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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed August 13, 2025. The following rejections are reapplied in light off current amendments:
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10 & 12-22 is/are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP2017073356.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP2017073356 in view of Baek et al. KR 20190133914.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP2017073356 in view of Ueyama et al. US Pat. 9,929,412.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP2017073356 in view of Dobrovolskii et al. RU Pat. 2012148408.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP2017073356 in view of Chokai et al. US Pat. 9,692,060.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP2017073356 in view of Tanaka et al. JP Pat. 2007206055.
Claims 1-19 & newly added claims 23-25 are rejected with references reapplied in light of current amendments as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10, 12-22 & 23-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP2017073356.
With respect to claim 1, Kaneko teaches a catalyst composition (Abstract), comprising: electrically conductive support particles (carbon carrier, Abstract); and metal catalyst particles attached to the electrically conductive support particles (catalyst metal supported in the pores of the carbon carrier; Abstract); and an ionomer in direct contact with the metal catalyst particles (the catalyst is coated with the ionomer in this embodiment; Page 6 of the NPL, 4th full paragraph down). With respect to claim 5, the metal catalyst particles have a loading in catalyst composition of about 10-80% by mass fraction (loading ratio of 10-80%; Description, paragraph 25). With respect to claim 13, the metal catalyst particles comprise at least about 90% atomic of a metal selected from the group consisting of gold, platinum, rhenium, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, silver, osmium, and iridium (catalyst metal may individually be Pt, Rh, palladium, osmium, ruthenium, rhenium gold or silver, and thus 100%; Description, paragraph 23). With respect to claim 14, the metal catalyst particles comprise gold metal (catalyst metal may individually be gold; Description, paragraph 23). With respect to claim 15, the metal catalyst particles comprise about 200 ppm or less of boron or one or more alkali metals (catalyst may be platinum or a platinum-containing alloy and thus, it may be 100% platinum; Description, paragraph 23). With respect to claim 16, the metal catalyst particles comprise about 20 ppm or less of any transition metal (catalyst may be platinum or a platinum-containing alloy and thus, it may be 100% platinum; Description, paragraph 23). With respect to claim 17, the electrically conductive support particles comprise carbon (carbon carrier; Abstract). With respect to claim 18, the electrically conductive support particles comprise an amorphous carbon (activated carbon, which is amorphous graphite, Description, paragraph 22). With respect to claim 19, the electrically conductive support particles comprise carbon black (carbon black, which is amorphous graphite, Description, paragraph 22). With respect to claim 20, a cathode catalyst layer comprising: an ionomer; and the catalyst composition (ionomer, Description, paragraph 3). With respect to claim 21, the ionomer is an anion conducting polymer (See ionomer structures 1 and 2a membrane electrode assembly comprising the catalyst layer (Section). With respect to claim 22, titled membrane electrode assemblies for fuel cells). With respect to claim 22, the metal catalyst particles are coated with the ionomer (the catalyst is coated with the ionomer in this embodiment; Page 6 of the NPL, 4th full paragraph down). With respect to claim 25, A membrane electrode assembly (See Background paragraph).
Although Kaneko teaches that the metal catalyst particles have a mean diameter of about 2 to 5 nm; Description, paragraph 24, the reference does not teach with sufficient specificity that the metal catalyst particles has a mean diameter of about 2 to 100nm (claim 1); the electrically conductive support particles have a mean diameter of about 10 to 100 nm (claim 10); electrically conductive support particles have a surface area to volume of about 20 to 2000 cm3/ 100g (claim 12); at least about 50% of the metal catalyst particles are in direct contact with the ionomer (claim 24).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the metal catalyst particles having a mean diameter of about 2 to 100nm, in the catalyst of Kaneko, in order to increase specific surface area and durability reduction due to elution. Kaneko teaches a mean diameter of about 2 to 5nm;overlapping with the claimed range. See Description at par. 24. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the electrically conductive support particles having a mean diameter of about 10 to 100 nm (claim 10), it would have been obvious in the catalyst of Kaneko, in order to increase specific surface area and durability reduction due to elution. Kanko teaches the conductive support particle size can be 200nm or less; overlapping with the claimed range. Description, paragraph 16. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the electrically conductive support particles having a surface area to volume of about 20 to 2000 cm3/ 100g (claim 12); it would have been obvious in the catalyst of Kaneko, in order to increase specific surface area and durability reduction due to elution. Kanko teaches the conductive support particle size can be 200nm or less. Description, paragraph 16. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to the at least about 50% of the metal catalyst particles are in direct contact with the ionomer (claim 24); it would have been obvious in the catalyst of Kaneko, in order to increase specific surface area to ionomer ratio. Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP2017073356 in view of Baek et al. KR 20190133914.
Kaneko teaches a catalyst composition described in the rejection recited hereinabove, including (Abstract): electrically conductive support particles (carbon carrier, Abstract); and metal catalyst particles attached to the electrically conductive support particles (catalyst metal supported in the pores of the carbon carrier; Abstract).
However, Kaneko does not teach or suggest: the metal catalyst particles have a particle size dispersity of at most about 200% (claim 2); the metal catalyst particles have a particle size dispersity of at most about 15% (claim 3); at least some of the metal catalyst particles attached to the conductive support particles have nearest neighbor metal catalyst particles on the respective conductive support particles to which they are attached, and wherein a spacing between the nearest neighbor metal catalyst particles has a dispersity of about 50% or less (claim 4).
Baek teaches that it is well known in the art to have a metal dispersion in the catalyst of 5% and 38.35%. (See Table 2; claims 2-4).
Kaneko and Baek are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating platinum catalysts with carbon supports.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the metal catalyst particles having a t a particle size dispersity of at most about 200%, as suggested by Baek, in the catalyst composting of Kaneko, in order to improve the recovery rate. Baek teaches that the metal catalyst dispersion may be 5% and 38.35%; overlapping with the claimed range. See Table 2; claims 2-4. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to at least some of the metal catalyst particles attached to the conductive support particles have nearest neighbor metal catalyst particles on the respective conductive support particles to which they are attached (claim 4); it would have been obvious in the catalyst composition of Kaneko in view Baek, as Kaneko teaches the conductive support particle size can be 200nm or less. Description, paragraph 16. Such nanometer size supports would reasonably have metal catalyst particles that touch their nearest neighbor in order to rest on said support.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP2017073356 in view of Ueyama et al. US Pat. 9,929,412.
Kaneko teaches a catalyst composition described in the rejection recited hereinabove, including (Abstract): electrically conductive support particles (carbon carrier, Abstract); and metal catalyst particles attached to the electrically conductive support particles (catalyst metal supported in the pores of the carbon carrier; Abstract).
However, Kaneko does not teach or suggest: at least about 80% of electrically conductive particles are attached to the metal catalyst particles (claim 6); at least about 95% of the metal catalyst particles are attached to the electrically conductive support particles (claim 7).
Ueyama teaches that it is well known in the art to employ at least about 80% of electrically conductive particles are attached to the metal catalyst particles (a percentage of the platinum present in a portion from a surface of the carbon powder support to a depth of 10 nm to a total amount of the platinum supported on the carbon powder support is equal to or greater than 70%; therefore, at least 70% are attached; SEE teaching claim 4; claim 6); at least about 95% of the metal catalyst particles are attached to the electrically conductive support particles (a percentage of the platinum present in a portion from a surface of the carbon powder support to a depth of 10 nm to a total amount of the platinum supported on the carbon powder support is equal to or greater than 70%; therefore, at least 70% are attached; SEE teaching claim 4;claim 7)
Kaneko and Ueyama are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating platinum catalysts with carbon supports.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the metal catalyst particles having at least about 80% of electrically conductive particles attached to the metal catalyst particles as taught by Ueyama, in the catalyst composition of Kaneko, for structural integrity of the catalyst to the support. The skilled artisan recognizes that the catalyst and support must be stability connected in harsh electrochemical environments. Ueyama teaches a percentage of the platinum present in a portion from a surface of the carbon powder support to a depth of 10 nm to a total amount of the platinum supported on the carbon powder support is equal to or greater than 70%; therefore, at least 70% are attached; SEE teaching claim 4. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP2017073356 in view of Dobrovolskii et al. RU Pat. 2012148408.
Kaneko teaches a catalyst composition described in the rejection recited hereinabove, including (Abstract): electrically conductive support particles (carbon carrier, See Abstract); and metal catalyst particles attached to the electrically conductive support particles (catalyst metal supported in the pores of the carbon carrier; Abstract).
However, Kaneko does not teach or suggest: at least about 50% of the metal catalyst particles are single crystal particles (claim 8).
Dobrovolskii teaches that it is well known in the art to employ a platinum catalyst with single crystal particles at least about 50% of the metal catalyst particles are single crystal particles (a portion of the catalyst is single crystalline particles; See the abstract; claim 8).
Kaneko and Dobrovolskii are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating platinum catalysts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the metal catalyst particles contain single crystal particles as suggested by Dobrovolskii, in the catalyst composition of Kaneko, in order to enhance mechanical strength of the catalyst. The skilled artisan recognizes that the catalyst and support must be stability connected in harsh electrochemical environments. With respect to at least about 50% of the particles being single crystal particles, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP2017073356 in view of Chokai et al. US Pat. 9,692,060.
Kaneko teaches a catalyst composition described in the rejection recited hereinabove, including (Abstract): electrically conductive support particles (carbon carrier, Abstract); and metal catalyst particles attached to the electrically conductive support particles (catalyst metal supported in the pores of the carbon carrier; Abstract).
However, Kaneko does not teach or suggest: at least about 85% of metal catalyst particles in the composition have a sphericity of at least about 90%; (claim 9).
Chokai teaches that it is well known for catalyst to have a sphericity of 0.65 or more (the teaching is silent to what percent must have this sphericity, and thus suggest 100% of the particles satisfy said sphericity; See paragraph 22; claim 9). The sphericity results in improved dispersion. See paragraph 20.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ at least about 85% of metal catalyst particles in the composition have a sphericity of at least about 90% of Chokai, in the catalyst composition of Kaneko, in order to improve dispersion. With respect to at least 90%, Chokai teaches at least 65% (0.65), which is an overlapping range. See paragraph 22. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. JP2017073356 in view of Tanaka et al. JP Pat. 2007206055.
Kaneko teaches a catalyst composition described in the rejection recited hereinabove, including (Abstract): electrically conductive support particles (carbon carrier, Abstract); and metal catalyst particles attached to the electrically conductive support particles (catalyst metal supported in the pores of the carbon carrier; Abstract).
However, Kaneko does not teach or suggest: the electrically conductive support particles have a porosity of about 10% to 80% (claim 11).
Tanaka teaches that it is well known in the art to employ catalyst porosity of about 10% to 80% (15 to 50 %; 20 paragraphs above Example 1; claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ catalyst porosity of about 10% to 80% of Tanaka, in the catalyst composition of Kaneko, in order to improve adhesion. Tanaka teaches at least 15 to 50 %, 20 paragraphs above Example 1, which is an overlapping range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, "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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant assrts that the instant claims are not obvious over Kaneko et al. JP2017073356, because:
Kaneko is directed to a fuel cell catalyst layer and appears to be focused on minimizing
contact between the catalyst particles and the ionomer. The reason for wanting to avoid
this contact is stated in at least paragraphs [0020]-[0023]. [0030], and [0033]. In short,
Kaneko states that ionomers have a general tendency to adhere to catalyst surfaces
and poison their catalytic activity and such contact should thus be avoided.
The argument is not persuasive Kaneko as teaches an embodiment where the catalyst
directly contacts the ionomer. Specifically, the catalyst is coated with the ionomer in this
embodiment; Page 6 of the NPL, 4th full paragraph down. It appears that the catalyst
being loaded is not only in the pore and it ids reasonably to expect contact between the
catalyst on the carbon surface, and the ionomer coating. Furthermore, the ionomer is
added to the catalyst mixture and then centrifuged. See Page 9 “Manufacture of
membrane electrode assemblies section. Thus, it is reasonable to expect some contact.
Therefore, the rejections have been reapplied in light of current amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723