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 .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 10/06/2025.
3. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are under examination on the merits. Claims 10, 12-14,19-20 are amended.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 1-20 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 05/05/2025 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement submitted on 07/31/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Ohkubo et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0198547 A1, hereinafter “’547”) in view of Motta et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0157398 A1, hereinafter “’398”).
Regarding claims 1-8: ‘547 teaches a refrigerant (Page 1, [0009]) consisting essentially of or consisting of: (a) 63% by weight of HFO-1234ze(E) (i.e., an amount of 44 to 64% by weight, Page 1, [0016]), (b) 35% by weight of HFC-134a (i.e., an amount of 24 to 44% by weight, Page 1, [0016]), and (c) and a third component such as 2% by weight of HFO-1336mzz (E) in the working Example 8 (Page 7, Table 3, Example 8). ‘547 teaches from the viewpoint of attaining both high COP and non-flammability, the third component is generally contained in an amount of 0.2% by weight or more to 20% by weight or less, preferably 0.2% by weight or more to 16% by weight or less, more preferably 0.2% by weight or more to 8% by weight or less, even more preferably 0.2% by weight or more to 5% by weight or less, and particularly preferably 0.2% by weight or more to 3% by weight or less per 100% by weight of the total amount of HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-134, and the third component (i.e. overlapping ranges). ‘547 does not expressly teach from about 75% to less than 80% by weight of HFO-1234ze(E), preferably from about 75% to less than 79% by weight, more preferably from 75% to 78% by weight, even more preferably about 78% by weight, and (b) from 6% to less than 11% by weight of HFC-134a, preferably from 6% to not greater than 10% by weight, more preferably from 8% to less than 11% by weight, even more preferably 10% +2.0%/-0.5% by weight.
However, ‘398 teaches the refrigerant may comprise: (a) from about 74.6% by weight to about 78.6% by weight of HFO-1234ze(E); (b) from about 17% by weight to about 21% by weight of HFO-1336mzz (E); and (c) from greater than 0% to about 4.4% by weight of HFC-227ea. Preferably, the refrigerant comprises (a) 74.6% by weight to about 78.6% by weight of HFO-1234ze(E); (b) from about 17% by weight to about 19% by weight of HFO-1336mzz (E); and (c) about 4.4% by weight of HFC-227ea (Page 5, [0053]-[0054]) with benefit of providing
that certain blends comprising a carefully selected combination of components can have an advantageous but unexpected combination of non-flammability while at the same time having excellent heat transfer properties, low GWP (e.g. a GWP of less than about 150), low- or no-toxicity, chemical stability, and lubricant compatibility, among others. Furthermore, to provide the refrigerant compositions having a particular advantage for use in medium temperature refrigeration systems, and particularly in medium temperature refrigeration systems in which it is desired to maintain the cooled-air temperature above about 0°C., and to avoid exposing the air being cooled to temperatures below about 0° C., in order to protect the articles being cooled from frost and/or to prevent frosting of the evaporator coils, which itself may have a negative impact on the overall efficiency of such systems due to the need for defrosting and/or inconsistent cooling across the coils (Page 2, [0012[).
In an analogous art of a non-flammable refrigerants having low GWP, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amount of HFO, and HFC by ‘547, so as to include the specific combination of components of HFO, and HFC as taught by ‘398, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing
that certain blends comprising a carefully selected combination of components can have an advantageous but unexpected combination of non-flammability while at the same time having excellent heat transfer properties, low GWP (e.g., a GWP of less than about 150), low- or no-toxicity, chemical stability, and lubricant compatibility, among others. Furthermore, to provide the refrigerant compositions having a particular advantage for use in medium temperature refrigeration systems, and particularly in medium temperature refrigeration systems in which it is desired to maintain the cooled-air temperature above about 0°C., and to avoid exposing the air being cooled to temperatures below about 0° C., in order to protect the articles being cooled from frost and/or to prevent frosting of the evaporator coils, which itself may have a negative impact on the overall efficiency of such systems due to the need for defrosting and/or inconsistent cooling across the coils as suggested by ‘398 (Page 2, [0012[).
It is noted that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. 5 Appeal2017-008153 Application 14/465,917 Cir. 1990) (indicating that in cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 9: ‘547 teaches a refrigerant (Page 1, [0009]) comprising at least about 98.5% by weight of the following three components in the following relative amounts based on the three listed components: (a) 63% by weight of HFO-1234ze(E); (b) 35% by weight of HFC-134a; and (c) 2% by weight of HFO-1336mzz (E), wherein said refrigerant is a Class 1A refrigerant (Page 7, Table 3, Example 8).’547 does not expressly teach from about 75% to about 80% by weight of HFO-1234ze(E), (b) from 6% to less than 11% by weight of HFC-134a; and (c) from 11% to about 17% by weight of HFO-1336mzz (E).
However, ‘398 teaches the refrigerant may comprise: (a) from about 74.6% by weight to about 78.6% by weight of HFO-1234ze(E); (b) from about 17% by weight to about 21% by weight of HFO-1336mzz (E); and (c) from greater than 0% to about 4.4% by weight of HFC-227ea. Preferably, the refrigerant comprises (a) 74.6% by weight to about 78.6% by weight of HFO-1234ze(E); (b) from about 17% by weight to about 19% by weight of HFO-1336mzz (E); and (c) about 4.4% by weight of HFC-227ea (Page 5, [0053]-[0054]) with benefit of providing
that certain blends comprising a carefully selected combination of components can have an advantageous but unexpected combination of non-flammability while at the same time having excellent heat transfer properties, low GWP (e.g. a GWP of less than about 150), low- or no-toxicity, chemical stability, and lubricant compatibility, among others. Furthermore, to provide the refrigerant compositions having a particular advantage for use in medium temperature refrigeration systems, and particularly in medium temperature refrigeration systems in which it is desired to maintain the cooled-air temperature above about 0°C., and to avoid exposing the air being cooled to temperatures below about 0° C., in order to protect the articles being cooled from frost and/or to prevent frosting of the evaporator coils, which itself may have a negative impact on the overall efficiency of such systems due to the need for defrosting and/or inconsistent cooling across the coils (Page 2, [0012[).
In an analogous art of a non-flammable refrigerants having low GWP, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amount of HFO, and HFC by ‘547, so as to include the specific combination of components of HFO, and HFC as taught by ‘398, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing that certain blends comprising a carefully selected combination of components can have an advantageous but unexpected combination of non-flammability while at the same time having excellent heat transfer properties, low GWP (e.g. a GWP of less than about 150), low- or no-toxicity, chemical stability, and lubricant compatibility, among others. Furthermore, to provide the refrigerant compositions having a particular advantage for use in medium temperature refrigeration systems, and particularly in medium temperature refrigeration systems in which it is desired to maintain the cooled-air temperature above about 0°C., and to avoid exposing the air being cooled to temperatures below about 0° C., in order to protect the articles being cooled from frost and/or to prevent frosting of the evaporator coils, which itself may have a negative impact on the overall efficiency of such systems due to the need for defrosting and/or inconsistent cooling across the coils as suggested by ‘398 (Page 2, [0012[).
It is noted that generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. 5 Appeal2017-008153 Application 14/465,917 Cir. 1990) (indicating that in cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 10: The disclosure of ‘547 in view of ‘398 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘398 teaches the refrigerant, wherein said refrigerant has an evaporator glide of less than 3°C (Page 1, [0006]-[0007], Figs. 2-3), and a GWP of less than 150 (Page 2, [0012]; Page 2, [0017]).
Regarding claim 11: The disclosure of ‘547 in view of ‘398 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘547 teaches a heat transfer composition comprising the refrigerant and at least one lubricant (Page 5, [0078]). ‘398 teaches a heat transfer composition comprising the refrigerant and at least one lubricant (Page 6, [0073]).
Regarding claims 12-14: The disclosure of ‘547 in view of ‘398 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘547 teaches the heat transfer composition, wherein said at least one lubricant is selected from POE and PVE (Page 5, [0078]). ‘398 teaches the heat transfer composition, wherein said at least one lubricant is selected from POE and PVE (Page 5, [0073]).
Regarding claims 15-17: The disclosure of ‘547 in view of ‘398 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘547 teaches a heat transfer composition comprising a refrigerant, a heat transfer system comprising a heat transfer composition, and a heat transfer system comprising a compressor, and evaporator and a condenser and containing a refrigerant (Page 1, [0008]; Page 2, [0025]; Page 5, [0086]; Page 6, [0097]). ‘398 teaches a heat transfer composition comprising a refrigerant (Page 6, [0071]), a heat transfer system comprising a heat transfer composition (Page 6, [0071]), and a heat transfer system comprising a compressor, and evaporator and a condenser and containing a refrigerant (Page 8, [0128]; Page 9, [0141]).
Regarding claims 18-20: The disclosure of ‘547 in view of ‘398 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference.’547 teaches a heat transfer system comprising a compressor, and evaporator and a condenser and containing a heat transfer composition, wherein said heat transfer system comprises one or more of an electronic cooling system, low temperature refrigeration, medium temperature refrigeration, cascade refrigeration, transport refrigeration, secondary loop systems, air conditioning, heat pumps and ORC or wherein said heat transfer system is an electronic cooling system, low temperature refrigeration system, medium temperature refrigeration system, transport refrigeration system, heat pump or cascade refrigeration (Page 1, [0008]; Page 2, [0025]; Page 5, [0082]-[0086]). ’398 teaches a heat transfer system comprising a compressor, and evaporator and a condenser and containing a heat transfer composition, wherein said heat transfer system comprises one or more of an electronic cooling system, low temperature refrigeration, medium temperature refrigeration, cascade refrigeration, transport refrigeration, secondary loop systems, air conditioning, heat pumps and ORC or wherein said heat transfer system is an electronic cooling system, low temperature refrigeration system, medium temperature refrigeration system, transport refrigeration system, heat pump or cascade refrigeration (Page 8, [0128[; Page 9, [0129]; Page 9, [0141]).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 10/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive,
In response to the Applicant’s argument that present claims define compositions which at once are able to achieve both a non-flammable refrigerant and a refrigerant having the highly beneficial result of a GWP of less than 300, or even more preferably less than 150, which is an unexpected result. In contrast, despite the very large number of compositions identified in Table 8 by Ohkubo’547, not a single composition in this table achieves this result, and there is no reasonable expectation of successfully creating such a composition, at least in part because the flammability of a composition is not predictable.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection is a combination of Ohkubo’547 in view of Motta’398. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). It is submitted that the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant, In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 91 9 F.2d 688,16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990) cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Also, while there must be motivation to make the claimed invention, there is no requirement that the prior art provide the same reason as the applicant to make the claimed invention, Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300,1302 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993).
Furthermore, it is axiomatic that a reference must be considered in its entirety, and it is well established that the disclosure of a reference is not limited to specific working examples contained therein. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (C.C.P.A. 1982). A reference must be considered for everything it teaches by way of technology. EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907, 225 USPQ 20, 25 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 (1985). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also > Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). In this case, ‘547 teaches a refrigerant (Page 1, [0009]) consisting essentially of or consisting of: (a) 63% by weight of HFO-1234ze(E) (i.e., an amount of 44 to 64% by weight, Page 1, [0016]), (b) 35% by weight of HFC-134a (i.e., an amount of 24 to 44% by weight, Page 1, [0016]), and (c) and a third component such as 2% by weight of HFO-1336mzz (E) in the working Example 8 (Page 7, Table 3, Example 8). ‘547 teaches from the viewpoint of attaining both high COP and non-flammability, the third component is generally contained in an amount of 0.2% by weight or more to 20% by weight or less, preferably 0.2% by weight or more to 16% by weight or less, more preferably 0.2% by weight or more to 8% by weight or less, even more preferably 0.2% by weight or more to 5% by weight or less, and particularly preferably 0.2% by weight or more to 3% by weight or less per 100% by weight of the total amount of HFO-1234ze(E), HFC-134, and the third component (i.e. overlapping ranges). ‘547 does not expressly teach from about 75% to less than 80% by weight of HFO-1234ze(E), preferably from about 75% to less than 79% by weight, more preferably from 75% to 78% by weight, even more preferably about 78% by weight, and (b) from 6% to less than 11% by weight of HFC-134a, preferably from 6% to not greater than 10% by weight, more preferably from 8% to less than 11% by weight, even more preferably 10% +2.0%/-0.5% by weight.
However, ‘398 teaches the refrigerant may comprise: (a) from about 74.6% by weight to about 78.6% by weight of HFO-1234ze(E); (b) from about 17% by weight to about 21% by weight of HFO-1336mzz (E); and (c) from greater than 0% to about 4.4% by weight of HFC-227ea. Preferably, the refrigerant comprises (a) 74.6% by weight to about 78.6% by weight of HFO-1234ze(E); (b) from about 17% by weight to about 19% by weight of HFO-1336mzz (E); and (c) about 4.4% by weight of HFC-227ea (Page 5, [0053]-[0054]) with benefit of providing
that certain blends comprising a carefully selected combination of components can have an advantageous but unexpected combination of non-flammability while at the same time having excellent heat transfer properties, low GWP (e.g. a GWP of less than about 150), low- or no-toxicity, chemical stability, and lubricant compatibility, among others. Furthermore, to provide the refrigerant compositions having a particular advantage for use in medium temperature refrigeration systems, and particularly in medium temperature refrigeration systems in which it is desired to maintain the cooled-air temperature above about 0°C., and to avoid exposing the air being cooled to temperatures below about 0° C, in order to protect the articles being cooled from frost and/or to prevent frosting of the evaporator coils, which itself may have a negative impact on the overall efficiency of such systems due to the need for defrosting and/or inconsistent cooling across the coils (Page 2, [0012[). Thus, ‘398 cures the deficiency in the ‘547’s references relied upon in rejecting independent claim.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that instant composition achieves both a non-flammable refrigerant and a refrigerant having the highly beneficial result of a GWP of less than 300, or even more preferably less than 150.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument lacks persuasive merit at least because the claims do not include language that requires both a non-flammable refrigerant and a refrigerant having the highly beneficial result of a GWP of less than 300, or even more preferably less than 150. Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]pplicant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims.”)
Turning to Applicant’s argument regarding unexpected results, examiner agrees that Applicant’s proffered evidence of the examples of the Specification, is insufficient to establish unexpected results for claim 1. Whether an invention has produced unexpected results is a question of fact. In re Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "[T]here is no hard and-fast rule for determining whether evidence of unexpected results is sufficient to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness." Kao Corp. v. 7 Appeal 2017-004282 Application 13/877,156 Unilever US., Inc., 441 F.3d 963, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93 (Fed. Cir.1990) ("[e]ach situation must be considered on its own facts."). However, a party asserting unexpected results as evidence of nonobviousness has the burden of proving that the results are unexpected. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-70 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Such burden requires Applicant to proffer factual evidence that actually shows unexpected results relative to the closest prior art, see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and that is reasonably commensurate in scope with the protection sought by claim 1, In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Hyson, 453 F.2d 764, 786 (CCPA 1972). "[I]t is not enough to show that results are obtained which differ from those obtained in the prior art: that difference must be shown to be an unexpected difference." In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972). The extent of the showing relied upon by Applicant also must reasonably support the entire scope of the claims at issue. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The applicant asserted by filing Petition to Suspend dated 10/06/2025, that Applicant was planning to carry out the test and/or evaluation work needed to provide this additional data of unexpected results, and that the requested suspension period would be required in order to complete and report on such test work and to therefore to be fully responsive to the office action. However, Applicant fails to provide any additional data of unexpected results, let alone the required side-by-side comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims, accompanied by an explanation of why the results would have been unexpected by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Freeman, 474 F.2d
1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972) ("the burden of showing unexpected results rests on he who asserts them"); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470
(Fed. Cir. 1997).
The applicant is invited to submit any declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 to overcome the rejection based upon reference applied under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as set forth in this Office action to compare their invention product (i.e., a refrigerant composition) and show the product is actually different from and unexpectedly better than the teachings of the references. The declaration should include a description of precisely what was tested. It must include both the invention as claimed, and the closest prior art. A description of all of the test conditions such as test results should be clearly indicated. The results must include both the results of the test performed on the invention as claimed, and the results of the test performed on the closest prior art, an analysis of the test results. Furthermore, the comparison must be under the substantially the same conditions except for the novel features of the invention, and precisely what was done should be recited in the declaration, e.g., the actual steps carried out, the materials employed, and the results obtained should be spelled out. Nothing concerning the work relied upon should be left to conjecture. It is noted that the burden is on the applicant to establish that the results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, and of statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b). See also Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992), and such a showing also must be commensurate with the scope of the claimed invention, i.e., must bear a reasonable correlation to the scope of the claimed invention.
10. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Examiner Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. 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.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
05/14/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights