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 03/ 12 /202 6 . 3 . Claims 1- 12 are pending. Claims 7 -12 are under examination on the merits. Claims 7, 11 are amended. Claim s 1-6 are withdrawn to a non-elected invention from further consideration. 4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn. 5. Applicant's arguments filed 0 3 /1 2 /20 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 7-12 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 12 / 23 /20 25 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 6 . The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 7 . Claims 7-1 0, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US Pub. No. 20 20 /03 13047 A1 , hereinafter “ Yamada ”) in view of W ang et al. ( Mn-Activated Fluoride Phosphors Modified by Surfactant with Outstanding Water Resistance and Luminescent Thermal Properties , Inorg. Chem. 2023, 62, 4157 − 4169 , hereinafter “W ang ”) or Kim et al. ( Controlling surface property of K 2 SiF 6 :Mn 4+ for improvement of lighting-emitting diode reliability , Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 116 (2018) 118–125 , hereinafter “ Kim ”) , and Norio Umetsu (US Pub. No. 201 8 / 0037773 A1, hereinafter “ Umetsu ”). Regarding claim 7 : Yamada a light-emitting device (Page 1, [0002]) comprising: a substrate, a light-emitting element disposed on the substrate, and a wavelength conversion member covering the light-emitting element (Page 1, [0008]-[0009]; Page 2, [0027]-[0028]) , wherein the wavelength conversion member includes a cured product of a silicone resin, a Mn-activated fluoride phosphor (Page 11, [0087]; Page 13, [0099], Example 1). Yamada does not expressly teach (i) a chelating agent , and (ii) wherein in the wavelength conversion member, a mass ratio of a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin is in a range from 0.005 to 0.3. Referring to (i) , h owever, Wang teaches a surfactant modification strategy by adding the surfactant cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) to the synthesis and modifying the surface of the Mn-activated fluoride phosphor with ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) to obtain a phosphor with excellent luminescence thermal properties and water resistance, K 2 TiF 6 :Mn 4+ - x CTAB-EDTA (KTFM- x C-E) phosphors , since Mn 4+ -activated fluoride phosphors have high luminescence quality, their poor water resistance and thermal fluorescence properties significantly limit their practical applications (Page 4157, Abstract, lines 1-10 ; Page 4159, right Col,, Equation 3). Alternatively, Kim teaches t he surface property of moisture-sensitive K 2 SiF 6 :Mn 4+ (KSF) as a red-emitting phosphor i s controlled through dry-type surface modification in order to improve the photo-performance and reliability of lighting-emitting diode (LED). The phosphor surface i s modified with silane coupling agents having different carbon chain length by plasma-assisted method (Page 118, Abstract, lines 1-4; Page 122, Fig. 7). Kim teaches a fter fabricating LED device, the enhancement of photo-performance and long-term reliability c an be successfully achieved in LED device with modified phosphor. It is attributed to that the degradation of phosphor efficiency by moisture i s suppressed and heat dissipation in LED PKG i s improved through the surface modification (Page 118, Abstract, lines 7-10). Referring to (i i ) , Umetsu teaches the manufacturing a light emitting device using an LED element (Page 1, [0001]). In this method, the LED element has a fluorescent layer, the polymerization component contains an epoxy-modified silicone resin, a metal chelate compound is used as the curing agent (Page 1, [0011]). Umetsu teaches the mixing ratio (% by weight) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the metal chelate compound in the anisotropic conductive adhesive is preferably 100:2 to 100:10 (i.e., 0.02-0.1 range is a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin ) . The mixing ratio (% by volume) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the metal component is preferably 100:1 to 100:30 (i.e., 0.01-0.3 range is a mass of the metal component to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin ) . On the other hand, the mixing ratio (% by volume) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the thermally-conductive filler is preferably 100:1 to 100:30 (Page 3, [0033]) with benefit of providing a n anisotropic conductive adhesive used comprises a conductive paste, and contains an epoxy-modified silicone resin serving as a binder resin, a metal chelate serving as a latent curing agent, and a metal component serving as a conductive component. The anisotropic conductive adhesive does not contain flux (Page 2, [0019]). In an analogous art of the light-emitting device , 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 surface of Mn-activated fluoride phosphor by Yamada, so as to include a chelating agent as taught by Wang , and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing t o obtain a phosphor with excellent luminescence thermal properties and water resistance, since Mn 4+ -activated fluoride phosphors have high luminescence quality, their poor water resistance and thermal fluorescence properties significantly limit their practical applications as suggested by Wang (Page 4157, Abstract, lines 1-10). In an analogous art of the light-emitting device , 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 surface of Mn-activated fluoride phosphor by Yamada, so as to include a chelating agent such as silane coupling agents as taught by Kim , and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing t o to improve the photo-performance and reliability of lighting-emitting diode (LED) as suggested by Kim (Page 118, Abstract, lines 1-4). In an analogous art of the light-emitting device , 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 resin composition comprising a silicone resin and a cheating age n t by Yamada, so as to include a mass ratio of a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin is in a range from 0.0 2 to 0. 1 as taught by Umetsu , and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a n anisotropic conductive adhesive used comprises a conductive paste, and contains an epoxy-modified silicone resin serving as a binder resin, a metal chelate serving as a latent curing agent, and a metal component serving as a conductive component. The anisotropic conductive adhesive does not contain flux as suggested by Umetsu (Page 2, [0019]). Thus, the subject as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549. Regarding claim s 8-9 : The disclosure of Yamada in view of W ang or Kim, and Umetsu i s adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Wang teaches the chelating agent includes at least one selected from the group consisting of an aminocarboxylic acid-based chelating agent such as ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) (Page 4157, Abstract, lines 1-10 ; Page 4163, Fig. 6). Regarding claim 10 : The disclosure of Yamada in view of W ang or Kim, and Umetsu i s adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yamada the light-emitting device (Page 1, [0002]) , wherein the fluoride phosphor has a composition such as K 2 [SiMn 4+ F 6 ] (Page 11, [0087]), which is identical to the fluoride phosphor K 2 SiF 6 :Mn of the instant application of Example 1 (US Pub. No. 2024/0076541 A1, [0079], Example 1). Regarding claim 1 1 : The disclosure of Yamada in view of W ang or Kim, and Umetsu i s adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Umetsu does not expressly teach a mass ratio of a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin is in a range from 0.005 to less than 0.02. However, Umetsu teaches the manufacturing a light emitting device using an LED element (Page 1, [0001]). In this method, the LED element has a fluorescent layer, the polymerization component contains an epoxy-modified silicone resin, a metal chelate compound is used as the curing agent (Page 1, [0011]). Umetsu teaches the mixing ratio (% by weight) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the metal chelate compound in the anisotropic conductive adhesive is preferably 100:2 to 100:10 (i.e., 0.02-0.1 range is a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin ) . The mixing ratio (% by volume) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the metal component is preferably 100:1 to 100:30 (i.e., 0.01-0.3 range is a mass of the metal component to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin ) . On the other hand, the mixing ratio (% by volume) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the thermally-conductive filler is preferably 100:1 to 100:30 (Page 3, [0033]) with benefit of providing a n anisotropic conductive adhesive used comprises a conductive paste, and contains an epoxy-modified silicone resin serving as a binder resin, a metal chelate serving as a latent curing agent, and a metal component serving as a conductive component. The anisotropic conductive adhesive does not contain flux (Page 2, [0019]). In an analogous art of the light-emitting device , 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 resin composition comprising a silicone resin and a cheating age n t by Yamada, so as to include a mass ratio of a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin is in a range from 0.005 to less than 0.02 as taught by Umetsu , and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a n anisotropic conductive adhesive used comprises a conductive paste, and contains an epoxy-modified silicone resin serving as a binder resin, a metal chelate serving as a latent curing agent, and a metal component serving as a conductive component. The anisotropic conductive adhesive does not contain flux as suggested by Umetsu (Page 2, [0019]). Thus, the subject as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2144.05) Regarding claim 12 : The disclosure of Yamada in view of W ang or Kim, and Umetsu i s adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Wang teaches in the wavelength conversion member, a mass ratio of a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of the fluoride phosphor is in a range from 0.0025 to 3 (Page 4159, left Col., 2 nd para, lines 1-6). Umetsu teaches the mixing ratio (% by weight) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the metal chelate compound in the anisotropic conductive adhesive is preferably 100:2 to 100:10 (i.e., 0.02-0.1 range is a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin ) . The mixing ratio (% by volume) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the metal component is preferably 100:1 to 100:30 (i.e., 0.0 1 -0. 3 range is a mass of the metal component to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin ) . Thus, the subject as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549. 8 . Claims 7 , 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamada et al. (US Pub. No. 20 20 /03 13047 A1 , hereinafter “ Yamada ”) in view of Norio Umetsu (US Pub. No. 201 8 / 0037773 A1, hereinafter “ Umetsu ”). Regarding claim 7 : Yamada a light-emitting device (Page 1, [0002]) comprising: a substrate, a light-emitting element disposed on the substrate, and a wavelength conversion member covering the light-emitting element (Page 1, [0008]-[0009]; Page 2, [0027]-[0028]), wherein the wavelength conversion member includes a cured product of a silicone resin, a Mn-activated fluoride phosphor (Page 11, [0087]; Page 13, [0099], Example 1). Yamada does not expressly teach (i) a chelating agent, and (ii) wherein in the wavelength conversion member, a mass ratio of a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin is in a range from 0.005 to 0.3. However, Umetsu teaches the manufacturing a light emitting device using an LED element (Page 1, [0001]). In this method, the LED element has a fluorescent layer, the polymerization component contains an epoxy-modified silicone resin, a metal chelate compound is used as the curing agent (Page 1, [0011]). Umetsu teaches the mixing ratio (% by weight) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the metal chelate compound in the anisotropic conductive adhesive is preferably 100:2 to 100:10 (i.e., 0.02-0.1 range is a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin ) . The mixing ratio (% by volume) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the metal component is preferably 100:1 to 100:30 (i.e., 0.01-0.3 range is a mass of the metal component to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin ) . On the other hand, the mixing ratio (% by volume) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the thermally-conductive filler is preferably 100:1 to 100:30 (Page 3, [0033]) with benefit of providing a n anisotropic conductive adhesive used comprises a conductive paste, and contains an epoxy-modified silicone resin serving as a binder resin, a metal chelate serving as a latent curing agent, and a metal component serving as a conductive component. The anisotropic conductive adhesive does not contain flux (Page 2, [0019]). In an analogous art of the light-emitting device , 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 resin composition comprising a silicone resin and a cheating age n t by Yamada, so as to include a mass ratio of a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin is in a range from 0.02 to 0.1 as taught by Umetsu , and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a n anisotropic conductive adhesive used comprises a conductive paste, and contains an epoxy-modified silicone resin serving as a binder resin, a metal chelate serving as a latent curing agent, and a metal component serving as a conductive component. The anisotropic conductive adhesive does not contain flux as suggested by Umetsu (Page 2, [0019]). Thus, the subject as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549. Regarding claim 10 : The disclosure of Yamada in view of Umetsu i s adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Yamada the light-emitting device (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the fluoride phosphor has a composition such as K 2 [SiMn 4+ F 6 ] (Page 11, [0087]), which is identical to the fluoride phosphor K 2 SiF 6 :Mn of the instant application of Example 1 (US Pub. No. 2024/0076541 A1, [0079], Example 1). Regarding claim 11 : The disclosure of Yamada in view of Umetsu i s adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Umetsu does not expressly teach a mass ratio of a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin is in a range from 0.005 to less than 0.02. However, Umetsu teaches the manufacturing a light emitting device using an LED element (Page 1, [0001]). In this method, the LED element has a fluorescent layer, the polymerization component contains an epoxy-modified silicone resin, a metal chelate compound is used as the curing agent (Page 1, [0011]). Umetsu teaches the mixing ratio (% by weight) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the metal chelate compound in the anisotropic conductive adhesive is preferably 100:2 to 100:10 (i.e., 0.02-0.1 range is a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin ) . The mixing ratio (% by volume) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the metal component is preferably 100:1 to 100:30 (i.e., 0.01-0.3 range is a mass of the metal component to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin ) . On the other hand, the mixing ratio (% by volume) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the thermally-conductive filler is preferably 100:1 to 100:30 (Page 3, [0033]) with benefit of providing a n anisotropic conductive adhesive used comprises a conductive paste, and contains an epoxy-modified silicone resin serving as a binder resin, a metal chelate serving as a latent curing agent, and a metal component serving as a conductive component. The anisotropic conductive adhesive does not contain flux (Page 2, [0019]). In an analogous art of the light-emitting device , 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 resin composition comprising a silicone resin and a cheating agent by Yamada, so as to include a mass ratio of a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin is in a range from 0.005 to less than 0.02 as taught by Umetsu , and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a n anisotropic conductive adhesive used comprises a conductive paste, and contains an epoxy-modified silicone resin serving as a binder resin, a metal chelate serving as a latent curing agent, and a metal component serving as a conductive component. The anisotropic conductive adhesive does not contain flux as suggested by Umetsu (Page 2, [0019]). Thus, the subject as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2144.05) Regarding claim 12 : The disclosure of Yamada in view of Umetsu i s adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. Wang teaches in the wavelength conversion member, a mass ratio of a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of the fluoride phosphor is in a range from 0.0025 to 3 (Page 4159, left Col., 2 nd para, lines 1-6). Umetsu teaches the mixing ratio (% by weight) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the metal chelate compound in the anisotropic conductive adhesive is preferably 100:2 to 100:10 (i.e., 0.02-0.1 range is a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin ) . The mixing ratio (% by volume) between the epoxy-modified silicone resin and the metal component is preferably 100:1 to 100:30 (i.e., 0.01-0.3 range is a mass of the metal component to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin ) . Thus, the subject as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549. Response to Arguments 9 . Applicant's arguments filed 03/ 12 /202 6 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, In response to the Applicant ’s argument that the location and function of the chelating agent in the present disclosure differs from that described in Umetsu. The e xaminer respectfully disagrees. The e xaminer 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). Further, i t 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). In this case, nevertheless, the combination of references as set forth in this office action is deemed to teach a light-emitting device comprising: a substrate , a light-emitting element disposed on the substrate , and a wavelength conversion member covering the light-emitting element , wherein the wavelength conversion member includes a cured product of a silicone resin, a Mn-activated fluoride phosphor, and a chelating agent, wherein in the wavelength conversion member, a mass ratio of a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin is in a range from 0.005 to 0.3. as the recited claimed. In an analogous art of the light-emitting device , 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 resin composition by Yamada, so as to include a mass ratio of a mass of the chelating agent to a mass of a cured product of the silicone resin is in a range from 0.005 to less than 0.02 as taught by Umetsu , and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a n anisotropic conductive adhesive used comprises a conductive paste, and contains an epoxy-modified silicone resin serving as a binder resin, a metal chelate serving as a latent curing agent, and a metal component serving as a conductive component. The anisotropic conductive adhesive does not contain flux as suggested by Umetsu (Page 2, [0019]). Thus, Umetsu c ure s the deficiency in the references relied upon in rejecting independent claim 1. 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 , and to compare the recited a light-emitting device 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 t he 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. 1 0 . 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. Examiner Information 1 1 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3449 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 03 / 2 6 /202 6 bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov