Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA
The amendments to the claims, filed on 01/12/2026, have been entered and made of record.
Claims 2-4 are cancelled.
Claims 1 and 5-23 are pending with claims 1 and 5-9 being amended and claims 10-23 being amended.
Response to Arguments
Arguments presented in the Remarks (“Remarks") filed on 01/12/2026 have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-15, 19-21 and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurevich (“Gurevich”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2022/0375047 A1] in view of Henley et al. (“Henley”) [U.S Patent No. 2024/0179419 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Gurevich meets the claim limitations as follows:
A medical imaging device comprising [Fig. 1, 2: ‘an endoscopic imaging system 10]:
a plurality of image sensors (i.e. ‘a first camera’; ‘a second camera’) [Fig. 1, 2, 3; para. 0021, 0065, 0088] each configured to capture a subject image (i.e. ‘imaging tissue of a subject’) [para. 0005, 0083] to output a pixel signal [Fig. 4; para. 0009, 0012, 0083: ‘displaying the enhanced fluorescence medical image overlaid on a white light image of the subject’], the plurality of image sensors including a first image sensor configured to output a pixel signal of a first resolution [Fig. 6; para. 0088, 0118-0119: ‘The first endoscopic camera is of a lower quality (e.g. lower resolution) than the second endoscopic camera’] and a second image sensor configured to output a pixel signal of a second resolution [Fig. 6; para. 0088, 0118-0119: ‘images 604 … acquired with a second camera having a higher resolution and/or larger image sensor than the first camera’], different from the first resolution; and
circuitry (i.e. CCU ‘18’) [Figs. 1-3; para. 0059] configured to convert a plurality of the pixel signals of different resolutions output from the plurality of image sensors into common pixel signals (i.e. ‘The enhanced fluorescence image’) [Figs. 4C, 5B, 6B, 7A; para. 0012, 0067, 0111: ‘displaying the enhanced fluorescence medical image overlaid on a white light image of the subject’] corresponding to a specific transmission standard (e.g. PNG format) [para. 0089, 0121], and
adjust output timing of the pixel signals from each sensor (i.e. ‘control readout timings’) [para. 0065-0068: ‘Imager 302 may … control exposure of the image sensor 304’] in response to differences in data processing speeds occurring between image sensors of difference resolutions.
Gurevich does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
adjust output timing of the pixel signals from each sensor in response to differences in data processing speeds occurring between image sensors of difference resolutions.
However in the same field of endeavor Henley discloses the deficient claim as follows:
adjust output timing of the pixel signals from each sensor [Figs. 6B-6D, 9 illustrating adjusted ‘blanking periods’; 604, 606; 608, 610, 612; …; Abstract; para. 0007, 0126-0134, 0154, 0157, 0189: ‘The controller sets readout configurations for the image sensor on a per-frame basis based at least in part on an acceptable resolution and a desired exposure of a resultant data frame’; ‘a high-resolution readout period wherein the image sensor does not bin the pixel array; and a lower resolution readout period wherein the image sensor reads out the plurality of pixels according to the binning configuration; wherein the high-resolution readout period requires a longer duration of time than the lower resolution readout period’] in response to differences in data processing speeds occurring between image sensors of difference resolutions.
Gurevich and Henley are combinable because they are from the same field of scope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Gurevich and Henley as motivation to include customizable image sensor readout on a per-frame basis for a high-definition video stream [Abstract; para. 0002-0005].
Regarding claim 5, Gurevich meets the claim limitations as follows:
The medical imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry includes a buffer configured to temporarily store at least one of the plurality of pixel signals [Fig. 3; para. 0065: ‘an array of pixels 305’; ‘one or more line drivers to act as a buffer and provide driving power for the sensor 304’].
Gurevich does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the circuitry includes a buffer configured to temporarily store at least one of the plurality of pixel signals.
However in the same field of endeavor Henley discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the circuitry includes a buffer configured to temporarily store at least one of the plurality of pixel signals (i.e. image output from image sensors [in light of Specification]) [para. 0072, 0112: ‘The system 300 includes a memory buffer 352 that receives data frames from the image sensor 124’].
Gurevich and Henley are combinable because they are from the same field of scope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Gurevich and Henley as motivation to include customizable image sensor readout on a per-frame basis for a high-definition video stream [Abstract; para. 0002-0005].
Regarding claim 6, Gurevich meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Gurevich does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The medical imaging device according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of readout circuits corresponding to each image sensor, wherein each readout circuit is configured to read out pixel signals such that output timings from effective pixel regions of the plurality of image sensors are approach each other.
However in the same field of endeavor Henley discloses the deficient claim as follows:
further comprising a plurality of readout circuits corresponding to each image sensor, wherein each readout circuit [para. 0071, 0126-0127: ‘The transmission of the data through the electronic circuitry’] is configured to read out pixel signals such that output timings from effective pixel regions of the plurality of image sensors are approach each other [Figs. 6, 8, 9; Abstract; para. 0007, 0126-0134, 0154, 0157, 0189].
Gurevich and Henley are combinable because they are from the same field of scope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Gurevich and Henley as motivation to include customizable image sensor readout on a per-frame basis for a high-definition video stream [Abstract; para. 0002-0005].
Regarding claim 7, Gurevich meets the claim limitations as follows:
The medical imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to be switchable [Fig. 1: switch arrangement 17; para. 0061-0063: ‘switch from one imaging mode to another’] between a first mode, and a second mode, wherein
in the first mode, the circuitry is configured to transmit, in a time division manner, simultaneously captured by the plurality of image sensors and converted into the specific transmission standard, and
in the second mode, the circuitry is configured to simultaneously transmit the plurality of pixel signals captured in a time division manner by any one of the plurality of image sensors in compliance with the specific transmission standard.
Gurevich does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (Emphasis Added):
wherein the circuitry is configured to be switchable between a first mode, and a second mode, wherein
in the first mode, the circuitry is configured to transmit, in a time division manner, simultaneously captured by the plurality of image sensors and converted into the specific transmission standard, and
in the second mode, the circuitry is configured to simultaneously transmit the plurality of pixel signals captured in a time division manner by any one of the plurality of image sensors in compliance with the specific transmission standard.
However in the same field of endeavor Henley discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the circuitry is configured to be switchable between a first mode, and a second mode, wherein
in the first mode, the circuitry is configured to transmit, in a time division manner [Figs. 6, 8, 9], simultaneously captured by the plurality of image sensors (i.e. ‘to capture data the same time’) [Fig. 1B: images simultaneously captured by image sensors ‘124’; para. 0072-0074: ‘to ensure that each image sensor 124 begins to capture data the same time’] and converted into the specific transmission standard (i.e. ‘two million pixels’) [para. 0004; 0072], and
in the second mode, the circuitry is configured to simultaneously transmit the plurality of pixel signals (i.e. ‘output data frames simultaneously’) [Fig. 1B: images simultaneously captured by image sensors ‘124’; para. 0072-0074: ‘the endoscope 110 includes two or more image sensors 124 that … output data frames simultaneously’] captured in a time division manner [Figs. 6, 8, 9] by any one of the plurality of image sensors in compliance with the specific transmission standard (i.e. ‘two million pixels’) [para. 0004; 0072].
Gurevich and Henley are combinable because they are from the same field of scope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Gurevich and Henley as motivation to include customizable image sensor readout on a per-frame basis for a high-definition video stream [Abstract; para. 0002-0005].
Regarding claim 9, the corresponding system comprising a medical imaging device in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Regarding claim 10, Gurevich meets the claim limitations as follows:
The medical imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the first image sensor (i.e. ‘a second camera’) [Fig. 1, 2, 3; para. 0021, 0065, 0088: ‘the set of white light images can be … acquired with a second camera’] is configured for visible light imaging and the second image sensor (i.e. ‘a first camera’) [Fig. 1, 2, 3; para. 0021, 0065, 0088] is configured for fluorescence imaging.
Regarding claim 11, Gurevich meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 10.
The medical imaging device according to claim 10, wherein the first image sensor (i.e. ‘a second camera’ generating ‘white light images’) [Fig. 6; para. 0021: ‘the set of white light images …’] is configured for white light imaging and the second image sensor (i.e. ‘a first camera’ generating ‘fluorescence medical images’) is configured for near-infrared excited fluorescence imaging [para. 0005, 0064: ‘near-infrared or NIR images’].
Regarding claim 12, Gurevich meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 10.
Gurevich does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (Emphasis Added):
The medical imaging device according to claim 10, further comprising a prism configured to separate a subject image and direct light to the first image sensor and the second image sensor.
However in the same field of endeavor Henley discloses the deficient claim as follows:
The medical imaging device according to claim l 0, further comprising a prism (i.e. ‘132’) [Fig. 1B; para. 0061: ‘one or more prisms 132 for reflecting EMR on to the pixel array 125 of the one or more image sensors 124’] configured to separate a subject image and direct light to the first image sensor and the second image sensor [Fig. 1B; para. 0061: ‘one or more prisms 132 for reflecting EMR on to the pixel array 125 of the one or more image sensors 124’].
Gurevich and Henley are combinable because they are from the same field of scope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Gurevich and Henley as motivation to include customizable image sensor readout on a per-frame basis for a high-definition video stream [Abstract; para. 0002-0005].
Regarding claim 13, Gurevich meets the claim limitations as follows:
The medical imaging device according to claim 10, further comprising an excitation light cut filter (i.e. ‘a notch filter 131’) [Fig. 2; para. 0064] positioned on a preceding stage of an optical path of the second image sensor [para. 0064: ‘].
Regarding claim 14, Gurevich meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 6.
Gurevich does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The medical imaging device according to claim 6, wherein the readout circuits adjust a readout start timing based on differences in data amounts between the plurality of image sensors.
However in the same field of endeavor Henley discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the readout circuits adjust a readout start timing based on differences in data amounts (e.g. ‘a first pulsing period 802 and a second pulsing period 804’) between the plurality of image sensors [Figs. 6B, 6C, 6D, 8, 9; para. 0148: ‘the first pulsing period 802 has a greater intensity (magnitude) than the second pulsing period 804’; ‘the first pulsing period 802 has a shorter duration than the second pulsing period 804’].
Gurevich and Henley are combinable because they are from the same field of scope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Gurevich and Henley as motivation to include customizable image sensor readout on a per-frame basis for a high-definition video stream [Abstract; para. 0002-0005].
Regarding claim 15, Gurevich meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 5.
Gurevich does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The medical imaging device according to claim 5, wherein the buffer is configured to reduce timing differences between a readout time of a fluorescence image and a transmission time of the fluorescence image.
However in the same field of endeavor Henley discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the buffer [para. 0072, 0112: ‘The system 300 includes a memory buffer 352 that receives data frames from the image sensor 124’] is configured to reduce timing differences between a readout time of a fluorescence image and a transmission time of the fluorescence image [para. 0155, 0158: ‘The controller 104 additionally instructs the image sensor 124 to bin the pixel array 125 after the emitter 102 pulses the 950 nm EMR to reduce the total readout time for the 950 nm data frame’].
Gurevich and Henley are combinable because they are from the same field of scope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Gurevich and Henley as motivation to include customizable image sensor readout on a per-frame basis for a high-definition video stream [Abstract; para. 0002-0005].
Regarding claim 19, Gurevich in view of Henley meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Gurevich does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The medical imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the specific transmission standard is a transmission standard that corresponds, among the plurality of image sensors, to an image sensor having a fastest transmission rate or an image sensor having a largest amount of signal data of the pixel signal.
However in the same field of endeavor Henley discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the specific transmission standard is a transmission standard that corresponds, among the plurality of image sensors, to an image sensor having a fastest transmission rate (e.g. 16.67 ms or 60 fps) or an image sensor having a largest amount of signal data of the pixel signal (i.e. a high-definition video stream, .. 16.67 ms (or 60 fps)) [Figs. 6B-6D, 9; Abstract; para. 0007, 0126-0134, 0154, 0157, 0189].
Gurevich and Henley are combinable because they are from the same field of scope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Gurevich and Henley as motivation to include customizable image sensor readout on a per-frame basis for a high-definition video stream [Abstract; para. 0002-0005].
Regarding claim 20, Gurevich meets the claim limitations as follows:
The medical imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the medical imaging device is configured to be mounted on an endoscope [para. 0060, 0088: ‘The scope assembly 11 incorporates an endoscope or scope 12 which is coupled to a camera head 16’].
Regarding claim 21, Gurevich meets the claim limitations as follows:
The medical imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the medical imaging device is configured to be mounted on a surgical microscope [para. 0021, 0080, 0088: ‘a surgical robot’].
Regarding claim 23, the corresponding system comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions in the claim is identical in scope and function to the previously rejected method claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurevich in view of Henley in further view of Fengler et al. (“Fengler”) [US 2017/0209050 A1]
Regarding claim 8, Gurevich meets the claim limitations as follows:
The medical imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the first image sensor (i.e. ‘a second camera having a higher resolution’ and generating ‘white light images’) [Fig. 6; para. 0021, 0088, 0118-0119: ‘images 604 … acquired with a second camera having a higher resolution and/or larger image sensor than the first camera’] configured to output a pixel signal of a 4K image; and the second image sensor (i.e. ‘a first camera’ generating ‘fluorescence medical images’) is configured to output a pixel signal of an HD image.
Gurevich does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the first image sensor configured to output a pixel signal of a 4K image; and the second image sensor is configured to output a pixel signal of an HD image.
However in the same field of endeavor Fengler discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the first image sensor configured to output a pixel signal of a 4K image (i.e. ’UHD or 4K’) [para. 0127: ‘These images may be displayed and/or recorded in full color … ultra-high definition (UHD or 4K) resolution (or other suitable resolution)’. Note: ‘This full color, white light imaging mode may be optional for some surgeries’]; and the second image sensor is configured to output a pixel signal of an HD image (i.e. ’HD’) [para. 0128: ‘The displayed and/or recorded fluorescence emission image data may be monochrome (e.g., black and white or grayscale) or pseudo-colored (e.g., via a color map based on intensity or some other signal parameter) and may be displayed and/or recorded in a monochrome or pseudo-colored fashion at high definition (HD)].
Gurevich, Henley and Fengler are combinable because they are from the same field of scope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Gurevich, Henley and Fengler as motivation to record full color images at 4K resolution and fluorescence emission image at 2K resolution for some surgeries.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurevich in view of Henley in further view of Chaleki et al. (“Chaleki”) [U.S Patent 5,751,341]
Regarding claim 16, Gurevich meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Gurevich does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The medical imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the circuity is configured to perform time division multiplexing to transrnit the converted pixel signals.
However in the same field of endeavor Chaleki discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the circuity is configured to perform time division multiplexing to transrnit the converted pixel signals [Abstract; col. 4, ll. 50-55, col. 11, ll. 50-60: ‘time-multiplexed left and right image’].
Gurevich, Henley and Chaleki are combinable because they are from the same field of scope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Gurevich, Henley and Chaleki as motivation to time-multiplex images for stereopsis viewing ‘with images having a realistic, three-dimensional quality’.
Claims 17 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurevich in view of Henley in further view of Dai et al. (“Dai”) [U.S 2014/0225998 A1]
Regarding claim 17, Gurevich meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Gurevich does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The medical imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to generate different clocks and synchronization signals for each of the plurality of image sensors.
However in the same field of endeavor Dai discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the circuitry is configured to generate different clocks and synchronization signals for each of the plurality of image sensors [para. 0093: ‘For example, commonly the phases of the clock signals (e.g., clock signals 108, 1208, etc.) of the different image sensors should be synchronized, the video image acquisition control signals (e.g., signals 109, 1226, etc.) of the different image sensors should be synchronized’].
Gurevich, Henley and Dai are combinable because they are from the same field of scope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Gurevich, Henley and Dai as motivation to synchronize different clocks of the ‘different image sensors’ to concurrently to perform operations” [Dai: para. 0093].
Regarding claim 18, Gurevich meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Gurevich does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The medical imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to perform buffer processing to absorb differences between clocks and synchronization signals of the plurality of image sensors.
However in the same field of endeavor Henley discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the circuitry is configured to perform buffer processing (i.e. ‘a memory buffer 352 receives data frame from the image sensor’) [para. 0072, 0112: ‘The system 300 includes a memory buffer 352 that receives data frames from the image sensor 124’] to absorb differences (i.e. ‘to reduce the total readout time’) between clocks and synchronization signals of the plurality of image sensors [para. 0155, 0158: ‘The controller 104 additionally instructs the image sensor 124 to bin the pixel array 125 after the emitter 102 pulses the 950 nm EMR to reduce the total readout time for the 950 nm data frame’].
Gurevich and Henley are combinable because they are from the same field of scope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Gurevich and Henley as motivation to include customizable image sensor readout on a per-frame basis for a high-definition video stream [Abstract; para. 0002-0005].
Henley does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
wherein the circuitry is configured to perform buffer processing to absorb differences between clocks and synchronization signals of the plurality of image sensors.
However in the same field of endeavor Dai discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the circuitry is configured to perform buffer processing to absorb differences between clocks and synchronization signals of the plurality of image sensors [para. 0093: ‘For example, commonly the phases of the clock signals (e.g., clock signals 108, 1208, etc.) of the different image sensors should be synchronized, the video image acquisition control signals (e.g., signals 109, 1226, etc.) of the different image sensors should be synchronized’].
Gurevich, Henley and Dai are combinable because they are from the same field of scope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Gurevich, Henley and Dai as motivation to synchronize different clocks of the ‘different image sensors’ to concurrently to perform operations” [Dai: para. 0093].
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurevich in view of Henley in further view of Kiniwa et al. (“Kiniwa”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2017/0251196 A1]
Regarding claim 22, Gurevich meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Gurevich does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The medical imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of image sensors are configured for stereoscopic observation including a plurality of sensors for a left eye and a plurality of sensors for a right eye.
However in the same field of endeavor Kiniwa discloses the deficient claim as follows:
wherein the plurality of image sensors are configured for stereoscopic observation including a plurality of sensors for a left eye and a plurality of sensors for a right eye [Fig. 1, 2; para. 0025, 0027: ‘Surgical microscope 10 is a binocular microscope and includes object lens 11, two observation optical systems 12 which respectively correspond to right and left eyes of an observer’].
Gurevich, Henley and Kiniwa are combinable because they are from the same field of scope imaging.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Gurevich, Henley and Kiniwa as motivation to include a medical imaging device of stereoscopic observation for clear observation of a target site [para. 0004-0005].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. 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.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights