Detailed Action
This is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 6/25/2026. Claim 20 was amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 6/25/2026, to claim(s) 20 correcting the claim to recite “same as” is sufficient to overcome the objection to the aforementioned claim. Accordingly, the objection to claim(s) 20 as filed in (3) of the Non-Final Office action filed 3/25/2026 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the claims under Shin and Fudge have been considered, and are found unpersuasive.
Applicant argues on page(s) 1-2 of the Remarks, filed 6/25/2026, the cited prior art fail to teach or suggest the claimed invention because “Fudge teaches use of different sampling rates for signal compression or compressed sensing, there is nothing in Fudge that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to adopt the different sampling rate technique of Fudge and apply it to the ECU identification technology of Shin”. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although Shin does not independently disclose the claimed different rate sampling, the combination supplies that feature while retaining Shin’s fingerprint based identification. Additionally, the different stated purpose of Fudge does not establish that it is non-analogous or teaches away from the proposed combination. The relevant teaching of Fudge is not limited to the ultimate application of reconstructing a compressed signal. In fact, Fudge discloses that the processor is operable to “process sampled signals for compressed sensing, direct detection, or conventional purposes” (Col. 2, Lines 56-58). The proposed modification uses Fudge’s signal acquisition technique, not necessarily its full compressed sensing reconstruction algorithm. It contains no express statement discouraging use of the sampling arrangement for authentication or other signal analysis, and no statement in Shin would preclude acquiring multiple sets of samples. The predictable result would be that of obtaining multiple sampled representations of the bus signal for Shin’s existing fingerprinting process.
The remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is sustained.
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, 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 1-9 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 20190245872 A1), in view of Fudge (US 7289049 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
A method of determining an identity of a sender of a message sent over a physical channel, comprising:
generating distortion data based on a data transmission signal sent over a physical channel through selectively sampling the data transmission signal, (Shin; [0070]: Voltages are preferably measured at a sampling rate (i.e., selectively sampling the data transmission signal); From the remaining voltage measurements, a fingerprint is constructed at for the unknown transmitter (i.e., generating distortion data based on a data transmission signal sent over a physical channel))
identifying a sender of the data transmission signal based on the distortion data. (Shin; [0146]: the proposed detection scheme obtained correct measurements of voltages output by the message transmitters, and exploited them for constructing and updating their voltage profiles, which were shown to be unique for each ECU (i.e., identifying a sender of the data transmission signal based on the distortion data))
Shin does not teach the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
wherein selectively sampling the data transmission signal includes sampling the data transmission signal at a first sampling rate and sampling the data transmission signal at a second sampling rate that is different than the first sampling rate; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fudge discloses the limitations of claim 1 as follows:
wherein selectively sampling the data transmission signal includes sampling the data transmission signal at a first sampling rate and sampling the data transmission signal at a second sampling rate that is different than the first sampling rate; and (Fudge; Col. 1, line 63 – Col 2, line 8: forming a first compressed sensing matrix utilizing a first set of time indices corresponding to a first sampling rate (i.e., sampling the data transmission signal at a first sampling rate ), forming a second compressed sensing matrix utilizing a plurality of frequencies and a second set of time indices corresponding to a second sampling rate (i.e., sampling the data transmission signal at a second sampling rate), forming a combined compressed sensing matrix from the first compressed sensing matrix and the second compressed sensing matrix, and reconstructing at least a portion of the input signal utilizing the combined compressed sensing matrix)
Fudge is combinable with Shin because all are from the same field of endeavor of signal processing. 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 modified the system of Shin to incorporate combined sampling as in Fudge in order to base analysis on additional captured features for the predictable result of more precise classification and identification.
Regarding claim 2, Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 1.
Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 2 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein first portion sampled data is generated based on the data transmission signal through sampling the data transmission signal at the first sampling rate, wherein second portion sampled data is generated based on the data transmission signal through sampling the data transmission signal at the second sampling rate, and wherein the distortion data is generated based on the first portion sampled data and the second portion sampled data. (Fudge; Col. 1, line 63 – Col 2, line 8: forming a first compressed sensing matrix utilizing a first set of time indices corresponding to a first sampling rate (i.e., sampling the data transmission signal at a first sampling rate), forming a second compressed sensing matrix utilizing a plurality of frequencies and a second set of time indices corresponding to a second sampling rate (i.e., sampling the data transmission signal at a second sampling rate), forming a combined compressed sensing matrix from the first compressed sensing matrix and the second compressed sensing matrix, and reconstructing at least a portion of the input signal utilizing the combined compressed sensing matrix (i.e., the distortion data is generated based on the first portion sampled data and the second portion sampled data))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 1.
Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 3 as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein the first portion sampled data of the data transmission signal and the second portion sampled data of the data transmission signal each oscillates about a target voltage. (Shin; [0062]: only measurements when the transmitter was sending a dominant bit are considered, and refer to as dominant voltages (i.e., oscillates about a target voltage))
Regarding claim 4, Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 1.
Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 4 as follows:
The method of claim 3, wherein the first portion sampled data of the data transmission signal is an overshoot portion of a bit of data being conveyed by the data transmission signal. (Shin; [0066]: Transient changes in the driver's input and output affect the transistors' R.sub.DSON,P/N and thus make V.sub.CANH and V.sub.CANL temporarily deviate in the “opposite” direction; a property of CAN being a differential bus (i.e., overshoot portion of a bit of data being conveyed by the data transmission signal))
Regarding claim 5, Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 1.
Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 5 as follows:
The method of claim 4, wherein the second portion sampled data of the data transmission signal is a portion of the bit of data that the first portion sampled data of the data transmission signal is a part of. (Shin; [0066]: Transient changes in the driver's input and output affect the transistors' R.sub.DSON,P/N and thus make V.sub.CANH and V.sub.CANL temporarily deviate in the “opposite” direction; a property of CAN being a differential bus (i.e., shin teaches measuring botht eh transient overshoot and the underlying portion of the same bit (the dominant voltage) to form features))
Regarding claim 6, Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 1.
Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 6 as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein a first portion of the data transmission signal is sampled at the first sampling rate to obtain the first portion sampled data and is an information-dense portion, and wherein a second portion of the data transmission signal is sampled at the second sampling rate and is an information-sparse portion. (Fudge; Col. 1, line 63 – Col 2, line 8: forming a first compressed sensing matrix utilizing a first set of time indices corresponding to a first sampling rate (i.e., sampling the data transmission signal at a first sampling rate ), forming a second compressed sensing matrix utilizing a plurality of frequencies and a second set of time indices corresponding to a second sampling rate (i.e., sampling the data transmission signal at a second sampling rate), forming a combined compressed sensing matrix from the first compressed sensing matrix and the second compressed sensing matrix, and reconstructing at least a portion of the input signal utilizing the combined compressed sensing matrix)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 6.
Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 7 as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein the second sampling rate is one-half or less the first sampling rate. (Fudge; Col. 11, lines 12-18: the combined sampling rate representing the sum of the first and second sampling rates is significantly less than the Nyquist rate, such as half the Nyquist rate. In some embodiments, the combined sampling rate is preferably no more than one-fifth of the Nyquist rate)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 7.
Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 8 as follows:
The method of claim 7, wherein the second sampling rate is one-fifth or less the first sampling rate. (Fudge; Col. 11, lines 12-18: the combined sampling rate representing the sum of the first and second sampling rates is significantly less than the Nyquist rate, such as half the Nyquist rate. In some embodiments, the combined sampling rate is preferably no more than one-fifth of the Nyquist rate)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 1.
Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 9 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first sampling rate is sampled from a portion of the data transmission signal corresponding to a single bit, and wherein the second sampling rate is sampled from the portion or other portion of the data transmission signal corresponding to the single bit. (Shin; [0066]: Transient changes in the driver's input and output affect the transistors' R.sub.DSON,P/N and thus make V.sub.CANH and V.sub.CANL temporarily deviate in the “opposite” direction; a property of CAN being a differential bus (i.e., shin teaches measuring botht eh transient overshoot and the underlying portion of the same bit (the dominant voltage) to form features))
Regarding claim 14, Shin teaches the limitations of claim 14 substantially as follows:
An electronic control unit (ECU) authentication system, comprising at least one electronic processor and memory storing computer instructions accessible by the at least one processor, wherein the ECU authentication system is configured, as a result of executing the computer instructions using the at least one processor, to: (Shin; [0149]: computers referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs for increased computing capability)
identify a sender of the data transmission signal based on the first portion sampled data and the second portion sampled data. (Shin; [0146]: the proposed detection scheme obtained correct measurements of voltages output by the message transmitters, and exploited them for constructing and updating their voltage profiles, which were shown to be unique for each ECU (i.e., identifying a sender of the data transmission signal based on the distortion data))
Shin does not teach the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
sample a data transmission signal at a first sampling rate to obtain first portion sampled data; sample the data transmission signal at a second sampling rate to obtain second portion sampled data, wherein the first sampling rate is different than the second sampling rate; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fudge discloses the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
sample a data transmission signal at a first sampling rate to obtain first portion sampled data; sample the data transmission signal at a second sampling rate to obtain second portion sampled data, wherein the first sampling rate is different than the second sampling rate; and (Fudge; Col. 1, line 63 – Col 2, line 8: forming a first compressed sensing matrix utilizing a first set of time indices corresponding to a first sampling rate (i.e., sampling the data transmission signal at a first sampling rate ), forming a second compressed sensing matrix utilizing a plurality of frequencies and a second set of time indices corresponding to a second sampling rate (i.e., sampling the data transmission signal at a second sampling rate), forming a combined compressed sensing matrix from the first compressed sensing matrix and the second compressed sensing matrix, and reconstructing at least a portion of the input signal utilizing the combined compressed sensing matrix)
Fudge is combinable with Shin because all are from the same field of endeavor of signal processing. 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 modified the system of Shin to incorporate combined sampling as in Fudge in order to base analysis on additional captured features for the predictable result of more precise classification and identification.
Regarding claim 15, Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 14.
Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 15 as follows:
An ECU, comprising the ECU authentication system of claim 14, wherein the ECU is a first ECU of a communications network and is configured to receive the data transmission signal via the communications network from a second ECU of the communications network. (Shin; [0009]: each fingerprint in the plurality of learned fingerprints is derived from voltage measurements made during transmission of a message on the vehicle bus and uniquely identifies one of the ECUs connected to the vehicle bus. During transmission of a message on the vehicle bus by an ECU, voltage on the vehicle bus is measured by the monitor node, voltage on the vehicle bus, where the voltage on the vehicle bus is measured at less than one million samples per second)
Regarding claim 16, Shin teaches the limitations of claim 16 substantially as follows:
An electronic control unit (ECU) authentication system for determining an identity of a sender of a message sent over a physical channel, comprising: a first ECU having at least one processor and memory storing computer instructions; a second ECU; a physical channel for carrying a data transmission signal from the second ECU to the first ECU; (Shin; [0009]: each fingerprint in the plurality of learned fingerprints is derived from voltage measurements made during transmission of a message on the vehicle bus and uniquely identifies one of the ECUs connected to the vehicle bus. During transmission of a message on the vehicle bus by an ECU, voltage on the vehicle bus is measured by the monitor node, voltage on the vehicle bus, where the voltage on the vehicle bus is measured at less than one million samples per second)
wherein the ECU authentication system is configured, as a result of executing the computer instructions using the at least one processor, to: (Shin; [0149]: computers referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs for increased computing capability)
identify a sender of the data transmission signal based on the first portion sampled data and the second portion sampled data. (Shin; [0146]: the proposed detection scheme obtained correct measurements of voltages output by the message transmitters, and exploited them for constructing and updating their voltage profiles, which were shown to be unique for each ECU (i.e., identifying a sender of the data transmission signal based on the distortion data))
Shin does not teach the limitations of claim 16 as follows:
sample the data transmission signal at a first sampling rate to obtain first portion sampled data; sample the data transmission signal at a second sampling rate to obtain second portion sampled data, wherein the first sampling rate is different than the second sampling rate; and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Fudge discloses the limitations of claim 16 as follows:
sample the data transmission signal at a first sampling rate to obtain first portion sampled data; sample the data transmission signal at a second sampling rate to obtain second portion sampled data, wherein the first sampling rate is different than the second sampling rate; and (Fudge; Col. 1, line 63 – Col 2, line 8: forming a first compressed sensing matrix utilizing a first set of time indices corresponding to a first sampling rate (i.e., sampling the data transmission signal at a first sampling rate ), forming a second compressed sensing matrix utilizing a plurality of frequencies and a second set of time indices corresponding to a second sampling rate (i.e., sampling the data transmission signal at a second sampling rate), forming a combined compressed sensing matrix from the first compressed sensing matrix and the second compressed sensing matrix, and reconstructing at least a portion of the input signal utilizing the combined compressed sensing matrix)
Fudge is combinable with Shin because all are from the same field of endeavor of signal processing. 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 modified the system of Shin to incorporate combined sampling as in Fudge in order to base analysis on additional captured features for the predictable result of more precise classification and identification.
Regarding claim 17, Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 16.
Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 17 as follows:
A vehicle communications network, comprising the ECU authentication system of claim 16. (Shin; [0009]: each fingerprint in the plurality of learned fingerprints is derived from voltage measurements made during transmission of a message on the vehicle bus and uniquely identifies one of the ECUs connected to the vehicle bus (i.e., vehicle communications network))
Regarding claim 18, Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 17.
Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 18 as follows:
The ECU authentication system of claim 17, wherein the physical channel is provided by a controller area network (CAN), and wherein the first ECU and the second ECU are installed on a vehicle having a communications network including the physical layer. (Shin; [0009]: each fingerprint in the plurality of learned fingerprints is derived from voltage measurements made during transmission of a message on the vehicle bus and uniquely identifies one of the ECUs connected to the vehicle bus (i.e., the physical channel is provided by a controller area network (CAN), and wherein the first ECU and the second ECU are installed on a vehicle having a communications network including the physical layer))
Regarding claim 19, Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 17.
Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 19 as follows:
The ECU authentication system of claim 17, wherein the second ECU has at least one processor and memory storing computer instructions, and wherein the second ECU is configured, when executing the computer instructions of the second ECU using the at least one processor of the second ECU, to: (Shin; [0149]: computers referred to in the specification may include a single processor or may be architectures employing multiple processor designs for increased computing capability)
sample a second data transmission signal at a third sampling rate to obtain third portion sampled data; sample the second data transmission signal at the fourth sampling rate to obtain fourth portion sampled data, wherein the third sampling rate is different than the fourth sampling rate; and (Fudge; Col. 1, line 63 – Col 2, line 8: forming a first compressed sensing matrix utilizing a first set of time indices corresponding to a first sampling rate (i.e., sample a second data transmission signal at a third sampling rate to obtain third portion sampled data), forming a second compressed sensing matrix utilizing a plurality of frequencies and a second set of time indices corresponding to a second sampling rate (i.e., sample the second data transmission signal at the fourth sampling rate to obtain fourth portion sampled data), forming a combined compressed sensing matrix from the first compressed sensing matrix and the second compressed sensing matrix, and reconstructing at least a portion of the input signal utilizing the combined compressed sensing matrix)
identify a sender of the data transmission signal based on the third portion sampled data and the fourth portion sampled data. (Shin; [0146]: the proposed detection scheme obtained correct measurements of voltages output by the message transmitters, and exploited them for constructing and updating their voltage profiles, which were shown to be unique for each ECU (i.e., identify a sender of the data transmission signal based on the third portion sampled data and the fourth portion sampled data))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 16 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 20, Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 19.
Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 20 as follows:
The ECU authentication system of claim 19, wherein the third sampling rate is the same as the first sampling rate, and wherein the second sampling rate is the same as the fourth sampling rate. (Fudge; Col. 1, line 63 – Col 2, line 8: forming a first compressed sensing matrix utilizing a first set of time indices corresponding to a first sampling rate (i.e., sampling the data transmission signal at a first sampling rate ), forming a second compressed sensing matrix utilizing a plurality of frequencies and a second set of time indices corresponding to a second sampling rate (i.e., sampling the data transmission signal at a second sampling rate), forming a combined compressed sensing matrix from the first compressed sensing matrix and the second compressed sensing matrix, and reconstructing at least a portion of the input signal utilizing the combined compressed sensing matrix)
The same motivation to combine as in claim 16 is applicable to the instant claim.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 20190245872 A1), in view of Fudge (US 7289049 B1), as applied to independent claims, further in view of Litichever (US 20190385057 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 1.
Shin and Fudge teach the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
wherein the sender is identified based on the distortion image. (Shin; [0146]: the proposed detection scheme obtained correct measurements of voltages output by the message transmitters, and exploited them for constructing and updating their voltage profiles, which were shown to be unique for each ECU (i.e., the sender is identified based on the distortion image))
Shin and Fudge do not teach the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the distortion data is used to generate a distortion image, and
However, in the same field of endeavor, Litichever discloses the limitations of claim 10 as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the distortion data is used to generate a distortion image, and (Litichever; [0138]: A waveform may be represented as an image that represents an electronic signal or recording, and shows the changes in amplitude over a certain amount of time (horizontally))
Litichever is combinable with Shin and Fudge because all are from the same field of endeavor of signal processing. 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 modified system of Shin and Fudge to incorporate graphical depiction of a waveform as a basis for analysis as in Litichever in order to expand the functionality of the system to incorporate additional methods of identifying features of a signal.
Regarding claim 11, Shin, Fudge and Litichever teach the limitations of claim 10.
Shin, Fudge and Litichever teach the limitations of claim 11 as follows:
The method of claim 10, wherein the distortion image is a recurrence plot representing recurring patterns observed in data transmission signals transmitted by the sender. (Litichever; [0138]: a waveform is depicted by a graph that shows the changes in a real-time or recorded signal amplitude over the duration of recording (i.e., recurring patterns observed in data transmission signals transmitted by the sender))
The same motivation to combine as in claim 10 is applicable to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Shin, Fudge and Litichever teach the limitations of claim 11.
Shin, Fudge and Litichever teach the limitations of claim 12 as follows:
The method of claim 11, wherein the recurrence plot is matched to a representative distortion image in order to identify the sender, and wherein the representative distortion image is one of a plurality of predetermined representative distortion images. (Shin; [0146]: the proposed detection scheme obtained correct measurements of voltages output by the message transmitters, and exploited them for constructing and updating their voltage profiles, which were shown to be unique for each ECU (i.e., identifying a sender of the data transmission signal based on the distortion data))
Regarding claim 13, Shin, Fudge and Litichever teach the limitations of claim 12.
Shin, Fudge and Litichever teach the limitations of claim 13 as follows:
The method of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of predetermined representative distortion images corresponds to a separate sender of a plurality of senders including the sender. (Shin; [0146]: the proposed detection scheme obtained correct measurements of voltages output by the message transmitters, and exploited them for constructing and updating their voltage profiles, which were shown to be unique for each ECU (i.e., identifying a sender of the data transmission signal based on the distortion data))
Prior Art Considered But Not Relied Upon
Shui (US 20230186691 A1) which teaches querying identifying types of vehicle data at an initial sampling rate.
Fredriksson (US 20160094312 A1) which teaches a method of confirming data accuracy on a communication bus.
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected.
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 BLAKE ISAAC NARRAMORE whose telephone number is (303)297-4357. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 0700-1700 MT.
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, Taghi T Arani can be reached on (571) 272-3787. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BLAKE I NARRAMORE/Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights