DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
Claims 1, 3, 7-18, and 20-22 are pending.
Claims 2, 4, and 23 have been cancelled.
Claims 5-6 and 19 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 3 and 14-15 have been previously withdrawn from consideration but may be rejoined once allowable subject matter has been captured in the independent claim.
Claims 1, 11-13, 16, 20, and 22 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 13 are the independent claims.
Claims 1, 7-13, 16-18, and 20-22 will be examined below.
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the “Request for Continued Examination with Amendments and Remarks” received on 4/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks” filed on 4/30/2026: Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Applicants remarks will be addressed in the order they were presented.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application, which have necessitated new analysis with new application of prior art, and the Office has supplied the new grounds for rejection attached below in the Non-Final office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Non-Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has not acted as his/her own lexicographer.
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
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
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"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1,7-9, 13, 16-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mallinger (United States Patent 9,120,486) in view of Piao et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0393265) and in further view of Tao European Patent Application (EP 4 170 533 A1).
With respect to Claim 1: While Mallinger discloses “A method for detecting roadway lane markings” [Mallinger Col 2 lines 10-34];
“the method comprising: collecting a frame of image data of a roadway” [Mallinger, Col 4 lines 19-30];
“separating a first individual lane marking from among the frame of image data of the roadway” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
“and comparing the first separated individual lane marking to a subsequent frame of image data of the roadway” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
“determining an angle of the first separated individual lane marking with respect to an axis” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
“comparing the angle of the first separated individual lane marking with respect to the axis to an angle of the first separated individual lane marking with respect to the axis from the subsequent frame of image data of the roadway” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
“in response to the angle of the first separated individual lane marking with respect to the axis not matching the angle of the first separated individual lane marking with respect to the axis from the subsequent frame of image data of the roadway” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
“assigning identifiers to the first separated individual lane marking from the subsequent frame of image data” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
“and controlling a vehicle to autonomously navigate using the first separated individual lane marking” [Mallinger, Col 1, lines 10 – Col 2 lines 3].
Mallinger does not state that a user may perform this separation of data from images or that the identifiers are unique and comprising one or more characters.
Piao, which is also a system that identifies lane lines teaches “separating, via a user interface, the first individual lane marking from the frame of image data of the roadway” [Piao, ¶ 0060, 0116, 0169, 0201, 0203 and Figures 19a-19b];
“assigning a unique identifier to the first separated individual lane marking from the subsequent frame of image data” [Piao, ¶ 0007, 0060, 0116, and 0233].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Piao into the invention of Mallinger to not only include using image data to identify lane lines and controlling the vehicle based on valid an invalid lane lines as Mallinger discloses but to also allow a user to confirm updates to the maps based on displayed lane lines (unique identifiers) as taught by Piao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Piao into Mallinger to create a more robust system that allow users to confirm additions to maps [Mallinger, ¶ 0233]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as lane line identification and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Tao, which is also a vehicle control system teaches “the unique identifier
comprising one or more characters” [Tao, ¶ 0010 (perform identification and classification processing on map elements such as a road, a lane line, traffic lights, a bridge, a tunnel, and a culvert based on a position, an image, and point cloud data, generate a storage structure of the map element based on a map storage specification, and generate a unique identifier ID for each map element)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tao into the invention of Mallinger to not only include using image data to identify lane lines and controlling the vehicle based on valid an invalid lane lines as Mallinger discloses but to also generate unique identifiers for map elements, such as lane lines as taught by Tao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Tao into Mallinger to create a more robust system that allow systems to save a variety of distinct map elements. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as lane line identification and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 7: Mallinger discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: separating a second individual lane marking from among the frame of image data of the roadway” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
“and defining a first lane of the roadway between the first separated individual lane marking and the second separated individual lane marking” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6].
With respect to Claim 8: Mallinger discloses “The method of claim 7, further comprising: separating a third individual lane marking from among the frame of image data of the roadway” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
“and defining a second lane of the roadway between the second separated individual lane marking and the third separated individual lane marking” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6].
With respect to Claim 9: Mallinger discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the step of collecting the frame of image data of the roadway is performed by a forward facing camera of the vehicle” [Mallinger, Col 3 line 57-Col 4 line 4 and Col 4 lines 19-30].
With respect to Claim 13: While Mallinger discloses “A vehicle navigation system, the system comprising” [Mallinger Col 2 lines 10-34];
“ a vehicle” [Mallinger Col 2 lines 10-34];
“an image collection device arranged on the vehicle” [Mallinger Col 2 lines 10-34];
“a processor” [Mallinger Col 2 lines 10-34];
“and, a vehicle controller” [Mallinger Col 2 lines 10-34];
“wherein the image collection device, the processor, and the vehicle controller are connected to one another via a network, the processor may receive input data from the image collection device, separate lane markings within the input data, and transmit an output to the vehicle controller to control the vehicle” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
“to autonomously navigate using a first separated individual lane marking” [Mallinger, Col 1, lines 10 – Col 2 lines 3];
“from among a frame of input data including image data of a roadway” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
“the processor is configured to determine an angle of the first separated individual lane marking with respect to an axis” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
“the processor is configured to compare the angle of the first separated individual lane marking with respect to the axis to an angle of the first separated individual lane marking with respect to the axis from the subsequent frame of image data of the roadway” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
“and in response to the angle of the first separated individual lane marking with respect to the axis not matching the angle of the first separated individual lane marking with respect to the axis from the subsequent frame of image data of the roadway, the processor is configured to assign a unique identifier to the first separated individual lane marking from the subsequent frame of image data” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
Mallinger does not state that a user may perform this separation of data from images or that the identifiers are unique and comprising one or more characters.
Piao, which is also a system that identifies lane lines teaches “separating, via a user interface, the first individual lane marking from the frame of image data of the roadway” [Piao, ¶ 0060, 0116, 0169, 0201, 0203 and Figures 19a-19b];
“assigning a unique identifier to the first separated individual lane marking from the subsequent frame of image data” [Piao, ¶ 0007, 0060, 0116, and 0233].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Piao into the invention of Mallinger to not only include using image data to identify lane lines and controlling the vehicle based on valid an invalid lane lines as Mallinger discloses but to also allow a user to confirm updates to the maps based on displayed lane lines (unique identifiers) as taught by Piao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Piao into Mallinger to create a more robust system that allow users to confirm additions to maps [Mallinger, ¶ 0233]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as lane line identification and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Tao, which is also a vehicle control system teaches “the unique identifier
comprising one or more characters” [Tao, ¶ 0010 (perform identification and classification processing on map elements such as a road, a lane line, traffic lights, a bridge, a tunnel, and a culvert based on a position, an image, and point cloud data, generate a storage structure of the map element based on a map storage specification, and generate a unique identifier ID for each map element)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tao into the invention of Mallinger to not only include using image data to identify lane lines and controlling the vehicle based on valid an invalid lane lines as Mallinger discloses but to also generate unique identifiers for map elements, such as lane lines as taught by Tao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Tao into Mallinger to create a more robust system that allow systems to save a variety of distinct map elements. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as lane line identification and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 16: Mallinger discloses “The vehicle navigation system of claim 13, wherein the output transmitted from the processor causes the vehicle controller to control the vehicle to follow a curvature in the roadway.” [Mallinger, Col 4 lines 19-30].
With respect to Claim 17: Mallinger discloses “The vehicle navigation system of claim 13, wherein the output transmitted from the processor causes the vehicle controller to control the vehicle to follow a curvature in a roadway” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6].
With respect to Claim 18: While Mallinger discloses “The vehicle navigation system of claim 13, wherein the output transmitted from the processor causes the vehicle controller to control the vehicle” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
Mallinger does not state changing lanes, rather staying in one lane, which could be changing lanes.
Piao, which is also a system that identifies lane lines teaches “causes the vehicle controller to control the vehicle to execute a lane change maneuver” [Piao, ¶ 0085].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Piao into the invention of Mallinger to not only include using image data to identify lane lines and control the vehicle accordingly as Mallinger discloses but to also have the vehicle control change lanes as taught by Piao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Piao into Mallinger to create a more robust system that control the vehicle is many known ways, such as lane change and lane keeping. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as lane line identification and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 20: While Mallinger discloses “wherein the step of separating the first individual lane marking from the frame of image data of the roadway is performed” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
Mallinger does not state that a user may perform this function of identifying the lane lines.
Piao, which is also a system that identifies lane lines teaches “separating the first individual lane marking from the frame of image data of the roadway is performed on a user interface” [Piao, ¶ 0060, 0169, 0201, 0203 and Figures 19a-19b];
“further comprising a user interface communicatively coupled to the vehicle navigation system” [Piao, Abstract, ¶ 0201-0203];
“and wherein the user interface is configured to allow a user to isolate pixels of roadway data comprising a lane marking” [Piao, ¶ 0060, 0169, 0201, 0203 and Figures 19a-19b].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Piao into the invention of Mallinger to not only include using image data to identify lane lines as Mallinger discloses but to also use user input to identify areas on a display that are lane lines as taught by Piao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Piao into Mallinger to create a more robust system that account for sections where lane lines are not detectable, thus reverting to conventional lane line identification [Piao, ¶ 0060] Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as lane line identification and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 21: While Mallinger discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle that includes a vehicle controller configured to control steering of the vehicle without operator inputs” [Mallinger, Col 1, lines 10 – Col 2 lines 3];
Mallinger does not specifically state controlling acceleration or braking or other aspects of autonomous vehicle control.
Piao, which is also a system that identifies lane lines automatically or with the help of users and controls autonomous vehicles with said lane lines teaches “wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle that includes a vehicle controller configured to control acceleration, braking, and steering of the vehicle without operator inputs.” [Piao, ¶ 0003 and 0077].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Piao into the invention of Mallinger to not only include using image data to identify lane lines and control the vehicle (lane keeping) accordingly as Mallinger discloses but to also have the vehicle control speed, acceleration and braking as taught by Piao with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Piao into Mallinger to create a more robust system that control the vehicle is many known ways, such as lane change, speed, braking and even lane keeping. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as lane line identification and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 22: Mallinger discloses “The method of claim 1, further comprising: “determining a trajectory of the vehicle between the frame of image data and the subsequent frame of image data of the roadway” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
“and adjusting the axis in response to the trajectory of the vehicle veering to a predetermined direction between the frame of image data and the subsequent frame of image data of the roadway” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mallinger (United States Patent 9,120,486) in view of Piao et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0393265), in further view of Tao European Patent Application (EP 4 170 533 A1) and in further view of Ikeda et al. (United States Patent Publication 2007/0198146).
With respect to Claim 10: While Mallinger discloses “The method of claim 9, further comprising the differences between the frame of image data of the roadway and the subsequent frame of image data of the roadway” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
Mallinger does not state that the images are corrected due to the vehicle moving or its trajectory.
Ikeda, which is also a system that identifies lane lines teaches “further comprising the differences between the frame of image data of the roadway and the subsequent frame of image data of the roadway is corrected for the trajectory of the vehicle” [Ikeda, ¶ 0110].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ikeda into the invention of Mallinger to not only include using image data to identify lane lines as Mallinger discloses but to also use correct the lane lines based on time and distance as the vehicle travels as taught by Ikeda with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Ikeda into Mallinger to create a more robust system that account for vehicle motion when identifying lane lines [Ikeda, ¶ 0110] Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as lane line identification and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mallinger (United States Patent 9,120,486) in view of Piao et al. (United States Patent Publication 2020/0393265), in further view of Tao European Patent Application (EP 4 170 533 A1), and in further view of Gupta et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0180180).
With respect to Claims 11-12: While Mallinger discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein the step of separating the first separated individual lane marking from the frame of roadway image data” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
“wherein the step of separating the first separated individual lane marking from the frame of roadway image data and placing the bounding box around the first separated individual lane marking further comprises associating the unique identifier” [Mallinger, Col 2 lines 10-34 and Col 4 line 19-Col 5 line 9 with Figures 5a,5b and 6];
Mallinger does not state using bounding boxes.
Gupta, which is also a system that identifies lane lines teaches “further comprises placing a bounding box around the first separated individual lane marking” [Gupta, ¶ 0037-0038 and Figure 21 with Claim 10];
“further comprises associating the unique identifier with the bounding box” [Gupta, ¶ 0037-0038 and Figure 21 with Claim 10].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Gupta into the invention of Mallinger to not only include using image data to identify lane lines as Mallinger discloses but to also use bounding boxes for lane line identification as taught by Gupta with a reasonable expectation of success. One would be motivated to incorporate aspects of the cited prior art Gupta into Mallinger to create a more robust system that group and separate lane lines from other data [Gupta, ¶ 0037] Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements such as lane line identification and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. 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.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights