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 .
Comments
This is a second Non-Final replaces the previous Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 12, 2025, because the examiner rejects the term “low-melting glass” inappropriately under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “the plugged honeycomb filter body” and “the filter body” are interchangeably used in claims 1, 3–5, 8, 11, 14. The examiner encourages the applicant to use the term consistently to avoid unnecessary confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The instant disclosure only has supports for “low melting glass”, the instant disclosure does not have support for high melting glass and glass comprising low melting glass and high melting glass.
It is also noted that the examiner previously rejected the term “low melting glass” as being indefinite, the examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection because the instant disclosure discloses an example of low melting glass composition (~ 430 °C), and therefore, the term “low melting glass” is interpreted as being definite because the applicant provides some degree of clarification for the term “low melting”. The examiner suggests the applicant to put the term “low melting” back to the limitation to overcome the 112(a) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
The claims are rejected as follows:
Claims 1, 3–7, 9–10 and 15–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beall et al., US 2020/0353401 A1 (“Beall”) in view of Backhaus-Ricoult et al., US 2012/0297830 A1 (“Backhaus-Ricoult”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Beall discloses that a filtration article comprising:
a plugged honeycomb filter body (Beall’s honeycomb body 300 in the form of a particulate filter 300, which is plugged with plugs 312, Beall Fig. 17, [0058]–[0059]),
deposits of inorganic particles within the plugged honeycomb filter body (Beall discloses as particles 225 forming layer 220, Beall discloses its layer 220 could be a thin highly porous layer comprising a porous inorganic layer, Beall Figs. 2, [0010] and [0062]), the deposits having a porosity in a range of greater than 95% to less than or equal to 99.9% (Beall discloses its porous inorganic layer having a porosity greater than 90%, overlapping the claimed range) and an average thickness in a range of greater than or equal to 0.5 µm to less than or equal to 200 µm (Beall discloses a thickness of greater than 0.5 micron and less or equal to 10 microns, falls within the claimed range, Beall [0011]);
at least some of the inorganic particles being fused to each other or to the filter body (Beall discloses its filtrate material deposits are fused to the porous ceramic base wall, Beall Fig. 2, % as measured by a liquid phase [0044]).
Beall discloses that the filtration article has a clean filtration efficiency of greater than or equal to 80% (Beall discloses a filtration efficiency of greater or equals to 80%, overlapping the claimed range, Beall [0071]).
Beall does not disclose the claimed filtration efficiency is measured by a liquid phase aerosol filtration efficiency test, and a decrease of filtration efficiency after a water flush regeneration of less than 10% measured by the liquid phase aerosol filtration efficiency test.
However, since the current applicant is directed to a filtration article, the method of measuring filtration efficiency is not given patentable weight unless the applicant could prove that the claimed filtration method shows significant or unexpected results. Beall discloses the claimed filtration efficiency range. Beall also discloses that a regeneration of the honeycomb body could remove all or sustainably all ash and/or soot, and Beall treats a new honeycomb body and a honeycomb body undergone regeneration as examples of honeycombs has no or substantially no accumulation of ash. Beall [0004]. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to understand that Beall’s regenerated honeycomb body would have a similar filtration efficiency compared to a new honeycomb body, and therefore Beall discloses filtration efficiency after regeneration with little or no degradation, which gives a 0% decrease and falls within the claimed range. While Beall does not disclose the claimed testing method and regeneration method, Beall discloses the claimed filtration efficiency range, and Beall discloses the claimed honeycomb structure. Unless the applicant proves that the claimed testing methods shows unexpected results, Beall read on the claimed limitation.
Beall does not disclose its inorganic particles comprising glass.
Similar to Beall, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses a honeycomb structure comprises inorganic particles. Backhaus-Ricoult [0025]. Backhaus-Ricoult discloses its inorganic particles comprises low melting glass, which promotes the sintering and disappearance of small pores, which results in a narrower pore size distribution and a larger medium pore size. Backhaus-Ricoult [0120]. Since Beall’s honeycomb also requires sintering, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to include Backhaus-Ricoult’s low melt glass that promote sintering. Additionally, low melt glass is a known inorganic additive that can be added to honeycomb structure as shown by Backhaus-Ricoult.
Regarding claim 3:
Modified Beall discloses that the filtration article of claim 1, wherein the filter body is comprised of cordierite, aluminum titanate, enstatite, mullite, forsterite, corundum, spinel, sapphirine, and periclase, or combinations thereof. (Beall discloses s cordierite). Beall [0047].
Regarding claim 4:
Modified Beall discloses that the filtration article of claim 1, wherein the filter body is comprised of cordierite. Beall [0047].
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Beall discloses that the filtration article of claim 1, wherein the at least some of the inorganic particles are fused to each other and/or to the filter body by one or more of (1) inorganic fusion bonding between at least some of the inorganic particles by fusion bonds formed by low-melting inorganic particles constituting at least some of the inorganic particles, (2) inorganic chemical bonding between at least some of the inorganic particles by chemical bonds formed by inorganic particles capable of chemical bonding constituting at least some of the inorganic particles, and (3) organic fusion bonds or organic chemical bonds between inorganic particles with the bonds formed by an organic coating on inorganic particles constituting at least some of the inorganic particles. (Beall discloses chemically bound in [0044].)
Regarding claim 6:
Modified Beall discloses the filtration article of claim 5 wherein the inorganic particles comprise particles of glass (see discussion in claim 1) and other inorganic particles (Beall discloses inorganic particles of Mullite, Beall [0073]).
Regarding claim 7:
Modified Beall discloses that the filtration article of claim 6 wherein the other inorganic particles comprise mineral particles (Beall discloses Mullite as an inorganic particle, Mullite is a mineral particle). Beall [0073].
Regarding claim 9:
Modified Beall discloses that the filtration article of claim 5 wherein the inorganic particles comprise particles of cement and other inorganic particles (Beall discloses a plurality of inorganic materials as listed in [0080], including calcium aluminates, which is cement). Beall [0080].
Regarding claim 10:
Modified Beall discloses that the filtration article of claim 9 wherein the other inorganic particles comprise mineral particles (Beall discloses inorganic particles comprising mullite, which is a mineral). Beall [0073].
Regarding claim 15:
Modified Beall discloses that the filtration article of claim 1, wherein the deposits disposed within the plugged honeycomb filter body are present at a loading of greater than 0.05 and less than or equal to 20 grams of the deposits per liter of the plugged honeycomb filter body (Beall discloses a layer loading in the range of 0.1 to 30 g/L on the honeycomb filter, which overlaps with the claimed range). Beall [0070].
Regarding claim 16:
Modified Beall discloses that the filtration article of claim 1, wherein the inorganic particles comprise one or more of low melting glass particles, cement particles, binder-coated mineral particcles, or combinations thereof (Beall discloses its inorganic particles comprising calcium aluminates, which is cement particles). Beall [0080].
Regarding claim 17:
Modified Beall discloses that the filtration article of claim 16, wherein the binder-coated mineral particles comprise one or more of calcium carbonate, kaoline, wollastonite, talcum powder, mica powder, silica powder, brucite powder, pyrophyllite, coal ash, dolomite, sepiolite, or combinations thereof (Beall at least discloses calcium carbonate, and silica powder of SiO2). Beall [0080].
Regarding claim 18:
Modified Beall discloses that the filtration article of claim 1, wherein the inorganic particles have a D50 particle size distribution in the range of from 50 to 500 nm (Beall discloses an average particles size of alumina from greater than or equal to 100 nm to less than or equal to 3 microns, which overlaps with the claimed range.) Beall [0076].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beall in view of Jiang et al., US 2009/0110873 A1 (“Jiang”).
Regarding claim 8:
Beall discloses a filtration article (as shown in Beall Fig. 3, [0086]) comprising:
a plugged honeycomb filter body (Beall’s honeycomb body 300 in the form of a particulate filter 300, which is plugged with plugs 312, Beall Fig. 17, [0058]–[0059]);
deposits of inorganic particles within the plugged honeycomb filter body (Beall discloses as particles 225 forming layer 220, Beall discloses its layer 220 could be a thin highly porous layer comprising a porous inorganic layer, Beall Figs. 2, [0010] and [0062]),
the deposits having a porosity in a range of greater than 95% to less than or equal to 99.9% (Beall discloses its porous inorganic layer having a porosity greater than 90%, overlapping the claimed range, Beall Fig. 2, [0010]) and an average thickness in a range of greater than or equal to 0.5 um to less than or equal to 200 µm (Beall discloses a thickness of greater than 0.5 micron and less or equal to 10 microns, falls within the claimed range, Beall [0011]).
Beall does not disclose that the inorganic particles consist essentially of particles of glass.
In the analogous art of honeycomb structure comprising inorganic layers, Jiang discloses a porous inorganic intermediate layer 16 coating the inner channel surfaces of the inorganic porous support 2, Jiang Fig. 2B, [0089]. Jiang discloses its intermediate layer 16 can be made of glasses, Jiang Fig. 2B, [0054]. Jiang discloses its inorganic intermediate layer can be used to alter the chemical, physical, or other properties of the surface in addition to decrease the number and/or size of any gaps, pinholes, or other breaks in the polymeric amine-containing membrane coating, Jiang Fig. 2B, [0053]. It would therefore have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for Beall’s inorganic particle layer to be made of glass because Jiang discloses glass as being a suitable to be used to form inorganic layer on the inner channel of a honeycomb structure, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to choose glass based on availability and cost considerations. A person of ordinary skill in the art would also be motivated to use a single composition for ease of forming homogeneous mixture. With such modification, Beall would have an inorganic layer consist essentially of particles of glass.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beall in view of Backhaus-Ricoult, as evidenced by Liu et al., US 2021/0205750 A1 (“Liu”).
Regarding Claim 11:
It is noted here that the examiner points out that the term “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. MPEP 2111.03(III). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” Id. Here, the examiner points out that claim 11 recites that the inorganic material comprising of glass and then require the inorganic particles consisting essentially of particles of cement, the examiner therefore interprets the term “consisting essentially of” as “comprising of” because the applicant admitted in its claim that the its inorganic material could comprise glass when “consisting essentially of” cement.
Beall discloses that a filtration article (as shown in Beall Fig. 3, [0086]) comprising:
a plugged honeycomb filter body (Beall’s honeycomb body 300 in the form of a particulate filter 300, which is plugged with plugs 312, Beall Fig. 17, [0058]–[0059]);
deposits of inorganic particles within the plugged honeycomb filter body (Beall discloses as particles 225 forming layer 220, Beall discloses its layer 220 could be a thin highly porous layer comprising a porous inorganic layer, Beall Figs. 2, [0010] and [0062]),
the deposits having a porosity in a range of greater than 95% to less than or equal to 99.9% (Beall discloses its porous inorganic layer having a porosity greater than 90%, overlapping the claimed range, Beall Fig. 2, [0010]) and an average thickness in a range of greater than or equal to 0.5 um to less than or equal to 200 µm (Beall discloses a thickness of greater than 0.5 micron and less or equal to 10 microns, falls within the claimed range, Beall [0011]);
and at least some of the inorganic particles being fused to each other or to the filter body (Beall discloses its filtrate material deposits are fused to the porous ceramic base wall, Beall Fig. 2, [0044]).
While Beall does not explicitly disclose that the inorganic particles consist essentially of particles of inorganic particles coated with an inorganic binder, Beall discloses calcium aluminates could be a material forming the inorganic layer, Beall [0080]. Calcium aluminates is a specialized hydraulic cement, as evidenced by Liu [0130]. Beall discloses its layer that coat a portion of the wall can be selected from the group consisting of CaO, Ca(OH).sub.2, CaCO.sub.3, MgO, Mg(OH).sub.2, MgCO.sub.3, SiO.sub.2. Al.sub.2O.sub.3, Al(OH).sub.3, calcium aluminates, magnesium aluminates, and mixtures thereof, Beall [0080]. It is thus understood that Beall includes an embodiment where the coating layer on its honeycomb structure is made of calcium aluminates, which is cement, and therefore read on the term “consisting essentially of.”
Beall does not disclose its inorganic particles comprising glass.
Similar to Beall, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses a honeycomb structure comprises inorganic particles. Backhaus-Ricoult [0025]. Backhaus-Ricoult discloses its inorganic particles comprises low melting glass, which promotes the sintering and disappearance of small pores, which results in a narrower pore size distribution and a larger medium pore size. Backhaus-Ricoult [0120]. Since Beall’s honeycomb also requires sintering, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to include Backhaus-Ricoult’s low melt glass that promote sintering. Additionally, low melt glass is a known inorganic additive that can be added to honeycomb structure as shown by Backhaus-Ricoult.
Claims 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beall in view of Backhaus-Ricoult, and in further view of Drury et al., US 2016/0121272 A1 (“Drury”).
Regarding claim 12:
Modified Beall does disclose that the filtration article of claim 5, wherein the inorganic particles comprise inorganic particles coated with an inorganic binder and other inorganic particles.
Similar to Beall, Drury discloses a honeycomb structure comprising inorganic particles of SiC. Beall [0073] and Drury [0066]. Drury discloses an inorganic binder to co-coat the SiC when the inorganic particles are larger than 1 micron. Drury [0066]. Since Beall’s inorganic particles are less than or equal to 3 microns, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to include Drury’s inorganic binder to co-coat the SiC particles with a diameter larger than 1 micron because Drury disclose for SiC particles larger than 1-micron, inorganic binder coating are needed. For particles smaller than 1micorns, such coating is not necessary and therefore the modification would read on claim 12.
Regarding claim 13:
Modified Beall discloses that the filtration article of claim 12, wherein the other inorganic particles comprise mineral particles (as discussed in claim 12, SiC smaller than 1 micron read on the claimed “the other inorganic particles” and SiC are mineral particles). Beall [0073] and Drury [0066].
Regarding claim 14:
Beall discloses that a filtration article (as shown in Beall Fig. 3, [0086]) comprising:
a plugged honeycomb filter body (Beall’s honeycomb body 300 in the form of a particulate filter 300, which is plugged with plugs 312, Beall Fig. 17, [0058]–[0059]);
deposits of inorganic particles within the plugged honeycomb filter body (Beall discloses as particles 225 forming layer 220, Beall discloses its layer 220 could be a thin highly porous layer comprising a porous inorganic layer, Beall Figs. 2, [0010] and [0062]),
the deposits having a porosity in a range of greater than 95% to less than or equal to 99.9% (Beall discloses its porous inorganic layer having a porosity greater than 90%, overlapping the claimed range, Beall Fig. 2, [0010]) and an average thickness in a range of greater than or equal to 0.5 um to less than or equal to 200 µm (Beall discloses a thickness of greater than 0.5 micron and less or equal to 10 microns, falls within the claimed range, Beall [0011]);
and at least some of the inorganic particles being fused to each other or to the filter body (Beall discloses its filtrate material deposits are fused to the porous ceramic base wall, Beall Fig. 2, [0044]).
Beall does not disclose its inorganic particles comprising glass.
Similar to Beall, Backhaus-Ricoult discloses a honeycomb structure comprises inorganic particles. Backhaus-Ricoult [0025]. Backhaus-Ricoult discloses its inorganic particles comprises low melting glass, which promotes the sintering and disappearance of small pores, which results in a narrower pore size distribution and a larger medium pore size. Backhaus-Ricoult [0120]. Since Beall’s honeycomb also requires sintering, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to include Backhaus-Ricoult’s low melt glass that promote sintering. Additionally, low melt glass is a known inorganic additive that can be added to honeycomb structure as shown by Backhaus-Ricoult.
Beall does not disclose that the inorganic particles consist essentially of inorganic particles coated with an inorganic binder.
Similar to Beall, Drury discloses a honeycomb structure comprising inorganic particles of SiC. Beall [0073] and Drury [0066]. Drury discloses an inorganic binder to co-coat the SiC when the inorganic particles are larger than 1 micron. Drury [0066]. Since Beall’s inorganic particles are less than or equal to 3 microns, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to include Drury’s inorganic binder to co-coat the SiC particles with a diameter larger than 1 micron because Drury disclose for SiC particles larger than 1 micron, inorganic binder coating are needed.
Response to Arguments
Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant claims claim 8, 11 and 14 should be allowable because they are now written in independent form, Applicant Rem. dated Dec. 04, 2025 (“Applicant Rem.”) p. 7.
The examiner does not agree. First of all, the original claims 8, 11 and 14 depends on claim 5 and then claim 1, the current independent claim 8, and 11, 14 only includes claim 1 without including intervening claim 5. Additionally, claim 11 and claim 14 recites a limitation of “deposits of organic particles comprising of glass” and then inorganic particles consist essentially of “particles of cement” or “inorganic particles coated with an inorganic binder”, since the applicant admits its inorganic particles could include glass, in addition to the “essential” composition, the examiner is interpreting the term “consisting essentially of” as “comprising of” and such interpretation rendering the current independent claims 8, 11, 14 not allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The examiner withdraws the current 112(b) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
The examiner withdraws the current rejection because the applicant amends the claims to overcome the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The applicant includes claim 2 into claim 1 and argues that Beall does not disclose applicant’s regeneration method or the specific testing method, Applicant Rem. dated Dec. 04, 2025 (“Applicant Rem.”) p. 8.
The examiner does not agree, as stated in the rejection section above: the current applicant is directed to a filtration article, the method of measuring filtration efficiency is not given patentable weight unless the applicant could prove that the claimed filtration method shows significant or unexpected results. Beall discloses the claimed filtration efficiency range. Beall also discloses that a regeneration of the honeycomb body could remove all or sustainably all ash and/or soot, and Beall treats a new honeycomb body and a honeycomb body undergone regeneration as examples of honeycombs has no or substantially no accumulation of ash. Beall [0004]. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of filing to understand that Beall’s regenerated honeycomb body would have a similar filtration efficiency compared to a new honeycomb body, and therefore Beall discloses filtration efficiency after regeneration with little or no degradation, which gives a 0% decrease and falls within the claimed range. While Beall does not disclose the claimed testing method and regeneration method, Beall discloses the claimed filtration efficiency range, and Beall discloses the claimed honeycomb structure. Unless the applicant proves that the claimed testing methods shows unexpected results, Beall read on the claimed limitation.
The applicant also argues that Beall does not disclose or suggest that the filter has any problems with either sintering, microcracking or pore size distribution and therefore would not be motivated to include low melting glass to the composition, Applicant Rem. p. 8.
The examiner does not agree. Beall discloses its honeycomb body comprising sintering the inorganic layer precursor, and therefore one ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to promote sintering, and Backhaus-Ricoult discloses its inorganic particles comprises low melting glass, which promotes the sintering. Additionally, as a filtering structure, one ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look into pore size distribution and microcracking because they affect filtration efficiency. In fact, Beall discusses controlling pore size distribution, Beall [0052].
The applicant argues that Beall discloses that a honeycomb may comprise many various types of inorganic particles, and so that SiC is just one possible inorganic particles, and some of the embodiments may not even contain SiC, Applicant Rem. p. 9. The applicant also argues that Beall does not suggest a size of SiC, Id. The applicant further argues that even if SiC is Beall’s inorganic particles, they might have a size less than 1 micron in diameter, and therefore, one would not be motivated to modify Beall as suggested in the rejection of claim 12, Id.
The examiner does not agree. Beall clearly discloses SiC as one of the candidates of its inorganic particles, and Beall also discloses its inorganic particles has a mean particle size of less than or equal to 3 microns, Beall [0160] and [0052]. Beall therefore clearly discloses an embodiment with SiC inorganic particles with a size bigger than 1 micron in diameter and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look into Drury for a modification. Applicant’s statement of may not include SiC or might have a size less than 1 micron in diameter are solely based on applicant’s assumption rather than what is disclosed in the prior art, and therefore are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. 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.
/Qianping He/Examiner, Art Unit 1776