DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. The claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation “…to achieve the target total charge pump current…” should be “…to achieve a target total charge pump current…” according to antecedent basis requirement.
Regarding claim 16, the claim limitation “The apparatus of claim 12, wherein a linear function…” should be “The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the linear function…” since “linear function” is introduced in claim 12, thus the claim 16 should be dependent of claim 12 and according to antecedent basis requirement.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1-3, 22, 23, 26, 27, 33-35, 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gupta (2022/0200607).
Regarding claim 1, Gupta discloses an apparatus (Fig.3, please refer to the whole reference for detailed), comprising: a phase-locked loop (PLL) circuit (PLL shown in Fig.3); and a logic circuit (80) to manage, via one or more programmable operating parameters (one or more programmable operating parameters “Icp(t)” and/or “Vswp”, please consider all conditions) of the PLL circuit, PLL bandwidth variation exhibited by the PLL circuit, due to variations in its manufacturing process (P), supply voltage (V) or temperature (T), i.e., PVT variations exhibited by the PLL circuit (please refer to at least ¶ 11 and 43).
Regarding claim 2, Gupta discloses the programmable operating parameters of the PLL circuit comprise one or more of: a total charge pump current, a unit charge pump current, a number of active charge pump stages (using “ical2 to icaln” shown in Fig.6 to control Icp(t) in Fig.3; please refer to information related to charge pumps 20(1) to 20(n), 58 and 68 in Fig.3), or a reference voltage Vref (“Vswp” in Fig.3; please refer to information related to steps shown in Fig.4) of the PLL circuit.
Regarding claim 3, Gupta discloses the logic circuit (80) to set one or more of the programmable operating parameters (“Vswp” in Fig.3) during open-loop operation (please refer to at least steps 100 and 108 in Fig.4) of the PLL circuit.
Regarding claim 22, Gupta discloses the one or more programmable operating parameters include a reference voltage (Vref) (Vswp in Fig.3) for the PLL circuit, and wherein the logic circuit to adjust Vref (using 60) to further manage PLL bandwidth variation in response to changes in VCO gain (please refer to information related to steps shown in Fig.4 and at least ¶ 11 and 43).
Regarding claim 23, Gupta discloses the PLL circuit includes a digital proportional controller (80), and the logic circuit (logic circuit of 80) is integrated with the digital proportional controller.
Regarding claim 26, Gupta discloses a method, comprising: operating a PLL circuit (PLL shown in Fig.3) having one or more programmable operating parameters (one or more programmable operating parameters “Icp(t)” and/or “Vswp”, please consider all conditions); measuring a parameter (measure temperature using 84 (or) measure frequency using 72 in Fig.3) indicative of PLL bandwidth variation (please refer to at least ¶ 11); and setting one or more of the programmable operating parameters (“Icp(t)” and/or “Vswp”) of the PLL circuit at least partially based on a determined deviation of the measured parameter to a predetermined target value (please refer to information related to at least Fig.6, and ¶ 45 for setting one or more of the programmable operating parameters based on temperature deviation (where a predetermined target value for temperature would have been a desired temperature from among the temperatures), and ¶ 32 and 33 for setting one or more of the programmable operating parameters based on frequency deviation (where a predetermined target value for frequency would have been a desired frequency from among the frequencies)).
Regarding claim 27, Gupta discloses measuring the parameter indicative of PLL bandwidth variation comprises measuring a parameter indicative of voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO) gain (Kvco) (please refer to “gain KVCO” column in Fig.6).
Regarding claim 33, Gupta discloses measuring the parameter (measure temperature using 84 (or) measure frequency using 72 in Fig.3) indicative of PLL bandwidth variation (please refer to at least ¶ 11 and 43) comprises: changing a measured VCO gain parameter based at least partially on a predetermined relationship between VCO gain and temperature (please refer to at least ¶ 11 and 45, and 82 in Fig.6) or supply voltage, and utilizing a temperature-translated or supply voltage-translated measured parameter (temperature-translated measured parameter stored in the LUT 82) to determine the deviation of VCO gain from the target to account for worst-case post calibration VT drift (please refer to at least ¶ 11 and 45, and information related to 82 in Fig.6).
Regarding claim 34, Gupta discloses the predetermined relationship between VCO gain and temperature (please refer to least ¶ 45 and “gain KVCO” of 82 in Fig.6) or supply voltage is determined from simulation data (simulation data stored in 82) or silicon characterization and stored in a lookup table (82), and wherein a logic (80 in Fig.3) of the method uses the lookup table (82) to adjust the measured parameter (adjust gain of VCO by changing Icp(t) and Vswp) according to an operating temperature (operating temperature sensed by temperature sensor 84) or supply voltage.
Regarding claim 35, Gupta discloses the predetermined relationship between VCO gain and temperature or supply voltage (please refer to least ¶ 45 and “gain KVCO” of 82 in Fig.6) is determined based on production test data (test data based on steps shown in Figs.4 and 5) by employing a two-point or three-point measurement technique (Fig.6 shows multiple point measured technique, which could be two-point or three-point) to approximate nonlinear behavior of VCO gain over a temperature or supply voltage range, and wherein the resultant relationship is stored in a lookup table (82) for use in adjusting the measured parameter (adjust gain of VCO by changing Icp(t) and Vswp).
Regarding claim 38, Gupta discloses operating the PLL circuit in an open-loop mode during calibration (please refer to 100 in Fig.4), wherein the method sets a VCO control voltage (Vswp) to at least two different levels (using 60 in Fig.3 and Fig.4 discloses the setting Vswp levels), measures the corresponding oscillator frequencies (102 in Fig.4), and determines a parameter indicative of VCO gain from these measurements (104 in Fig.4).
Regarding claim 39, Gupta discloses adjusting a reference voltage (Vref) (Vswp) of the PLL circuit as one of the programmable operating parameters to further manage PLL bandwidth variation in response to changes in VCO gain (please refer to information related to steps shown in Fig.4 and at least ¶ 11 and 43).
5. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 20, 23 and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Obkircher et al. (2012/0280730) (hereinafter “Obkircher”).
Regarding claim 1, Obkircher discloses an apparatus (Fig.2, please refer to the whole reference for detailed), comprising: a phase-locked loop (PLL) circuit (102, 104, 106, 108, 110 and 112); and a logic circuit (120) to manage, via one or more programmable operating parameters (current output from the charge pump “106”) of the PLL circuit, PLL bandwidth variation exhibited by the PLL circuit (please refer to at least ¶ 47 and 55), due to variations in its manufacturing process (P), supply voltage (V) or temperature (T) (please refer to at least ¶ 27, 49 and 51), i.e., PVT variations exhibited by the PLL circuit.
Regarding claim 2, Obkircher discloses the programmable operating parameters (current output from the charge pump “106”) of the PLL circuit comprise one or more of: a total charge pump current (current output of 106), a unit charge pump current (current output of 106), a number of active charge pump stages, or a reference voltage Vref of the PLL circuit.
Regarding claim 4, Obkircher discloses the logic circuit (120 in Fig.2, which is 120a in Fig.5) to: measure a parameter indicative of voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO) gain (Kvco) (¶ 58 states that “The model select 224 can obtain one or more threshold values from the memory 224 and an indicator of VCO gain, such as VCO output frequency, from the VCO.”; determine a deviation of Kvco from target at least partially based on a comparison of the measured parameter and a predetermined target Kvco (¶ 58 states that “Then the model select 224 can compare the indicator of VCO gain to the one or more threshold values.”); and set one or more of the programmable operating parameters at least partially based on the determined deviation (please refer to at least ¶ 58 and 60).
Regarding claim 5, Obkircher discloses the logic circuit to: determine a value for total charge pump current at least partially based on the determined deviation of Kvco from target; and set the one or more parameters (current output from the charge pump 106 in Fig.2) of the PLL circuit at least partially based on the determined value (please refer to ¶ 58 and 60).
Regarding claim 6, Obkircher discloses the logic circuit to determine the value for total charge pump current at least partially based on a lookup table (please refer to at least ¶ 16, 57, 58 and 60), wherein data of the look up table correlates ranges of deviation of Kvco from target with corresponding charge pump settings that determine total charge pump current (please refer to at least ¶ 16, 57, 58 and 60).
Regarding claim 20, Obkircher discloses the logic circuit (120 in Fig.3 and 120a in Fig.5) to determine the one or more programmable operating parameters (current output from the charge pump “106”) at least partially based on a lookup table (memory 222 in Fig.5) comprising predetermined settings of the programmable operating parameters of the PLL circuit (please refer to at least ¶ 57, 58 and 60).
Regarding claim 23, Obkircher discloses the PLL circuit includes a digital proportional controller (120 in Fig.3; 120a in Fig.5), and the logic circuit (logic circuit of 120/120a) is integrated with the digital proportional controller.
Regarding claim 26, Obkircher discloses a method (Fig.2, please refer to the whole reference for detailed), comprising: operating a PLL circuit (PLL in Fig.2) having one or more programmable operating parameters current output from the charge pump 106); measuring a parameter (“VCO GAIN INDICATOR” in Fig.5, which is VCO output frequency; ¶ 58) indicative of PLL bandwidth variation (please refer to at least ¶ 47 and 55); and setting one or more of the programmable operating parameters of the PLL circuit (by controlling the charge pump 106) at least partially based on a determined deviation of the measured parameter to a predetermined target value (threshold values from the memory in Fig.5; please refer to at least ¶ 58 and 60).
Regarding claim 27, Obkircher discloses measuring the parameter indicative of PLL bandwidth variation (measuring VCO output frequency and temperature; please refer to at least ¶ 49 and 58) comprises measuring a parameter (VCO output frequency) indicative of voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO) gain (Kvco) (please refer to at least ¶ 58).
Regarding claim 28, Obkircher discloses comparing a measured VCO gain to a predetermined target VCO gain (please refer to at least ¶ 58), and determining a deviation between the measured VCO gain and the target VCO gain (please refer to at least ¶ 58 and 60).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 7, 8, 12-14, 29 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obkircher et al. (2012/0280730) (hereinafter “Obkircher”) in view of Gupta (2022/0200607).
Regarding claim 7, Obkircher is used to reject claims 1 and 4-6 above.
Obkircher discloses the data of the look up table (222 in Fig.5) includes values for a unit charge pump current (current output of charge pump 106) needed to achieve the target total charge pump current (please refer to at least ¶ 16, 57, 58 and 60).
Obkircher doesn’t explicitly disclose the data of the look up table includes values for a number of active charge pump stages needed to achieve the target total charge pump current.
Gupta discloses an example of the data of the look up table (82 in Figs.3 and 6) includes values (ical2 to icaln in Fig.6) for a number of active charge pump stages (20(1) to 20(n) needed to achieve the target total charge pump current (output from 56, which includes (20(1) to 20(n)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Obkircher with the teaching of Gupta to provide the data of the look up table includes values for a number of active charge pump stages needed to achieve the target total charge pump current. The suggestion/motivation would have been to use multiple charge pump circuits to supply a desired amount of current as supported by Gupta.
Regarding claim 8, Obkircher is used to reject claims 1 and 2 above.
Obkircher doesn’t disclose the logic circuit to employ an iterative algorithm to determine one or more programmable operating parameters, wherein the iterative algorithm adjusts the number of active charge pump stages and the unit charge pump current until a product of these parameters approximates a determined value for total charge pump current.
Gupta discloses an example of the logic circuit (80 in Fig.3) to employ an iterative algorithm (please refer to iterative algorithm method used in Fig.4) to determine one or more programmable operating parameters (current output from 56 in Fig.3), wherein the iterative algorithm adjusts the number of active charge pump stages (20(1)-20(n)) and the unit charge pump current (current output from 56) until a product of these parameters approximates a determined value for total charge pump current (the feedback loop control shown in Fig.3 is used to determine the total charge pump current output from 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Obkircher with the teaching of Gupta to provide the logic circuit to employ an iterative algorithm to determine one or more programmable operating parameters, wherein the iterative algorithm adjusts the number of active charge pump stages and the unit charge pump current until a product of these parameters approximates a determined value for total charge pump current. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a desired level of current from the charge pump.
Regarding claim 12, Obkircher is used to reject claims 1 and 4 above.
Obkircher discloses VCO gain can depend on temperature and overall loop gain of the phase locked loop can be adjusted to account for changes in temperature (¶ 49).
Obkircher doesn’t explicitly disclose the logic circuit to: translate the measured parameter at least partially based on a predetermined relationship between Kvco and temperature or supply voltage; and utilize the translated measured parameter to determine the deviation of Kvco from target value to account for worst-case post calibration VT drift.
Gupta discloses the logic circuit (80 in Fig.3) to: translate the measured parameter (measure temperature using 84 (or) measure frequency for gain of VCO using 72 in Fig.3) at least partially based on a predetermined relationship between Kvco and temperature or supply voltage (please refer to least ¶ 45); and utilize the translated measured parameter to determine the deviation of Kvco from target value to account for worst-case post calibration VT drift (please refer to at least ¶ 11 and 45, and information related to 82 in Fig.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Obkircher with the teaching of Gupta to provide the logic circuit to: translate the measured parameter at least partially based on a predetermined relationship between Kvco and temperature or supply voltage; and utilize the translated measured parameter to determine the deviation of Kvco from target value to account for worst-case post calibration VT drift. The suggestion/motivation would have been to obtain a desired gain of VCO while considering the variation in temperature.
Regarding claim 13, Obkircher is used to reject claims 1, 4 and 12 above.
Obkircher doesn’t explicitly disclose the predetermined relationship is determined from simulation data and/or silicon characterization and stored in a lookup table, and wherein the logic circuit to use the lookup table to translate the measured parameter according to start-up temperature or supply voltage.
Gupta discloses the predetermined relationship is determined from simulation data (please refer to least ¶ 45) and/or silicon characterization and stored in a lookup table (82 in Figs.3 and 6), and wherein the logic circuit to use the lookup table to translate the measured parameter according to start-up temperature (please refer to least ¶ 45) or supply voltage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Obkircher with the teaching of Gupta to provide the predetermined relationship is determined from simulation data and/or silicon characterization and stored in a lookup table, and wherein the logic circuit to use the lookup table to translate the measured parameter according to start-up temperature or supply voltage. The suggestion/motivation would have been to obtain a desired gain of VCO while considering the variation in temperature.
Regarding claim 14, Obkircher is used to reject claims 1, 4 and 12 above.
Obkircher doesn’t explicitly disclose the predetermined relationship is determined based on production test data by employing a two-point or three-point measurement technique to approximate nonlinear behavior of Kvco over a temperature range or supply voltage range and the resultant relationship is stored in a lookup table, and wherein the logic circuit to use the lookup table to translate the measured parameter according to start-up temperature or supply voltage.
Gupta discloses the predetermined relationship is determined based on production test data by employing a two-point or three-point measurement technique to approximate nonlinear behavior of Kvco over a temperature range (please refer to least ¶ 45) or supply voltage range and the resultant relationship is stored in a lookup table (82, ¶ 45), and wherein the logic circuit to use the lookup table to translate the measured parameter according to start-up temperature (please refer to least ¶ 45) or supply voltage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Obkircher with the teaching of Gupta to provide the predetermined relationship is determined based on production test data by employing a two-point or three-point measurement technique to approximate nonlinear behavior of Kvco over a temperature range or supply voltage range and the resultant relationship is stored in a lookup table, and wherein the logic circuit to use the lookup table to translate the measured parameter according to start-up temperature or supply voltage. The suggestion/motivation would have been to obtain a desired gain of VCO while considering the variation in temperature.
Regarding claim 29, Obkircher is used to reject claims 26-28 above.
Obkircher discloses determining a value for a total charge pump current based at least partially on the determined deviation of VCO gain (please refer to least ¶ 58 and 60), wherein the total charge pump current is calculated as a programmable unit charge pump current (current output from 106).
Obkircher doesn’t disclose wherein the total charge pump current is calculated as a product of a programmable unit charge pump current and a programmable number of active charge pump stages.
Gupta discloses an example of a total charge pump current (output from 56 in Fig.3) is calculated as a product of a programmable unit charge pump current (20(1)) and a programmable number of active charge pump stages (a total number of 20(1) to 20(n)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Obkircher with the teaching of Gupta to provide wherein the total charge pump current is calculated as a product of a programmable unit charge pump current and a programmable number of active charge pump stages. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a desired level of current by using a plurality of charge pump as necessary as supported by Gupta.
Regarding claim 33, Obkircher is used to reject claim 26 above.
Obkircher discloses VCO gain can depend on temperature and overall loop gain of the phase locked loop can be adjusted to account for changes in temperature (¶ 49).
Obkircher doesn’t disclose measuring the parameter indicative of PLL bandwidth variation comprises: changing a measured VCO gain parameter based at least partially on a predetermined relationship between VCO gain and temperature or supply voltage, and utilizing a temperature-translated or supply voltage-translated measured parameter to determine the deviation of VCO gain from the target to account for worst-case post calibration VT drift.
Gupta discloses measuring the parameter (measure temperature using 84 (or) measure frequency using 72 in Fig.3) indicative of PLL bandwidth variation (please refer to at least ¶ 11 and 43) comprises: changing a measured VCO gain parameter based at least partially on a predetermined relationship between VCO gain and temperature (please refer to at least ¶ 11 and 45, and 82 in Fig.6) or supply voltage, and utilizing a temperature-translated or supply voltage-translated measured parameter (temperature-translated measured parameter stored in the LUT 82) to determine the deviation of VCO gain from the target to account for worst-case post calibration VT drift (please refer to at least ¶ 11 and 45, and information related to 82 in Fig.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Obkircher with the teaching of Gupta to provide measuring the parameter indicative of PLL bandwidth variation comprises: changing a measured VCO gain parameter based at least partially on a predetermined relationship between VCO gain and temperature or supply voltage, and utilizing a temperature-translated or supply voltage-translated measured parameter to determine the deviation of VCO gain from the target to account for worst-case post calibration VT drift. The suggestion/motivation would have been to obtain a desired gain of VCO while considering the variation in temperature.
Regarding claim 34, Obkircher in view of Gupta is used to reject claims 26 and 33 above.
Obkircher doesn’t disclose the predetermined relationship between VCO gain and temperature or supply voltage is determined from simulation data or silicon characterization and stored in a lookup table, and wherein a logic of the method uses the lookup table to adjust the measured parameter according to an operating temperature or supply voltage.
Gupta discloses the predetermined relationship between VCO gain and temperature (please refer to least ¶ 45 and “gain KVCO” of 82 in Fig.6) or supply voltage is determined from simulation data (simulation data stored in 82) or silicon characterization and stored in a lookup table (82), and wherein a logic (80 in Fig.3) of the method uses the lookup table (82) to adjust the measured parameter (adjust gain of VCO by changing Icp(t) and Vswp) according to an operating temperature (operating temperature sensed by temperature sensor 84) or supply voltage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Obkircher with the teaching of Gupta to provide the predetermined relationship between VCO gain and temperature or supply voltage is determined from simulation data or silicon characterization and stored in a lookup table, and wherein a logic of the method uses the lookup table to adjust the measured parameter according to an operating temperature or supply voltage. The suggestion/motivation would have been to obtain a desired gain of VCO while considering the variation in temperature.
Regarding claim 35, Obkircher in view of Gupta is used to reject claims 26 and 33 above.
Obkircher doesn’t disclose the predetermined relationship between VCO gain and temperature or supply voltage is determined based on production test data by employing a two-point or three-point measurement technique to approximate nonlinear behavior of VCO gain over a temperature or supply voltage range, and wherein the resultant relationship is stored in a lookup table for use in adjusting the measured parameter.
Gupta discloses the predetermined relationship between VCO gain and temperature or supply voltage (please refer to least ¶ 45 and “gain KVCO” of 82 in Fig.6) is determined based on production test data (test data based on steps shown in Figs.4 and 5) by employing a two-point or three-point measurement technique (Fig.6 shows multiple point measured technique, which could be two-point or three-point) to approximate nonlinear behavior of VCO gain over a temperature or supply voltage range, and wherein the resultant relationship is stored in a lookup table (82) for use in adjusting the measured parameter (adjust gain of VCO by changing Icp(t) and Vswp).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Obkircher with the teaching of Gupta to provide the predetermined relationship between VCO gain and temperature or supply voltage is determined based on production test data by employing a two-point or three-point measurement technique to approximate nonlinear behavior of VCO gain over a temperature or supply voltage range, and wherein the resultant relationship is stored in a lookup table for use in adjusting the measured parameter. The suggestion/motivation would have been to obtain a desired gain of VCO while considering the variation in temperature.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 9-11, 15, 17-19, 21, 24, 25, 30-32, 36 and 37 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.
10. Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD TAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7455. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached on 571-270-3684. 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.
/Richard Tan/Primary Examiner 2836
Prosecution Insights