DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the recited conformal cooling and lattice structure must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11, 13, 14 is/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.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “one or more modules, wherein each module has a plurality of geometrically defined unit cells configured to contain a gaseous fuel, wherein the unit cells are interconnected to form interstitial spaces among them, and are configured to allow a flow of the gaseous fuel between the unit cells and between modules according to operation demand;” introduces new matter as the recitation includes scope that the interstitial spaces “are configured to allow a flow of the gaseous fuel” and there is no support for this in the original disclosure. Further, there is no support for a flow between the unit cells and modules.
The applicant repeatedly adds new matter to the claims and it is unclear why the applicant attempts to introduce new matter into the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11, 13, 14 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “A modular cellular solid structural storage platform” is indefinite since it is unclear what structure is required by the term “structural”. The recitation appears to have scope as a relative term, describing a degree of supportiveness and it is unclear what level of support is included and excluded.
The recitation, “one or more modules, wherein each module has a plurality of geometrically defined unit cells configured to contain a gaseous fuel, wherein the unit cells are interconnected to form interstitial spaces among them, and are configured to allow a flow of the gaseous fuel between the unit cells and between modules according to operation demand;” is indefinite for many reasons, including that there is no way to determine for certain what “them” references. Further, the recitation, “between modules” is indefinite for improperly reintroducing modules anew and it is unclear how to interpret the newly introduced modules. Further, there is no support for a flow between the unit cells and modules and it is unclear what structure is required to “allow” the recited flow between cels and modules.
The recitation, “the system” is indefinite for lacking proper antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “conformal cooling” is indefinite as there is no way to discern what structure is and is not included as the original disclosure does not define the structure that provides the recited cooling. Further what qualifies as conformal is entirely undefined and unclear. For examination, the recitation is interpreted to require any cooling that is located along at least one portion of the platform.
The recitation, “configured to limit temperature variation” is indefinite since it is unclear what structure the recitation requires and it is unclear what temperature variation is included and what the temperature variation must be limited relative to.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “a lattice structure configured to reduce weight and increase stiffness and crashworthiness” is indefinite as it is unclear what the weight must be reduced relative to. Further adding mass of the recited lattice to the platform cannot reduce the mass of platform and therefore the recitation is unclear. Further, it is unclear what the stiffness must be increased relative to. Further it is unclear how crashworthiness is defined or measured and unclear what the crashworthiness must be enhanced relative to.
In regard to claim 10, the recitation, “the gaseous fuel is stored as …liquid hydrogen” is entirely indefinite as these phases are mutually exclusive and it does not make sense to define the stored fluid is a liquid when the claim says that the stored fluid is “gaseous” as such recitations are inconsistent with each other.
In regard to claim 11, the recitation, “T The” is indecipherable and inappropriately not annotated. The recitation, “the gaseous fuel is hydrogen …in… liquid form” is indefinite for being inconsistent with claim 1 which states that the fluid is gaseous not liquid. Further, “the hydrogen” is indefinite for lacking antecedent basis.
The recitation, “cold and cryocompressed” is indefinite since the recitation is relative and patentably indistinct and there is no way to determine what temperature is and is not sufficiently cool enough to be considered cold and to be sufficiently cold and compressed.
In regard to claim 13, the recitation, “the structure” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what is being referenced. The recitation, “interconnected unit cells” lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what is being referenced.
The recitation, “adapted to accommodate vacuum insulation chamber” is indefinite since the disclosure never defines what structure makes unit cells to be “adapted to accommodate vacuum insulation”.
The recitation, “conformal cooling” is indefinite as there is no way to discern what structure is and is not included as the original disclosure does not define the structure that provides the recited cooling. Further what qualifies as conformal is entirely undefined and unclear. For examination, the recitation is interpreted to require any cooling that is located along at least one portion of the platform.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “modular cellular solid storage platform” in claim 1 since “platform” appears to be a nonce term and
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The term “modules” is interpreted as at least a group of unit cells (see spec. page 14, para. 2).
Claim limitation “unit cell configured to contain a gaseous fuel” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no definition of a unit cell anywhere in the disclosure. The specification merely uses the term, but never defines the structure required to sufficiently perform the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Further, it is noted that even if the recitation was not interpreted under 112(f), there still would be no way to determine what structure is included in a “unit cell” as claimed as the specification does not define the term clearly. For present examination, such is considered merely a gas storage volume.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-11, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myasikov (US 2005/0211573) in view of Fujita (US 5678410). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, Myasikov teaches a modular cellular solid structural platform (10) for gas storage (see whole disclosure; interpreted as a system that can store gas and has at least some parts that are structural and solid), comprising:
one or more modules (interpreted as a collection of storage volumes; at least some of primary blocks 13, secondary blocks 19), wherein each module (at least some blocks) has a plurality of geometrically defined unit cells (14, para. 24; see they have a shape) configured to contain a gaseous fuel (hydrogen, para. 20, 8; see that in addition to being stored in the metal hydride - para. 22, that the hydrogen is stored in the pressure containment vessel 11 - para. 21), wherein the unit cells (14) are interconnected (see they are assembled) to form interstitial spaces among the unit cells (14) (there is at least some space between cells 14; para. 23); and the unit cells (14) or the interstitial spaces (between cells 14) are configured to allow a flow of the gaseous fuel (hydrogen; they are connected to provide hydrogen to and from the cells para. 24) between the unit cells (14) and between the one or more modules (13, 19) according to operation demand (structure is fully capable of having hydrogen flow to and from unit cells 14 and between modules 13, 19; para. 24 as part of filling and emptying the entire platform 10).
Myasikov does not appear to explicitly teach at least one pressure relief valve, a pressure regulating unit, and one or more temperature sensors, as claimed. However, it is routine to provide such to supply hydrogen to hydrogen consuming devices as demonstrated by Fujita. Fujita teaches a system (see whole disclosure, column 6, line 59 “combined system”) comprising: a vehicle (background of the invention; column 6, line 60-65 “vehicle”) having a fuel cell (2) that also stores hydrogen in a hydrogen storage tank (11-18; column 6, line 65-67) having a plurality of metal hydride modules (see each of 11 through 18) and that it is desirable to provide a plurality temperature sensors (11g-18g; column 8, line 45-50), pressure regulating units (11c-18c), and pressure relief valves (11d-18d) configured to prevent overpressure accumulation in the system (system), all for the purpose of controlling the temperature and pressure in the modules (11-18). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Myasikov with the temperature sensors, pressure regulating units, and pressure relief valves of Fujita for the purpose of providing pressure and temperature control of the hydrogen and improve handling.
In regard to claim 2, Myasikov teaches conformal cooling (para. 20, see heat exchanger tubes 15) arranged within the platform (10) and configured to limit temperature variation during refueling and operation (para. 8-9; see undesired temperature variation is limited).
In regard to claim 3, Myasikov teaches that at least part of the interstitial spaces are filled with a lattice structure (para. 23 “porous filter material”) configured to increase stiffness of the platform (10) (material being present resists movement more than if material were not present) and crashworthiness (see that the filter material makes the assembly more robust and resistant to damage and therefore more crashworthy) and configured to reduce weight (relative to heavier structures).
In regard to claim 4, Myasikov teaches that the unit cells (14) comprise polyhedral geometries (see para. 25).
In regard to claim 9, Myasikov teaches that the gaseous fuel is hydrogen (para. 2).
In regard to claim 10, Myasikov teaches that the hydrogen is stored as compressed gas (at some pressure above ambient, see para. 21 “pressurized gas”).
In regard to claim 11, note that recitation is conditional by the recitation “when” and therefore the recited vacuum insulation chamber is optional.
In regard to claim 13, Myasikov teaches that the plurality of unit cells (14) are adapted to accommodate conformal cooling (para. 20, see heat exchanger tubes 15) within the platform (10).
In regard to claim 14, Myasikov, as modified, is fully capable of being used in a land vehicle (para. 4). Further, supposing that Myasikov is not relied upon for the recited step of using the platform (10) in a land vehicle, it is noted that Fujita teaches that hydrogen is stored as fuel for an electric vehicle (column 1, line 31; column 6, line 60). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ Myasikov, as described above, to store hydrogen in a fuel cell powered car for the purpose of providing all of the benefits of Myasikov to the fuel cell car application and for the purpose of providing more environmentally friendly cars.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 9-11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loukus (US 2015/0014323) in view of Fujita (US 5678410). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 1, Loukus teaches a modular cellular solid structural platform for gas storage (100, see whole disclosure; interpreted as an assembly that can store gas), comprising:
one or more modules (interpreted as a collection of storage volumes; at least some groups of 142), wherein each module has a plurality of geometrically defined unit cells (142, para. 48; see they have a shape) configured to contain a gaseous fuel (gas, para. 3), the unit cells (142) are interconnected to form interstitial spaces among the unit cells (there is space between cells 142; para. 53) and the unit cells (142) are configured to allow a flow of the gaseous fuel (gas; they are connected to provide hydrogen to and from the cells para. 3, 16, 83) between the unit cells (142) and between the one or more modules (at least some groups of 142) simultaneously according to operation demand (structure is fully capable of having hydrogen flow to and from unit cells 142 and between modules; para. 57, 73, 83 as part of filling and emptying the entire platform 100).
Loukus does not appear to explicitly teach at least one pressure relief valve, a pressure regulating unit, and one or more temperature sensors, as claimed. However, it is routine to provide such to supply hydrogen to hydrogen consuming devices as demonstrated by Fujita. Fujita teaches a system (see whole disclosure, column 6, line 59 “combined system”) comprising: a vehicle (background of the invention; column 6, line 60-65 “vehicle”) having a fuel cell (2) that also stores hydrogen in a hydrogen storage tank (11-18; column 6, line 65-67) having a plurality of metal hydride modules (see each of 11 through 18) and that it is desirable to provide a plurality temperature sensors (11g-18g; column 8, line 45-50), pressure regulating units (11c-18c), and pressure relief valves (11d-18d) configured to prevent overpressure accumulation in the system (system), all for the purpose of controlling the temperature and pressure in the modules (11-18). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Loukus with the temperature sensors, pressure regulating units, and pressure relief valves of Fujita for the purpose of providing pressure and temperature control of the hydrogen and improve handling.
In regard to claim 3, Loukus teaches that the interstitial spaces are filled with a lattice structure (para. 9, 48 “lattice arrangement”) configured to increase stiffness of the platform (100; para. 18) (material being present resists movement more than if material were not present) and crashworthiness (see that the lattice material makes the assembly more robust and resistant to damage and therefore more crashworthy) and reduce weight (relative to other heavier structures).
In regard to claim 4, Loukus teaches that the unit cells (142) comprise spherical geometries (see approximately spherical shapes throughout figures and para. 55).
In regard to claim 9, Loukus teaches that the gaseous fuel is hydrogen (fully capable of being hydrogen per para. 16).
In regard to claim 10, Loukus teaches that the stored gas is compressed gas (at some pressure above ambient).
In regard to claim 11, note that recitation is conditional by the recitation “when” and therefore the recited vacuum insulation chamber is optional.
In regard to claim 14, Loukus, is fully capable of being used in a land vehicle (see fig. 9-10; para. 73).
Claim(s) 2, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loukus (US 2015/0014323) in view of Fujita (US 5678410), and Myasikov (US 2005/0211573). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted.
In regard to claim 2, Loukus does not appear to explicitly teach conformal cooling arranged within the platform as claimed. However, Myasikov teaches conformal cooling (para. 20, see heat exchanger tubes 15) arranged within the platform (10) and configured to limit temperature variation during refueling and operation (para. 8-9; see undesired temperature variation is limited). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Loukus with the conformal cooling of Myasikov for the purpose of ensuring that the storage is at a desired temperature during storage and refueling.
In regard to claim 13, Loukus does not appear to explicitly teach that the unit cells are adapted to accommodate conformal cooling arranged within the platform as claimed. However, Myasikov teaches that the plurality of unit cells (14) are adapted to accommodate conformal cooling (para. 20, see heat exchanger tubes 15) within the platform (10). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Loukus with the conformal cooling of Myasikov for the purpose of ensuring that the storage is at a desired temperature during storage and refueling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the detailed rejection above.
Applicant's arguments (page 7, para. 3), the definition of a module is a plurality of unit cells and the Examiner commends the applicant for clearly identifying the definition of the term.
Applicant's arguments (page 7, para. 4) are an allegation that conformal cooling “has a recognized meaning in engineering” and that the term means that cooling channels “conform to the geometry of the part they are cooling”. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as it is unclear what extent of conforming is required.
Applicant's arguments (page 8, para. 1) are an allegation that Myasnikov does not teach the claimed unit cells. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the detailed rejection above shows.
Applicant's arguments (page 8, para. 3) are an allegation that the fundamental distinction between the art and the claimed invention is that the invention “stores molecular gas directly in the material cells of a monolithic block (module)”.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the claims fail to recite any distinguishing storage. Further, there is no way to discern what the allegation of “directly” refers to and no distinguishing structure between the prior art as identified and the claimed invention.
Applicant's arguments (page 8, para. 4) are an allegation that the present invention is based on “compressed molecular hydrogen storage”. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as it is entirely unclear why the applicant believes the hydrogen in the prior art is not “molecular” and the prior art does show pressurized storage of hydrogen gas. Therefor the allegation is unpersuasive.
Applicant's arguments (page 8, para. 4) are an allegation that the disclosed invention is “not comparable” to the metal hydride gas storage. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since whatever differences exist in the specification are not present in the claimed recitations.
Applicant's arguments (page 8, last para) are an allegation that the cells of Myasnikov are not “gas-containing unit cells of a storage platform”.
In response, the allegation is fully unpersuasive as there is no basis for alleging that the unit cells identified are not “gas containing” and certainly the structure identified is clearly a storage platform.
Applicant's arguments (page 9) are an allegation that Fujita does not disclose monolithic cellular solid storage platform or the use of additive manufacturing. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as these are not claimed and Fujita does not need to teach these features to be properly relied upon for the features of pressure relief valves, temperatures sensors, and pressure regulation. Summarily, it is not persuasive to attack references individually when a rejection is based on the combination of teachings of the references.
Applicant's arguments (page 11) are an allegation that Loukus does not disclose the presently claimed modular cellular solid storage platform comprising one or more modules. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as entirely ignoring the grounds of rejection and Loukus fully teaches modules as Loukus teaches groups of unit cells.
Applicant's arguments (page 11) are an allegation that Loukus solves a different problem. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the features of Loukus are not patently distinct from the claimed structure and the claimed structure is fully met by Loukus as outlined in the detailed rejection above.
Applicant's arguments (page 12) are an allegation that Loukus does not disclose the modular fuel delivery. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as fuel is able to be fed into and out of the several pluralities of unit cells as identified in the rejection.
Applicant's arguments (page 12-13) are an allegation that the “present invention” has new technical challenges. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the claimed invention is not patently distinct and none of the distinct structures described are claimed.
Applicant's arguments (page 13) are an allegation that the “objective technical problem” “should be reformulated”. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive for entirely ignoring the factual situation relative to the rejection of the claimed invention. The legal obviousness question is framed on the differences between the primary reference and the claimed invention. And the applicant’s allegation fails to correctly identify those differences and instead create differences by making comparisons to features that are only disclosed (allegedly) and are not claimed. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights