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 .
Notes
All the objections and rejections in the previous Office Action not reiterated herein have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-17, 20-23 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "an inlet pipe with the inlet valve" in line 4, and “an inlet valve installed on the inlet pipe” in lines 5-6. It is therefore unclear how many valves are required to be coupled to the inlet pipe. Further clarification is requested and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "an inlet valve for the bubbles" in lines 3-4, and “an inlet valve for the bubbles” in line 13. It is therefore unclear how many inlet valves for the bubbles are required by the claim. Further clarification is requested and appropriate correction is required. Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as claim 14. Claims 15-17, 21-23 and 25-28 are included in this rejection by virtue of their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 14-15, 23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. (already of record, US 2012/0048801; hereinafter “Hong”), Zhang et al. (already of record, CN 113862134-A; with English machine translation; hereinafter “Zhang”) and ‘580 (already of record, WO 2023/163580-A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hong discloses apparatus for recycling organic residues, comprising a treatment tank (FIG. 2: bioreactor 110; [0019]), a vacuum pump configured to produce a negative pressure in the treatment tank (bigas in headspace (16) is coupled to a suction pump; [0016], [0019]), a bubbler (biogas from headspace is introduced into a bottom of the treatment tank to provide bubbles at the bottom the treatment tank and thus intrinsically includes a bubbler; [0019]) and an inlet valve (FIG. 2: valve 38), an inlet pipe of the treatment tank for admission of a fluidic mixture at a first distance from a lower part of the treatment tank (FIG. 2: feed line (18)), an inlet valve installed on a the inlet pipe (valve (40); [0020]), a valve being connected to a vent pipe, on which is installed a first vent valve (vent line (34) coupled to calve (36); [0018]), the first vent valve controlling opening and closing of the vent pipe ([0018]), a suction pipe installed on an upper part of the treatment tank connecting to an interior of the treatment tank (gas sparging line (30); [0019]), the first vent valve being located at a second distance from the lower part of the treatment tank, the first distance being smaller than the second distance (FIG. 2). Hong does not explicitly disclose an inlet valve coupled to the vacuum pump. Zhang discloses an apparatus comprising a treatment tank (FIG. 1: tank 1), a vacuum pump (25), a circulation pipe (suction pipe 18) and a valve (23) coupled to the vacuum pump. In view of Zhang, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the valve of Zhang with the pump of Hong to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of controlling gas flow into the treatment tank as disclosed by Zhang. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because employing valves with pipes of a treatment tank is well-known in the art and well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Modified Hong further discloses wherein the bubbler comprises a primary tube attached to an inner wall of the treatment tank, the primary tube connected to the second inlet valve (Hong at FIG. 2: bubbler is coupled to a tube within the treatment tank). Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose a connection tube and secondary tubes; the connection tube connecting an inside of the primary tube to an inlet valve for the bubbles; the secondary tubes being evenly distributed around a circle, in a low position relative to the primary tube; the secondary tubes being arranged vertically on a lower side wall of the primary tube and connected to an interior of the primary tube, each secondary tube comprising on a lower part thereof a nozzle connected to an interior of a respective secondary tube from which the bubbles are produced and injected through the mixture. ‘580 discloses a treatment tank comprising a bubbler having a primary tube (FIG. 11: tubular sections (37); [0073], [0075]), a connection tube connects an inside of the primary tube (FIGS.1 and 12), a secondary tubes evenly distributed around a circle, in a low position relative to the primary tube (FIG. 12: 46; [0073], [0075]); the secondary tubes are arranged vertically on a lower side wall of the primary tube and are connected to the interior of the primary tube (FIGS. 1 and 12; [0073], [0075]), each secondary tube comprising on a lower part thereof a nozzle connected to an interior of a respective secondary tube from which the bubbles are produced and injected through the mixture (diffuser ducts (47); [0076]). In view of ‘580, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the bubbler of modified Hong with the bubbler of ‘580 to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have been the simple substitution of one known bubbler for another for the predictable result of sparging gases into the treatment tank. Furthermore, it is noted that the recitation of functional language "e.g., for admission of a fluidic mixture at a first distance from a lower part of the treatment tank" is drawn to intended use of the claimed invention. It is noted that a recitation directed to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art, if the prior art has the capability to so perform. Apparatus claims must distinguish from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). The prior art discloses all of the structural features of the claimed apparatus and thus since the structure is the same, the claimed functions are apparent.
Regarding claim 15, modified Hong discloses the apparatus according to claim 14 as set forth above. Modified wherein the vacuum pump includes a first inlet and an exhaust outlet (see FIG. 2: pump includes an inlet and an outlet), the first inlet of the vacuum pump being connected to a suction inlet through the suction pipe (gas sparing line (30) is coupled to an inlet of the pump; see FIG. 2). Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose the suction pipe being equipped with an inlet valve, the suction pipe inlet valve controlling opening and closing of the suction pipe, respectively causing connection and disconnection of the first inlet of the vacuum pump and the suction inlet. Zhang further discloses wherein the suction pipe (18) is coupled to a valve (19). In view of Zhang, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the valve of Zhang with the suction pipe of Hong to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of controlling gas flow into the suction pipe as disclosed by Zhang. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because employing valves with pipes of a treatment tank is well-known in the art and well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, modified Hong discloses the apparatus according to claim 14 as set forth above. Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose wherein an angle Ф1 between a vertical axis and an injection direction of the nozzle is comprised in a range between 23 and 30 degrees. Although the angle is not literally defined by modified Hang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design an injection angle to any degree according to need (i.e. to optimize the injection of gases into the treatment tank).
Regarding claim 25, modified Hong does not explicitly disclose wherein the negative
pressure inside the treatment tank is comprised in a range between 0.5 and 0.95 bar. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pump of modified Hong such that the negative pressure inside the treatment tank is comprised in a range between 0.5 and 0.95 bar to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for purpose of maintaining the desired pressure within the treatment tank and thus the desired treatment of the materials within the treatment tank.
Regarding claim 26, modified Hong does not explicitly disclose wherein the treatment
tank is one of: i) a cylinder with a diameter and a height in a ratio comprised in a range between 1/5 and 3/5, and ii) a tank with an equivalent diameter and a height in a ratio comprised in a range between 1 /5 and 3/5. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dimensions of the treatment of modified Hong to comprise the claimed dimension, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.).
Regarding claim 27, the tank of modified Hong has a volume, and a mixture inside the tank can occupy between 50% to 75% of the volume.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Zhang and ‘580 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Faussone (WO 2018/073845).
Regarding claim 16, modified Hong discloses the apparatus according to claim 14 as set forth above. Modified wherein the vacuum pump includes a first inlet and an exhaust outlet (see FIG. 2: pump includes an inlet and an outlet), the first inlet of the vacuum pump being connected to a suction inlet through the suction pipe (gas sparing line (30) is coupled to an inlet of the pump; see FIG. 2). Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose the suction pipe being equipped with an inlet valve, the suction pipe inlet valve controlling opening and closing of the suction pipe, respectively causing connection and disconnection of the first inlet of the vacuum pump and the suction inlet. Zhang further discloses wherein the suction pipe (18) is coupled to a valve (19). In view of Zhang, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the valve of Zhang with the suction pipe of Hong to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of controlling gas flow into the suction pipe as disclosed by Zhang. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because employing valves with pipes of a treatment tank is well-known in the art and well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose the exhaust outlet being connected to two outlet pipes, the two outlet pipes comprising a first exhaust outlet pipe and a second outlet pipe to the bubbler. Faussone discloses a treatment tank comprising a tank (FIG. 1: tank (20)), a suction pipe (FIG. 1: suction pipe coupled to pump (101). The pump comprising an inlet and an exhaust outlet, and wherein the exhaust outlet is connected to two outlet pipes, the two outlet pipes comprising a first exhaust outlet pipe and a second outlet pipe to the bubbler (at least one of the pipes is coupled to a diffuser ring; page 8, ll. 5-8; page 12, ll. 5-8). In view of Faussone, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exhaust outlet of modified Hong to be connected to two outlet pipes as disclosed by Faussone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have resulted in an apparatus having the added advantage of enhancing gas reintroduction into the treatment tank (page 8, ll. 5-8; page 12, ll. 5-8).
Regarding claim 16, modified wherein the vacuum pump includes a first inlet and an exhaust outlet (see FIG. 2: pump includes an inlet and an outlet), the first inlet of the vacuum pump being connected to a suction inlet through the suction pipe (gas sparing line (30) is coupled to an inlet of the pump; see FIG. 2). Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose the suction pipe being equipped with an inlet valve, the suction pipe inlet valve controlling opening and closing of the suction pipe, respectively causing connection and disconnection of the first inlet of the vacuum pump and the suction inlet. Zhang further discloses wherein the suction pipe (18) is coupled to a valve (19). In view of Zhang, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the valve of Zhang with the suction pipe of Hong to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of controlling gas flow into the suction pipe as disclosed by Zhang. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because employing valves with pipes of a treatment tank is well-known in the art and well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose the exhaust outlet being connected to two outlet pipes, the two outlet pipes comprising a first exhaust outlet pipe and a second outlet pipe to the bubbler. Faussone discloses a treatment tank comprising a tank (FIG. 1: tank (20)), a suction pipe (FIG. 1: suction pipe coupled to pump (101). The pump comprising an inlet and an exhaust outlet, and wherein the exhaust outlet is connected to two outlet pipes, the two outlet pipes comprising a first exhaust outlet pipe and a second outlet pipe to the bubbler (at least one of the pipes is coupled to a diffuser ring; page 8, ll. 5-8; page 12, ll. 5-8). In view of Faussone, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exhaust outlet of modified Hong to be connected to two outlet pipes as disclosed by Faussone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have resulted in an apparatus having the added advantage of enhancing gas reintroduction into the treatment tank (page 8, ll. 5-8; page 12, ll. 5-8). Modified Hong discloses wherein the lower part of the treatment tank includes a second inlet (i.e., inlet defined by two outlet pipes, as discussed above). Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose wherein a second vent valve is installed on the first exhaust outlet pipe, and configured to open and close the first exhaust outlet pipe; the second outlet pipe to the bubbler being connected to the second inlet valve; the second inlet valve being installed on the second outlet pipe to the bubbler and used
to selectively open and close the second outlet pipe to the bubbler, selectively causing connection and disconnection of the second outlet pipe to the bubbler and the second inlet of the treatment tank. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the two outlet pipes of modified Hong to comprise valves for the purpose of regulating gas flow into the treatment tank. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because employing valves with pipes of a treatment tank is well-known in the art and well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, modified Hong discloses the apparatus according to claim 14 as set forth above. Modified wherein the vacuum pump includes a first inlet and an exhaust outlet (see FIG. 2: pump includes an inlet and an outlet), the first inlet of the vacuum pump being connected to a suction inlet through the suction pipe (gas sparing line (30) is coupled to an inlet of the pump; see FIG. 2). Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose the suction pipe being equipped with an inlet valve, the suction pipe inlet valve controlling opening and closing of the suction pipe, respectively causing connection and disconnection of the first inlet of the vacuum pump and the suction inlet. Zhang further discloses wherein the suction pipe (18) is coupled to a valve (19). In view of Zhang, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the valve of Zhang with the suction pipe of Hong to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of controlling gas flow into the suction pipe as disclosed by Zhang. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because employing valves with pipes of a treatment tank is well-known in the art and well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose the exhaust outlet being connected to two outlet pipes, the two outlet pipes comprising a first exhaust outlet pipe and a second outlet pipe to the bubbler. Faussone discloses a treatment tank comprising a tank (FIG. 1: tank (20)), a suction pipe (FIG. 1: suction pipe coupled to pump (101). The pump comprising an inlet and an exhaust outlet, and wherein the exhaust outlet is connected to two outlet pipes, the two outlet pipes comprising a first exhaust outlet pipe and a second outlet pipe to the bubbler (at least one of the pipes is coupled to a diffuser ring; page 8, ll. 5-8; page 12, ll. 5-8). In view of Faussone, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exhaust outlet of modified Hong to be connected to two outlet pipes as disclosed by Faussone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have resulted in an apparatus having the added advantage of enhancing gas reintroduction into the treatment tank (page 8, ll. 5-8; page 12, ll. 5-8).
Regarding claim 16, modified wherein the vacuum pump includes a first inlet and an exhaust outlet (see FIG. 2: pump includes an inlet and an outlet), the first inlet of the vacuum pump being connected to a suction inlet through the suction pipe (gas sparing line (30) is coupled to an inlet of the pump; see FIG. 2). Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose the suction pipe being equipped with an inlet valve, the suction pipe inlet valve controlling opening and closing of the suction pipe, respectively causing connection and disconnection of the first inlet of the vacuum pump and the suction inlet. Zhang further discloses wherein the suction pipe (18) is coupled to a valve (19). In view of Zhang, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the valve of Zhang with the suction pipe of Hong to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of controlling gas flow into the suction pipe as disclosed by Zhang. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because employing valves with pipes of a treatment tank is well-known in the art and well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose the exhaust outlet being connected to two outlet pipes, the two outlet pipes comprising a first exhaust outlet pipe and a second outlet pipe to the bubbler. Faussone discloses a treatment tank comprising a tank (FIG. 1: tank (20)), a suction pipe (FIG. 1: suction pipe coupled to pump (101). The pump comprising an inlet and an exhaust outlet, and wherein the exhaust outlet is connected to two outlet pipes, the two outlet pipes comprising a first exhaust outlet pipe and a second outlet pipe to the bubbler (at least one of the pipes is coupled to a diffuser ring; page 8, ll. 5-8; page 12, ll. 5-8). In view of Faussone, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the exhaust outlet of modified Hong to be connected to two outlet pipes as disclosed by Faussone. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because said modification would have resulted in an apparatus having the added advantage of enhancing gas reintroduction into the treatment tank (page 8, ll. 5-8; page 12, ll. 5-8). Modified Hong discloses wherein the lower part of the treatment tank includes a second inlet (i.e., inlet defined by two outlet pipes, as discussed above). Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose wherein a second vent valve is installed on the first exhaust outlet pipe, and configured to open and close the first exhaust outlet pipe; the second outlet pipe to the bubbler being connected to the second inlet valve; the second inlet valve being installed on the second outlet pipe to the bubbler and used
to selectively open and close the second outlet pipe to the bubbler, selectively causing connection and disconnection of the second outlet pipe to the bubbler and the second inlet of the treatment tank. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the two outlet pipes of modified Hong to comprise valves for the purpose of regulating gas flow into the treatment tank. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because employing valves with pipes of a treatment tank is well-known in the art and well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Modified Hong further discloses wherein the treatment tank includes a first discharge outlet (Hong at FIG. 2: sludge discharge line (20). Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose a first discharge valve is installed on the first discharge outlet and selectively controls opening and closing of the first discharge outlet. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first discharge outlet of modified Hong to comprise a valve for the purpose of regulating fluid flow from the treatment tank. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification because employing valves with pipes of a treatment tank is well-known in the art and well within the abilities of one of ordinary skill in the art. Modified Hong does not explicitly disclose the bubbler being installed inside the treatment tank facing the second inlet of the treatment tank. However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranges the bubbler within the treatment tank, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.04 VI. C). One would have been motivated to rearrange the bubbler for the purpose of optimizing gas recirculation within the treatment tank.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 21-22 and 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 14-18 and 23-28 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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). Further, it is noted that the applicant does not refute the obviousness rational used in the prior office action.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIBAN M HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7636. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 5712721374. 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.
/LIBAN M HASSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights