of Jin does not disclose:
wherein the first formula is expressed as follows, when the first period of time is to, a speed of the first ship is Vo, a position of the first ship in an xy plane is (x, y), and an initial position of the first ship is the origin of the xy plane: x2+y2=(Voto)2 (First Formula).
However, Tabri discloses:
wherein the first formula is expressed as follows, when the first period of time is to, a speed of the first ship is Vo, a position of the first ship in an xy plane is (x, y), and an initial position of the first ship is the origin of the xy plane (pages 78-79 and Figs. 9 and 11: show the relationship between velocity vs time, and position vs time in xy plane). Saito in view of Jin in view of Tabri does not disclose x2+y2=(Voto)2. However, expressing the first formula as x2+y2=(Voto)2 would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Saito in view of Jin in view of Tabri as disclosed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Saito in view of Jin to use wherein the first formula is expressed as follows, when the first period of time is to, a speed of the first ship is Vo, a position of the first ship in an xy plane is (x, y), and an initial position of the first ship is the origin of the xy plane: x2+y2=(Voto)2 (First Formula) as taught by Tabri. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to monitoring position and speed of the ships at a given period of time efficiently (Tabri, pages 78-79).
23. Regarding claims 10 and 11, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 9.
24. Regarding claim 12, Saito in view of Jin in view of Tabri disclose ship monitoring system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Saito further discloses wherein the second formula is expressed as follows, when the second period of time is tT, an x-component of a velocity of the second ship is vTx, a y-component of the velocity of the second ship is vTy, a position of the second ship ([0028], [0055], [0059]). Further, Jin discloses based on the real-time predicted lines of the two ship navigation trajectories, the possible intersection points of any two ships in the plane are determined, and the intersection points are the suspected collision points of the two ships (see, [0029]).
Saito in view of Jin does not disclose:
wherein the second formula is expressed as follows, when the second period of time is tT, an x-component of a velocity of the second ship is vTx, a y-component of the velocity of the second ship is vTy, a position of the second ship in an xy plane is (x, y), and an initial position of the second ship is (x0, y0): x=x0+ vTx tT y=y0+vTytT (Second Formula).
However, Tabri discloses:
wherein the second formula is expressed as follows, when the second period of time is tT, an x-component of a velocity of the second ship is vTx, a y-component of the velocity of the second ship is vTy, a position of the second ship in an xy plane is (x, y), and an initial position of the second ship is (x0, y0) (pages 78-79 and Figs. 9 and 11: show the relationship between velocity vs time, and position vs time in xy plane). Saito in view of Jin in view of Tabri does not disclose x=x0+ vTx tT y=y0+vTytT (Second Formula). However, expressing the second formula as x=x0+ vTx tT y=y0+vTytT would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Saito in view of Jin in view of Tabri as disclosed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Saito in view of Jin to use wherein the second formula is expressed as follows, when the second period of time is tT, an x-component of a velocity of the second ship is vTx, a y-component of the velocity of the second ship is vTy, a position of the second ship in an xy plane is (x, y), and an initial position of the second ship is (x0, y0): x=x0+ vTx tT y=y0+vTytT (Second Formula) as taught by Tabri. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to monitoring position and speed of the ships at a given period of time efficiently (Tabri, pages 78-79).
25. Regarding claims 13 and 14, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 12.
26. Regarding claim 15, Saito in view of Jin in view of Tabri disclose ship monitoring system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Saito further discloses wherein the processing circuitry display a range where the first ship passes through the front of the second ship and a range where the first ship passes through the rear of the second ship on the estimated course of the second ship ([0061], Figs. 3-4, 7). See also Jin (Figs. 4-7).
27. Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito, in view of Jin.
28. Regarding claim 16, Saito discloses a ship monitoring system, comprising:
processing circuitry configured to: generate first ship data including a position and a velocity of a first ship ([0028], [0055], Fig. 1: the AIS device 12 periodically transmits AIS information that includes a variety of information on the ship 11 mounted therewith through wireless communication. AIS information includes, for example, information such as a position represented by latitude and longitude, a ship name, a point of time, a direction of a bow of the ship 11,… The extraction unit 41 calculates a risk of collision at each point of time from a trajectory (ship track) of a position of each of the extracted two ships at each point of time, and narrows a set of ships to only a set of ships with a risk of collision therebetween being reduced. For example, the extraction unit 41 calculates, as a risk of collision at each point of time, a distance of closest approach (DCPA) between two ships in a case where each of the two ships maintains a course and a speed thereof at each point of time),
generate second ship data including a position and a velocity of a second ship ([0028], [0055]),
create a first formula indicative of an estimated position of the first ship after a first period of time in each direction, based on the first ship data, when assuming that the first ship travels after the first ship changed the course at the current position into an arbitrary direction ([0028], [0055], [0061]);
create a second formula indicative of an estimated position of the second ship after a second period of time, based on the second ship data ([0028], [0055], [0061]);
and
determine, based on a solution of simultaneous inequalities including the first formula and the second formula, a range where the first ship passes through the front of the second ship and a range where the first ship passes through the rear of the second ship, among an estimated course of the second ship indicated by the second formula ([0061], [0079]).
Saito does not disclose:
determine, based on a solution of simultaneous inequalities including the first formula and the second formula under a condition that the second period of time is larger than the first period of time or a condition that the second period of time is smaller than the first period of time.
However, Jin discloses:
determine that, among the estimated course of the second ship, a side closer to the current position of the second ship than a matched point at which the estimated position of the first ship matches with the estimated position of the second ship, when the first period of time is [compared] to the second period of time ([0009]-[0010], [0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Saito to use determine that, among the estimated course of the second ship, a side closer to the current position of the second ship than a matched point at which the estimated position of the first ship matches with the estimated position of the second ship, when the first period of time is [compared] to the second period of time as taught by Jin. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to improve the accuracy of ship collision hazard warning (Jin, [0017]).
Conclusion
29. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby 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.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights