DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action corresponds to the filing of application on 07/12/2024 in which Claims 13-22 and 24 are presented for examination on the merits. Claims 1-12, 23, and 25 have been cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2024, 08/06/2024, 08/21/2024, and 08/29/2024 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 07/12/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
Priority
The application is filed on 07/12/2024 which claims foreign priority of GB1718182.7 (UNITED KINGDOM) filed on 11/02/2017.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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.
2. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim 21 do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) because the claims are directed to a “a computer readable storage medium..” which typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media (See MPEP 2111.01).
3. Independent Claim 21 recites “a computer readable storage medium comprising computer- executable instructions ….”. Pending claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 3 19 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media (See MPEP 2111.01). When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter).
4. The Examiner suggests that a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim [or any similar limitations such as "computer usable memory", or "computer usable storage memory", or "computer readable memory", or "computer readable device", (i.e. any variations thereof, where "media" or "medium" is replaced by "device" or "memory") or adding "wherein the medium is not a signal"]. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentqv Galleiy, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission.
For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 13-22 and 24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of Patent No. US 11,652,634 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications recite similar steps of blockchain technology as a storage system for data acquired from a digital twin. The blockchain can be used to generate an immutable transaction history of data produced by the digital twin. In the case of an error, failure, incident, or accident, parties of interest can then access and analyse an immutable set of data. The blockchain network can also execute a digital smart contract based on the data received from a digital twin.
Claim Comparison Table
Instant Application 18/771,990
Patent No. US 11,652,634 B2
13. A computer-implemented method for a blockchain network, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, at a receiving node of a blockchain network, a sequence of discrete messages generated from a stream of data from a digital twin; and
verifying the sequence of discrete messages for subsequent storage of transactions in a blockchain, the transactions containing data associated with the sequence of discrete messages,
11. A computer-implemented method for a blockchain network, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, at a receiving node of a blockchain network, a sequence of discrete messages generated from a stream of data from a digital twin in accordance with the computer-implemented method of claim 1;
and verifying the sequence of discrete messages for subsequent storage of transactions in a blockchain, the transactions containing data associated with the sequence of discrete messages.
14. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method according to claim 13, wherein the sequence of discrete messages is verified at the receiving node using mh and mH, where mh which is composed of a sequence of hashes relating to the discrete messages sent up to a time t and mH contains a hash of the message mh.
12. The computer-implemented method according to claim 11, wherein the sequence of discrete messages is verified at the receiving node using mh and mH, where mh which is composed of a sequence of hashes relating to the discrete messages sent up to a time t and mH contains a hash of the message mh.
15. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method according to claim 13, wherein the sequence of discrete messages is received through two secure channels whereby a comparator is able to verify if the sequence of discrete messages sent over the two secure channels is consistent, and wherein if the sequences of discrete messages received from the two secure channels is different, the receiving node rejects the sequence and sends a notification to retransmit the sequence of discrete messages.
13. The computer-implemented method according to claim 11, wherein the sequence of discrete messages is received through two secure channels whereby a comparator is able to verify if the sequence of discrete messages sent over the two secure channels is consistent, and wherein if the sequences of discrete messages received from the two secure channels is different, the receiving node rejects the sequence and sends a notification to retransmit the sequence of discrete messages.
16. The computer-implemented method according to claim 13, wherein, after verification, the sequence of discrete messages is stored in a distributed memory pool of the blockchain network.
14. The computer-implemented method according to claim 11, wherein, after verification, the sequence of discrete messages is stored in a distributed memory pool of the blockchain network.
17. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method according to claim 13, wherein hashes of the sequence of discrete messages are stored in the blockchain.
15. The computer-implemented method according to claim 11, wherein hashes of the sequence of discrete messages are stored in the blockchain.
18. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method according to claim 13, wherein the receiving node is a node of a public blockchain network.
16. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving node is a node of a public blockchain network.
19. (Currently Amended) The computer-implemented method according to claim 13,
wherein the receiving node is a node of a private blockchain network and the sequence of discrete messages generated by [[the]] a buffer is stored in a private blockchain prior to incorporating data associated with the sequence of discrete messages into a public blockchain.
20. (Previously Presented) The computer-implemented method according to claim 19, wherein for each message mi generated by the buffer and stored in the private blockchain, a hash H(m) is generated and stored in the public blockchain.
17. The computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the receiving node is a node of a private blockchain network and the sequence of discrete messages generated by the buffer is stored in a private blockchain prior to incorporating data associated with the sequence of discrete messages into a public blockchain.
18. The computer-implemented method according to claim 17, wherein for each message m.sub.i generated by the buffer and stored in the private blockchain, a hash H(m) is generated and stored in the public blockchain.
21. (Previously Presented) A computer readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions which, when executed, configure one or more processors to perform the method of claim 13.
19. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions which, when executed, configure one or more processors to perform steps comprising: receiving a stream of data from a digital twin at a buffer; transforming the stream of data into a sequence of discrete messages; and sending the sequence of discrete messages to a receiving node of a blockchain network for subsequent storage of transactions in a blockchain, wherein the transactions contain data associated with the sequence of discrete messages, wherein the sequence of discrete messages is sent from the buffer to the receiving node through a secure channel by encrypting each message of the sequence of messages, and wherein the secure channel is established using a key negotiating protocol between the buffer and the receiving node to generate a shared key for encrypting and decrypting each message.
22. (Previously Presented) An electronic device comprising:
an interface device;
one or more processor(s) coupled to the interface device;
a memory coupled to the one or more processor(s), the memory having stored thereon computer executable instructions which, when executed, configure the one or more processor(s) to perform the method of claim 13.
20. An electronic device comprising: an interface device; one or more processor(s) coupled to the interface device; and a memory coupled to the one or more processor(s), the memory having stored thereon computer executable instructions which, when executed, configure the one or more processor(s) to perform steps comprising: receiving a stream of data from a digital twin at a buffer; transforming the stream of data into a sequence of discrete messages; and sending the sequence of discrete messages to a receiving node of a blockchain network for subsequent storage of transactions in a blockchain, wherein the transactions contain data associated with the sequence of discrete messages, wherein the sequence of discrete messages is sent from the buffer to the receiving node through a secure channel by encrypting each message of the sequence of messages, and wherein the secure channel is established using a key negotiating protocol between the buffer and the receiving node to generate a shared key for encrypting and decrypting each message.
24. (Previously Presented) A node of a blockchain network, the node configured to perform the method of claim 13.
22. A node of a blockchain network, the node configured to perform the steps comprising: receiving a stream of data from a digital twin at a buffer; transforming the stream of data into a sequence of discrete messages; and sending the sequence of discrete messages to a receiving node of a blockchain network for subsequent storage of transactions in a blockchain, wherein the transactions contain data associated with the sequence of discrete messages, wherein the sequence of discrete messages is sent from the buffer to the receiving node through a secure channel by encrypting each message of the sequence of messages, and wherein the secure channel is established using a key negotiating protocol between the buffer and the receiving node to generate a shared key for encrypting and decrypting each message.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The factual inquiries 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.
10. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
11. Claims 13-14, 16-18, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shafagh et al. (NPL: Towards Blockchain-based Auditable Storage and Sharing of IoT Data, hereinafter, Shafagh) in view of Colgrove et al. (US20140372689 A1, hereinafter, Colgrove).
Regarding claim 13, Shafagh discloses a computer-implemented method for a blockchain network (Abstract, Page 1, lines 9-11) blockchain-based end-to-end encrypted data storage system), the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, at a receiving node of a blockchain network, [a sequence of discrete messages generated from a stream of data]
from a digital twin (Page 2, Column 2, line 1-13: storing received current data in DHT node includes data chunk in a data stream from digital twin illustrated in Fig. 1 and associated texts ); and
verifying the sequence of discrete messages for subsequent storage of transactions in a blockchain (Page 2, Col. 1, lines 16-36: storing data records as validated blocks in a blockchain corresponding to the consecutive data records wherein the IoT data is a stream where data records are generated continuously),
the transactions containing data associated with the sequence of discrete messages (Page 2, Col. 1, lines 15-22: transactions consist of per data stream wherein data chunks are stored which compose several consecutive data records).
Shafagh does not explicitly state but Colgrove from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a sequence of discrete messages generated from a stream of data (Colgrove, Para 0061-0062: a hash value is determined for comparison and data verification… wherein generated data chunks are stored in one of the data storage arrays as discrete data components from data stream which is divided into a sequence of fixed-length or variable-length chunks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sequence of discrete messages generated from a stream of data as taught by Colgrove in the teachings of Shafagh for the advantage of efficiently performing user storage virtualization for data stored in a storage system including a plurality of solid-state storage devices wherein a data storage subsystem supports multiple mapping tables (Colgrove, Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Shafagh and Colgrove discloses the computer-implemented method according to claim 13, wherein the sequence of discrete messages is verified at the receiving node using mh and mH (Colgrove, Para 0061-0062: a hash value is determined for comparison and data verification… wherein data chunks are stored in one of the data storage arrays as discrete data components from data stream which is divided into a sequence of fixed-length or variable-length chunks),
where mh which is composed of a sequence of hashes relating to the discrete messages sent up to a time t and mH contains a hash of the message mh (Colgrove, Para 0092: 0055, 0092: Mapping tables are stored in the storage devices wherein mapping table entries corresponding to a different period of time wherein writing the new mapping table entry to the mapping tables in persistent storage is not performed until a later point in time which is deemed more efficient).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Shafagh and Colgrove discloses the computer-implemented method according to claim 13 wherein, after verification, the sequence of discrete messages is stored in a distributed memory pool of the blockchain network (Shafagh, Page 2, column 1, lines 1-19: a distributed data storage associated with blockchain wherein each block contains validated transactions which consists of per data stream ownership)
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Shafagh and Colgrove discloses the computer-implemented method according to claim 13 wherein hashes of the sequence of discrete messages are stored in the blockchain (Shafagh, Page 2, Column 2, line 1-13: storing received current data associated with hash value in DHT node includes data chunk in a data stream from digital twin illustrated in Fig. 1 and associated texts).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Shafagh and Colgrove discloses the computer-implemented method according to claim 13 wherein the receiving node is a node of a public blockchain network (Shafagh Page 2, column 1, lines 1-19: a public blockchain associated with distributed data storage wherein each block contains validated transactions which consists of per data stream ownership).
Regarding claim 21; Claim 21 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 22; Claim 22 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 24; Claim 24 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 15 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
13. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Teranishi (US 20110246779 A1, cited in PTO-892) discloses a zero-knowledge proof system which can perform discrete-logarithm zero-knowledge proof even with a device that has only a small-capacity main memory device. The zero-knowledge proof system according to the present invention is characterized as a zero-knowledge proof system constituted with a zero-knowledge proof device and a zero knowledge verification device, which performs discrete-logarithm zero-knowledge proof regarding whether or not "the zero-knowledge proof device knows x that satisfies H=G.sup.x" as a verification under a state where the zero-knowledge verification device does not know the x, wherein, the zero-knowledge proof device includes: a temporary memory unit which stores pseudorandom numbers and hash values acquired in the past; a first processing unit which calculates a plurality of pseudorandom numbers from an arbitrary random number sequence and a pseudorandom function, and performs a plurality of iterations of processing to calculate hash values based on the calculated pseudorandom numbers and information stored in the temporary memory unit and to overwrite the calculated pseudorandom numbers and the hash values to the temporary memory unit; a second processing unit which determines a part of the plurality of pseudorandom numbers based on the hash values; and a third processing unit which transmits the hash values acquired by re-calculating the part of the pseudorandom numbers to the zero-knowledge verification device (Teranishi Para 0014-0015).
Further, Teranishi discloses a zero-proof knowledge device which works in cooperation with a zero-knowledge verification device to let the zero-knowledge verification device that does not know x verify whether or not "the zero-knowledge proof device itself knows the x that satisfies H=G.sup.x", and the zero-knowledge proof device includes: a temporary memory unit which stores pseudorandom numbers and hash values acquired in the past; a first processing unit which calculates pseudorandom numbers from an arbitrary random number sequence and a pseudorandom function, and executes a plurality of iterations of processing to calculate hash values based on the calculated pseudorandom numbers and information stored in the temporary memory unit and to overwrite the calculated pseudorandom numbers and the hash values on the temporary memory unit; a second processing unit which determines a part of the plurality of pseudorandom numbers based on the hash values; a third processing unit which transmits the hash values acquired by re-calculating a part of the pseudorandom numbers to the zero-knowledge verification device; and a data receiving unit which receives data indicating whether to authenticate or to reject from the zero-knowledge verification device after transmitting the hash values to the zero-knowledge verification device (Teranishi Para 0016).
Roth et al. (US 20080195866 A1, cited in PTO-892) discloses a mechanism a for performing a verification process to secure a communication session between two devices communicating over an insecure line is disclosed, the verification process comprising: a. exchanging predetermined sets of data between the two devices; b. using the set of data to generate in each device a sequence of discrete values; c. receiving an input from a user and using the input to select one of the discrete values at each device; d. using the selected discrete value to generate an output; e. presenting the output from both devices to the user for verification; and f. repeating steps c-e according to user input. The predetermined sets of data comprises public keys of the two devices. Upon receiving the user input in step c, the next sequential discrete value in the sequence may be selected. Step e may comprise illuminating a colored light, wherein the color is selected according to the discrete value selected in step c. The method may further comprise providing a synchronous input to the two devices. The method may further comprise using the user input to select a value from the synchronous input. Step d may comprise providing the predetermined sets of data and the selected value into a pre-specified function and using the resulting value of the function to generate the output. The pre-specified function may be a hash function. Generating the output may further comprise using the resulting value of the function to generate at least one of a discrete visual, audible, and tactile output. The output may comprise a synchronized colored light on the two devices. The two devices may be mobile devices. The mobile devices may be wearable devices (Roth, Para 0024-0026).
Furthermore, Roth discloses a mobile device capable of alerting a user to an attack on an insecure communication channel used by the device is disclosed; comprising: a user input element; a user output element; a transceiver; an encryption/decryption module; a synchronous module providing a synchronous output upon receiving a signal from the user input element; a functional module performing operations on data received from the transceiver and the synchronous output, and providing a functional result therefrom; and, an interpretation module receiving the functional result and activating the user output element according to the functional result (Roth, Paragraph 0027).
Although, the cited references above are from same or similar fields of endeavor however, the Applicant’s invention is directed towards blockchain technology that is used as a storage system for data acquired from a digital twin. The blockchain can be used to generate an immutable transaction history of data produced by the digital twin.
The subject matters of the dependent claims 15 and 19-20 are not taught or fairly suggested by the prior art of record. For example, the limitations in claim 15 that recite: “…wherein the sequence of discrete messages is received through two secure channels whereby a comparator is able to verify if the sequence of discrete messages sent over the two secure channels is consistent, and wherein if the sequences of discrete messages received from the two secure channels is different, the receiving node rejects the sequence and sends a notification to retransmit the sequence of discrete messages.....” in combination with the rest of the limitations recited in dependent claim 15 and the independent claim 13.
Further, the following limitations in combination with the rest of the features in dependent claims 19-20 are not taught or fairly suggested by the prior art of record “….wherein the receiving node is a node of a private blockchain network and the sequence of discrete messages generated by the buffer is stored in a private blockchain prior to incorporating data associated with the sequence of discrete messages into a public blockchain” (Claim 19) and furthermore “…wherein for each message mᵢ generated by the buffer and stored in the private blockchain, a hash H(m) is generated and stored in the public blockchain.” (Claim 20).
The claimed subject matters are novel and non-obvious in scope over the prior art of record as the prior-art references fail to teach each and every features of the independent claim(s) including the limitations set forth above.
In view of the foregoing, the scope of claimed subject matters renders the invention patentably distinct as none of the prior art of record, either taken by itself or in any combination, would have anticipated or made obvious the invention of the present application at or before the time it was filed.
Furthermore, the Examiner performed updated search which does not yield other specific references that reasonably, either alone or in combination, would result a proper rejection of all the claimed features presented in aforementioned dependent claims 15 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C 102 or 35 U.S.C.103 with proper motivation.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Colgreve et al. (US 20210334206 A1) discloses a storage controller which is configured to receive, from a host computing device, a request to perform a bulk array task and in response to receiving the request, store an indication relating old keys of a mapping table to new key
Cella et al. (US 20200225655 A1) discloses generating one or more sensor kit packets based on the instances of sensor data. Each sensor kit packet includes at least one instance of sensor data. Outputting the sensor kit packets to the data handling platform. Receiving the sensor kit packets from the edge device.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHFUZUR RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7638. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday.
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, Yin-Chen Shaw can be reached on 571-272-8878. 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.
/MAHFUZUR RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2498