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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on September 23, 2025.
Claims 1-10 have been canceled.
Claims 11-20 have been added.
Newly added claims 15-16 have been canceled.
The objections and rejections from the prior correspondence that are not restated herein are withdrawn.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C.119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-014880, filed on February 2, 2022.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Newly submitted title recites “A SYSTEM, METHOD, COMPUTER PROGRAM, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER PORT DATA FROM ONE CONTROL UNIT DIFFERS FROM AQIUIRED PORT DATA FROM ANOTHER CONTROL UNIT”, which contains a typo.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When new claims are presented, they must be indicated as “(New)” and numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not). In the instant case, Applicant has canceled claims 1-10 filed on 7/3/2024 and added claims 11-20, which are amendments of canceled claims 1-10, but they are presented as “(Currently Amended)” or “(Previously Presented)” instead of “(New)”. Also, newly added claims 15-16 are canceled. Since claims 11-20 filed on 9/23/2025 are amendments of canceled claims 1-10, the misnumbered claims been renumbered as claims 1-10. Dependent claims will be construed as being dependent on parent claims as previously presented for claims 1-10 (e.g. claim 12 reciting “The communication system of claim 11” will be construed as “The communication system of claim 1”, etc.).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: first connector unit, first control unit, second connector unit, second control units, one control unit, other control unit, display unit, connector unit, control unit, external control unit, external connector unit in claims 1-4 and 7-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOORE (Pub No.: US 20180024954 A1), hereafter MOORE, in view of KIM (Pub. No.: US 20230051908 A1), hereafter KIM, and FORGHANI (Pub. No.: US 20170317583 A1), hereafter FORGHANI.
Regarding claim 1, MOORE teaches:
A communication system comprising first and second information processing devices, wherein the first information processing device comprises a first connector unit and a first control unit, wherein the second information processing device comprises a second connector unit and a second control unit (MOORE [0023-0024], Fig. 1-3 teach first 110 and second 130 information processing devices, where [0025] and Fig. 2 teach the first 110 information processing device comprising a first connector unit and a first control unit, and the “root port 140” (i.e. the connector unit), and CPU 200, memory 210, and USB host controller 220, role switch control 230 and USB device controller 240 are seen as the control unit),
wherein the first and second connector units are configured to be able to connect the first and second control units so that the first and second control units communicate with each other (MOORE [0023] and [0029-0031] teach the first and second connector units are configured to connect the first and second control units so that the first and second control units communicate with each other via the cable 120 connecting the first and second connector units),
wherein the first and second control units are configured to be able to perform first communication and second communication and each contain port data, wherein the port data stored in the first control unit is data that specifies the first connector unit as a receiving port or a transmitting port, and the port data stored in the second control unit is data that specifies the second connector unit as a receiving port or a transmitting port (MOORE [0030-0044] teach first and second control units perform role switching protocol communication to perform upstream or downstream communication (i.e. first and second communication) and each contain port data (port address) that identifies/configures the respective unit as the upstream or the downstream port),
wherein the receiving port is a port that receives data in a predetermined format in the second communication, wherein the transmitting port is a port that transmits the data in the predetermined format in the second communication (MOORE [0007-0009] teach using USB format for transmitting and receiving data between the ports),
wherein one of the first and second control units acquires the port data of the other of the first and second control units in the first communication (MOORE [0033] teaches once a determination is made by initial USB host 110 that role switching is possible and appropriate, USB host stack 400 issues a role switch message 424 to initial USB device 130. Subsequently, USB host stack 400 issues a role switch root port message 426 to root port 140 (i.e. one of the units acquiring data in the first communication to determine that a role switching is possible)),
wherein the second communication is performed after the first communication, and the data in the predetermined format is transmitted and received between the first and second connector units in the second communication (MOORE [0035] teaches the role-switching is complete and role-switched USB host (smartphone) 130 is controlling role-switched USB device (IVI) 110 as a device (i.e. second communication after the first communication of the role switching is complete)),
wherein the one of the first and second control units is configured to determine whether the port data of one control unit is different from the acquired port data of other control unit (MOORE [0034] teaches having detected an attached device (i.e., role-switched USB device 110 which has now switched its role from initial USB host to role-switched USB device), role-switched USB host 130 issues a USB reset message 436 to root port 140 which resets the root port's address to zero and causes the root port to transition to an active state (address 0) 437. USB device stack 402 detects 439 that root port 140 has reset (i.e. determining the port data to be different from the initial acquired port data of the other control unit)),
wherein the source corresponds to a device that supplies power, wherein the sink corresponds to a device that receives supply of power (MOORE [0004] teaches according to the USB specifications, a given piece of equipment must operate as either a USB host (i.e. source) or a USB device (i.e. sink). The roles of USB host and USB device have implications with respect to which piece of equipment controls the communication path between the host and device, supplies power (or consumes power supplied by the other), and the like),
wherein at least one of the first and second information processing devices is configured to be switchable between the source and the sink (MOORE [0030-0034] & Fig. 4A-4B teach dynamic role-switching between USB host and USB device),
and wherein when the first and second connector units are connected […], the one of the first and second information processing devices is switched from the source to the sink or from the sink to the source (see MOORE [0030-0034] & Fig. 4A-4B above).
MOORE does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the first and second control units are configured to perform an initial state determination operation on the basis of a voltage between the first and second connector units, wherein the initial state determination operation is performed before the first communication, and a determination that allows one of the first and second information processing devices to function as a source and allows the other information processing device to function as a sink is made in the initial state determination operation, when […] the amount of change in the voltage between the first and second connector units is smaller than a predetermined threshold, the one of the first and second information processing devices is switched from the source to the sink or from the sink to the source.
However, KIM teaches wherein the first and second control units are configured to perform an initial state determination operation on the basis of a voltage between the first and second connector units, wherein the initial state determination operation is performed before the first communication (KIM [0109] and Fig. 6B teach the processor 120 may determine whether the electronic device 101 operates as a source device or a sink device through an identification circuit (e.g., the identification circuit 330 of FIG. 3 ), determining whether the electronic device 101 operates as a source device or a sink device while toggling the first identification voltage CC1),
and a determination that allows one of the first and second information processing devices to function as a source and allows the other information processing device to function as a sink is made in the initial state determination operation (see KIM [0109] & Fig. 6B above).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention, having the teachings of MOORE and KIM before them, to include KIM’s power transmitting based on state information in MOORE’s system with dynamic role switching. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to avoid unnecessary power consumption of the battery and deterioration of the battery performance as taught by KIM ([0007]).
MOORE in view of KIM does not appear to explicitly teach when […] the amount of change in the voltage between the first and second connector units is smaller than a predetermined threshold, the one of the first and second information processing devices is switched from the source to the sink or from the sink to the source.
However, FORGHANI teaches the limitation (FORGHANI [0008] & FIG. 1B teaches in response to removal of power source 8, the voltage at the VBUS line at hub 4 will drop below the specification limit, because no device is acting as a power source. According to the USB PD standard, hub 4 will detect this drop in voltage on the VBUS line and cause its DRP to issue a “fast role swap” (FRS) signal to the DRP at host device 2. The FRS signal is intended to cause DRP 10 at host 2 to quickly configure itself as a power source, rather than a power sink; see also Fig. 5, [0046] & [0049]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention, having the teachings of MOORE, KIM, and FORGHANI before them, to include FORGHANI’s fast role swap in MOORE and KIM’s system with dynamic role switching. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to limit the interruption of power delivery to a power consumer upon removal of a power source from the connection as taught by FORGHANI ([0006]).
Regarding claim 4, MOORE in view of KIM and FORGHANI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. KIM also teaches:
wherein in the first communication, the one of the first and second control units acquires the port data of the other of the first and second control units using a vendor-defined message (VDM) (KIM [0077] teaches processor 120 may receive vendor defined message (VDM) information as the identification information of the external electronic device 102).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining MOORE and KIM as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, MOORE in view of KIM and FORGHANI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. FORGHANI also teaches:
wherein when the one of the first and second control units determines that the port data of the one control unit is identical to the port data of the other of the first and second control units, in the first communication, the connector unit corresponding to the one of the first and second control units of the first and second connector units operates to become a function corresponding to the port opposite to the port specified by the port data of the other of the first and second control units (FORGHANI [0008] & FIG. 1B teaches in response to removal of power source 8, the voltage at the VBUS line at hub 4 will drop below the specification limit, because no device is acting as a power source. According to the USB PD standard, hub 4 will detect this drop in voltage on the VBUS line and cause its DRP to issue a “fast role swap” (FRS) signal to the DRP at host device 2. The FRS signal is intended to cause DRP 10 at host 2 to quickly configure itself as a power source, rather than a power sink; see also Fig. 5, [0046] & [0049]. Additionally, OOTA [0062] also teaches each of the control units 11 b and 12 b is able to perform matching processing by using the port numbers in view of predetermined determination criteria based on connection conditions in the storage system 1; [0072] teaches each of the control devices 11 and 12 is able to determine whether an appropriate connection destination port number has been given. If the port 12 p 1 of the control device 12 is connected to the port 22 p 1, the control unit 12 b is able to detect that the ports 12 p 0 and 12 p 1 are erroneously connected (where ports "12" is seen as the port data); [0085] teaches connection destination device 20 may notify a user of these erroneously connected ports by lighting up notification LEDs corresponding to the ports in a predetermined color or by transmitting an error message to a terminal of the user. In this way, the connection destination device 20 may assist the user in finding erroneous connections).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining MOORE, KIM, and FORGHANI as set forth in claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites similar limitation as corresponding claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 using similar teachings and rationale. MOORE also teaches:
an acquisition step (see MOORE [0033] as outlined in claim 1 above);
and a determination step (see MOORE [0034] as outlined in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, MOORE in view of KIM and FORGHANI teaches the elements of claim 8 as outlined above. MOORE also teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions (see MOORE [0028]).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites similar limitation as corresponding claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 using similar teachings and rationale.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MOORE in view of KIM and FORGHANI as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of OOTA (Pub. No.: US 20160320993 A1), hereafter OOTA.
Regarding claim 2, MOORE in view of KIM and FORGHANI teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above. MOORE in view of KIM and FORGHANI does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the one of the first and second control units is configured to, when the one control unit determine that the port data of the one control unit is identical to the acquired port data of the other control unit, make a notification that connection is wrong.
However, OOTA teaches the limitation (OOTA [0062] teaches each of the control units 11 b and 12 b is able to perform matching processing by using the port numbers in view of predetermined determination criteria based on connection conditions in the storage system 1; [0072] teaches each of the control devices 11 and 12 is able to determine whether an appropriate connection destination port number has been given. If the port 12 p 1 of the control device 12 is connected to the port 22 p 1, the control unit 12 b is able to detect that the ports 12 p 0 and 12 p 1 are erroneously connected (where ports "12" is seen as the port data); [0085] teaches connection destination device 20 may notify a user of these erroneously connected ports by lighting up notification LEDs corresponding to the ports in a predetermined color or by transmitting an error message to a terminal of the user. In this way, the connection destination device 20 may assist the user in finding erroneous connections).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention, having the teachings of MOORE, KIM, FORGHANI, and OOTA before them, to include OOTA’s erroneous connection detection in MOORE, KIM and FORGHANI’s system transmitting/receiving data and power. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to prevent malfunctions being caused in a system operation as taught by OOTA ([0004]).
Regarding claim 3, MOORE in view of KIM, FORGHANI, and OOTA teaches the elements of claim 2 as outlined above. KIM also teaches:
wherein the information processing device corresponding to the one of the first and second control units is a display comprising a display unit (see KIM Fig. 1 display device 160 and Fig. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention, having the teachings of MOORE and KIM before them, to include KIM’s display in MOORE’s system with dynamic role switching. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve user experience by visually providing information to a user as taught by KIM ([0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on September 23, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Office's reliance on FORGHANI is misplaced because it is directed to a fundamentally different problem, where FORGHANI discloses a "fast role swap" (FRS) to prevent power interruption during an already established and functioning connection (see, e.g., FORGHANI Abstract, [0008], FIG. 1a-b), and that the explicit context of FORGHANI - maintaining power in an already established connection - would teach away from applying its solution to the problem of establishing an initial connection.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Examiner notes that amended claim 1 recites “wherein when the first and second connector units are connected and the amount of change in the voltage between the first and second connector units is smaller than a predetermined threshold, the one of the first and second information processing devices is switched from the source to the sink or from the sink to the source.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., switching from the source to sink or from the sink to the source in order to establish an initial connection) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art, when faced with a failed initial connection, would not be motivated to look to a solution for a completely different scenario, and therefore, there is no motivation to combine the teachings of FORGHANI with KIM and MOORE to arrive at the claimed invention, which solves a problem that these references do not even recognize.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Similarly, the claims do not recite performing any steps after/when an initial connection is failed. Rather, claim 1 recites wherein when the first and second connector units are connected and the amount of change in the voltage between the first and second connector units is smaller than a predetermined threshold, the one of the first and second information processing devices is switched from the source to the sink or from the sink to the source, where MOORE teaches wherein when the first and second connector units are connected […], the one of the first and second information processing devices is switched from the source to the sink or from the sink to the source (MOORE [0030-0034] & Fig. 4A-4B teach dynamic role-switching between USB host and USB device, where first and second connector units are configured to connect the first and second control units so that the first and second control units communicate with each other via the cable 120 connecting the first and second connector units), and FOGHANI teaches when […] the amount of change in the voltage between the first and second connector units is smaller than a predetermined threshold, the one of the first and second information processing devices is switched from the source to the sink or from the sink to the source (FORGHANI [0008] & FIG. 1B teaches in response to removal of power source 8, the voltage at the VBUS line at hub 4 will drop below the specification limit, because no device is acting as a power source. According to the USB PD standard, hub 4 will detect this drop in voltage on the VBUS line and cause its DRP to issue a “fast role swap” (FRS) signal to the DRP at host device 2. The FRS signal is intended to cause DRP 10 at host 2 to quickly configure itself as a power source, rather than a power sink; see also Fig. 5, [0046] & [0049]).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention, having the teachings of MOORE, KIM, and FORGHANI before them, to include FORGHANI’s fast role swap in MOORE and KIM’s system with dynamic role switching in order to limit the interruption of power delivery to a power consumer upon removal of a power source from the connection as taught by FORGHANI ([0006]). Therefore, MOORE in view of KIM and FORGHANI teaches the limitation of amended claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
NAKAGAWA (Pub. No.: US 20190239056 A1) – “Communication apparatus control method and storage medium” relates to determining whether the role of the external communication apparatus serving as a connection partner acquired is Source, and if the role of the other-party apparatus is Source, the control unit sets the role of the communication apparatus to Sink and cause the communication apparatus to connect to the other-party apparatus.
CHAMPARNAUD (Pub. No.: US 4700343 A) – “Method And Device For Module Contention To Non-dedicated Common Line” relates to detecting collision due to simultaneous transmission.
BANGE (Pub. No.: US 20090296602 A1) – “METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR PROVIDING MULTIPLE ACCESS WITHIN A NETWORK” relates to master nodes attempting to transmit messages, where if collisions do occur, another backoff value is chosen by each master node who transmitted simultaneously so that a collision will not occur on the reattempt.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3779. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Wiley can be reached on 571-272-4150. 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.
/ANDREW J JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights