DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1 – 13 are pending in this Office Correspondence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim 1 recites a “method for calculating degrees of importance. . . .; searching the ledgers using the query. . . ; calculating degrees of similarity. . .; and determining a display order . . . ” the claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
Step 2A Prong One:
“calculating degrees of importance . . .” as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraphs [0005] where one can mentally evaluate to perform calculating degrees of importance of the ledgers.
“searching the ledgers using the query . . .” as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraphs [0005] where one can mentally evaluate to perform searching the ledgers using the query.
“calculating degrees of similarity . . .” as drafted recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. Please see Instant paragraphs [0005] where one can mentally evaluate to perform calculating degrees of similarity between the description employed.
These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a "database" or "processor", nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “calculating and searching” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper, within the plurality of command sets, process the steps of calculating degrees of importance of the ledgers with respect to the description; searching the ledgers using the query, and calculating degrees of similarity between the description employed in the query - so as to determining a display order of the ledgers based on the degrees of importance of the ledgers and the degrees of similarity between the description and the sentences written in the ledgers – in order to improve computer functionality and functioning of conventional computers. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements " determining a display order”, these limitations amounts to data gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations represents an extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation(s) "determining a display” is/are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc....; Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); (v) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93), Arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(vi), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claims 5, 9 and 13 are rejected for the same rationale under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Further the limitations in the dependent claims 2 – 4, 6 – 8 and 10 – 12, respectively, merely specify the type of the data gathered and analyzed without adding significantly more. Analysis of the dependent claims is shown below.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 2 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the determining the type of each ledger is performed using any one or a combination of determining the type of each ledger by extracting a document title by named entity extraction, determining the type of each ledger by using a tag embedded in the ledgers, determining the type of each ledger based on the sentences written in the ledgers by a classifier that has been subjected to machine learning, or determining the type of each ledger based on layouts of the ledgers by a layout analyzer that has been subjected to machine learning”, which is equivalent to merely saying “apply it”, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer does not amount to significantly more.
Same rationale applies to claims 6 and 10, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 3 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the determining the category of the query is performed by extracting a named entity in the query or extracting the named entity that has been modified using a similarity in the query and classifying the query for each named entity or each named entity that has been modified”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea, since analyzing of information is a mental process, and therefore, does not meaningfully limits the claim.
Same rationale applies to claims 7 and 11, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 recites the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claim recites the additional limitation of “the degrees of similarity between the description and the sentences written in the ledgers are performed by calculating distances by vectorizing the description and the sentences written in the ledgers or using clustering”, which further elaborates on the abstract idea by specifying data types or information that is used in the profile generation, and therefore, does not amount to significantly more.
Same rationale applies to claims 8 and 12, respectively, since they also recite limitations that further elaborate on the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder (“unit”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an unit for calculating degrees of importance of ledgers confiqured to calculate degrees of importance of the ledgers …” in claim 5;
“an unit for searching confiqured to search the ledgers using the query...” in claim 5;
“an unit for calculating degrees of similarity between a description and sentences written in ledgers confiqured to calculate degrees of similarity …” in claim 5; and
“an unit for determining a display order of ledgers configured to determine a display order …” in claim 5.
“an unit for calculating degrees of importance of ledgers confiqured to calculate degrees of importance of the ledgers …” in claim 9;
“an unit for searching confiqured to search the ledgers using the query...” in claim 9;
“an unit for calculating degrees of similarity between a description and sentences written in ledgers confiqured to calculate degrees of similarity …” in claim 9; and
“an unit for determining a display order of ledgers configured to determine a display order …” in claim 9.
Because these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims limitations “unit for calculating”, “unit for searching”, “unit for calculating” and “unit for determining” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function of “unit for calculating”, “unit for searching”, “unit for calculating” and “unit for determining”. Particularly, paragraphs [0028] and [0029] of the instant application describe the functions of calculating, searching, calculating and determining. However, no paragraph describe a structure for performing the above functions, because performing the claimed functions can be done in a number of ways, hardware, software program or combination, hence, the aforementioned functions do not describe particular structures for the functions and provide enough description for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform the claimed functions.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018-085020 A issued to Shimokooriyama Itsuki et al. (hereinafter “Itsuki”) and in view of JP2004-206654 A issued to Tanaka Kei et al. (“Kei”).
With respect to claim 1, 5, 9 and 13, Itsuki teaches a method, system, device and a program product (CRM) (Para [0001]: the present invention relates to a information processing apparatus, an image processing system, a control method thereof, and a storage medium) for searching ledgers recorded in a database based on a description in a document (Para [0013]: select a plurality of categories to be searched based on information on certainty factors of the plurality of categories specified by the specification unit; and a searching control unit configured to control the information processing apparatus to perform a searching process using the categories selected by the selection unit as constraint conditions), the method comprising:
calculating degrees of importance of the ledgers with respect to the description by determining the type of each ledger and determining a category of a query that employs the description (Para [0024]: the specification of the category corresponding to the input character string newly received and the calculation of the certainty factor are performed based on the learning result);
searching the ledgers using the query by searching for the description from among sentences written in the ledgers (Para [0013]: select a plurality of categories to be searched based on information on certainty factors of the plurality of categories specified by the specification unit; and a searching control unit configured to control the information processing apparatus to perform a searching process using the categories selected by the selection unit as constraint conditions);
calculating degrees of similarity between the description employed in the query and the sentences written in the searched ledgers (Para [0089]: the calculation of the degree of similarity between the categories can be replaced with a conventional technique); and
determining a display order of the ledgers based on the degrees of importance of the ledgers and the degrees of similarity between the description and the sentences written in the ledgers (Para [0073]: the similar category list indicates which category (the similarity source category) is similar to which category (the similarity destination category). A numerical value in parentheses in the field of the similar destination category is a degree of similarity between a category described immediately before the parentheses and the similar source category).
Itsuki does not explicitly disclose degrees of importance and determining a display order. However, Kei discloses degrees of importance and determining a display order.
Kei, Para [0013]: the search is performed by referring to the degree of importance of the search source information to which the annotation is added or the degree of importance of a portion related to a search target portion in the searched information (for example, a document), or information indicating the degree of association of the searched information with the search source information, that is, the degree of importance of the search result is presented on the display device; Para [0025]: the search and the ranking of the search result are performed in consideration of the degree of importance of the word in the query, the degree of importance of the word in the search target sentence, or the category to which the word in the query belongs and the degree of importance thereof.).
Both of Itsuki and Kei are same field of endeavor and they are both in the data processing art and therefore, they are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the teachings of Itsuki’s retrieval of a target from a plurality of categories by using information on the degree of certainty of the plurality of categories with the teachings of Kei’s information retrieval method and information processing system in order to provide an information retrieval method capable of improving access performance to a necessary document even when information in a document indicated by an annotation added to the document is retrieved as a query, and an information retrieval processing system to which the information retrieval method is applied.
As to claims 3, 7 and 11, determining the category of the query is performed by extracting a named entity in the query or extracting the named entity that has been modified using a similarity in the query and classifying the query for each named entity or each named entity that has been modified (Kei, Para [0138]: the important word extraction unit divides the received character strings into words by performing a morpheme analysis (word segmentation) process, and assigns parts of speech. The morphological analysis (word segmentation) process is performed in order to distinguish a portion rich in semantic information from the other portion by a word of a predetermined specific part of speech. For example, in Japanese, the specific parts of speech are classified into nouns, stems of verbs / adjectives / adjective verbs, adverbs, and parts of speech other than symbols).
As to claims 4, 8 and 12, the degrees of similarity between the description and the sentences written in the ledgers are performed by calculating distances by vectorizing the description and the sentences written in the ledgers or using clustering (Kei, Para [0083]: the emphasis word / sentence specification unit 184 may specify a phrase to be emphasized by using a semantic distance from the summary. For the calculation of the semantic distance from the summary, for example, a method of measuring the similarity of sentences by using a vector space method (for example, see Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 11 (1999) -110395, Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2000 (1999) - 331027, or the like), a method of measuring the similarity by comparison of case structures using case particles, a method of expressing the result of dependency analysis or semantic analysis in a graph or tree structure and measuring the similarity by comparison thereof, or the like may be used).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 6 and 10 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.
The prior art in combination does not teach or fairly suggest the determining the type of each ledger is performed using any one or a combination of determining the type of each ledger by extracting a document title by named entity extraction, determining the type of each ledger by using a tag embedded in the ledgers, determining the type of each ledger based on the sentences written in the ledgers by a classifier that has been subjected to machine learning, or determining the type of each ledger based on layouts of the ledgers by a layout analyzer that has been subjected to machine learning.
Examiner Notes
The examiner has considered the applicant's claims in light of the disclosure. However, the examiner respectfully reminds the applicant that during prosecution before the USPTO, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, and the scope of a claim cannot be narrowed by reading disclosed limitations into the claim. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Office must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into account any definitions presented in the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575,577(Fed. Cir. 2002)); “[i]t is the claims that measure the invention.” SRIInt’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (enbanc). Written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Electro Med. Sys. S.A. v. Cooper Life Sci., Inc., 34 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1994))
Note that “limitations appearing in the specification will not be read into the claims, and … interpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is improper.” Intervet Am., v. Kee-Vet Labs., 887 F.2d 1050, 1053, 12 USPQ2d 1474 1476 (fed. Cir. 1989).
“The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp,. 415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (fed. Cir. 2005).
“One purpose for examining the specification is to determine if the patentee has limited the scope of the claims.’… For example, an inventor may choose to be his own lexicographer is he defines the specific terms used to describe the invention’ with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” Such a definition may appear in the written description, … or in the prosecution history, …” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325, 63 USPQ2d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Prior art pertinent to the disclosed invention is also cited and Applicants are reminded that they must consider all cited art under Rule 111(c) when amending the claims to conform with 35 U.S.C. 112.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Listed prior art could be used as an obviousness type Office correspondence.
Zhang (USP 9,665,641)): involves the process of searching a resume repository with a job description, determines the importance of the requirements as they are written in the document by performing a content analysis on the text used in the document; and displaying at least one term in the group of terms and the importance measure in association with the display of the job description document or its representation.
Cheng (USP 10,671,684): determining site data relating to the each of the historical query sentences having the target category of demand based on the user click log and the page display log, and associating, in the entries of the historical query sentences;
the query sentence dictionary being established based on query sentences having a target category of demand and the network data corresponding to each of the query sentences having the target category of demand; and because the dictionary is established based on a large number of historical query sentences acquired by the search engine, and the user click log and the page display log corresponding to each of the historical query sentences.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID AL ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4030. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on 571-272-4080. 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.
July 10, 2026
/SHAHID A ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights