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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding claim 8, it is not clear as to whether the claim is an independent claim. It appears the claim should be independent and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Applicant should recite all of the features of claim 1 to be included in claim 8. For instance, does Applicant mean:
“A three-machine pumped storage unit configured to perform the method for determining a regulation range of pumping power of a three-machine pumped storage unit, the three-machine pumped storage unit being arranged in a horizontal manner and comprising a generator, a water pump, and an impulse turbine, wherein a main shaft of the generator has one end connected to the water pump and the other end connected to the impulse turbine, the method comprising:
obtaining a first parameter set of pumping measurement parameters for characterizing the three-machine pumped storage unit, wherein the first parameter set comprises, a gravitational acceleration, a water head, an inflow, power absorbed by a power grid, and a design efficiency of a pumped storage power station;
determining a pumping process efficiency based on the gravitational acceleration, the water head, the inflow, and the power absorbed by the, power grid, wherein the pumping process efficiency is obtained when the generator, the water pump, and the hydraulic turbine in the three- machine pumped storage unit operate simultaneously;
determining a first relational expression based on the pumping process efficiency and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station, wherein the first, relational expression reflects a relationship between the pumping process efficiency and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station;
establishing a second relational expression based on the first relational expression, wherein the second relational expression characterizes power of the hydraulic turbine;
determining a third relational expression based on the power absorbed by the power grid and the second relational expression; wherein the third relational expression reflects a first regulation range of the power absorbed by the power grid during pumping by the three-machine pumped storage unit; and
determining a fourth relational expression based on the third relational expression, wherein the fourth relational expression reflects the regulation range of the pumping power of the three-machine pumped storage unit. “
Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method for determining a regulation range of pumping power of a three-machine pumped storage unit, claim 8 is directed to using a three-machine pumped storage unit configured to perform the method, and claim 9 is directed to an apparatus for determining a regulation range of pumping power of a three-machine pumped storage unit. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method for determining a regulation range of pumping power of a three-machine pumped storage unit, the three-machine pumped storage unit comprising a generator, a water pump, and a hydraulic turbine, a main shaft of the generator having one end connected to the water pump and other end connected to the hydraulic turbine, the method comprising:
obtaining a first parameter set of pumping measurement parameters for characterizing the three-machine pumped storage unit, wherein the first parameter set comprises, a gravitational acceleration, a water head, an inflow, power absorbed by a power grid, and a design efficiency of a pumped storage power station;
determining a pumping process efficiency based on the gravitational acceleration, the water head, the inflow, and the power absorbed by the, power grid, wherein the pumping process efficiency is obtained when the generator, the water pump, and the hydraulic turbine in the three- machine pumped storage unit operate simultaneously;
determining a first relational expression based on the pumping process efficiency and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station, wherein the first, relational expression reflects a relationship between the pumping process efficiency and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station;
establishing a second relational expression based on the first relational expression, wherein the second relational expression characterizes power of the hydraulic turbine;
determining a third relational expression based on the power absorbed by the power grid and the second relational expression, wherein the third relational expression reflects a first regulation range of the power absorbed by the power grid during pumping by the three-machine pumped storage unit; and
determining a fourth relational expression based on the third relational expression, wherein the fourth relational expression reflects the regulation range of the pumping power of the three-machine pumped storage unit.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“obtaining a first parameter set of pumping measurement parameters for characterizing the three-machine pumped storage unit, wherein the first parameter set comprises, a gravitational acceleration, a water head, an inflow, power absorbed by a power grid, and a design efficiency of a pumped storage power station” is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“determining a pumping process efficiency based on the gravitational acceleration, the water head, the inflow, and the power absorbed by the, power grid, wherein the pumping process efficiency is obtained when the generator, the water pump, and the hydraulic turbine in the three- machine pumped storage unit operate simultaneously” is directed to math because it involves relating physical variables through precise algebraic formulas to calculate the ratio of useful work performed to the energy consumed. Gravitational acceleration acts as a constant, while water head and inflow are independent variables that dictate the dependent variable-efficiency. To find a missing value, such as the required power from the grid to achieve a certain flow, it must rearrange the primary efficiency equation algebraically.
“determining a first relational expression based on the pumping process efficiency and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station, wherein the first, relational expression reflects a relationship between the pumping process efficiency and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station” is directed to math because the process involves formulating mathematical models and using quantitative methods to analyze performance. The relationship between the pumping process efficiency and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station involves the mathematical concepts: mathematical modeling: researches develop hourly mathematical models or linearized reduces-order dynamic models to simulate the behavior of pumped storage systems, algebraic formulations: the overall round-trip efficiency is often expressed as the product of individual process efficiencies.
“establishing a second relational expression based on the first relational expression, wherein the second relational expression characterizes power of the hydraulic turbine” is directed to math because this process transforms physical principles into mathematical formulas to predict turbine behavior. The first relational expression often refers to the basic physical laws, such as the Euler turbine equation, which relates shaft torque and power to hydraulic head and discharge. It may also present the initial approximation of turbine characteristic. The second relational expression is derived from the first to improve accuracy, often by incorporating data fitting, interpolation. It translates the physical turbine behavior into a functional, solvable mathematical model. The process involves taking a first order partial derivative transfer coefficient to build a more accurate nonlinear model.
“determining a third relational expression based on the power absorbed by the power grid and the second relational expression, wherein the third relational expression reflects a first regulation range of the power absorbed by the power grid during pumping by the three-machine pumped storage unit” is directed to math because this process involves mathematical modeling, functional relationships, and control algorithms used in power system. The process use data driven, scenario-based, or analytical method to map inputs (absorbed power) to outputs (regulation range). This is a fundamental application of optimization mathematics in power systems. The first regulation range represents a mathematical interval or domain within which the power absorption is constrained or optimized. The three-machine setup (likely motor, generator, turbine/pump) means the mathematical model must account for complex, nonlinear, or coupled relationships between these components.
“determining a fourth relational expression based on the third relational expression, wherein the fourth relational expression reflects the regulation range of the pumping power of the three-machine pumped storage unit” is directed to math because the third and fourth expressions are mathematical formulas that represent physical operating constraints. The define the upper and lower limits of pumping power based on variables like rotational speed, guide vane opening, and hydraulic head. Determining these ranges involves solving for maximum/minimum values within a set of algebraic equations that represent the power grid or hydraulic systems.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “relational expression and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of "determining a pumping process efficiency based on the gravitational acceleration, the water head, the inflow, and the power absorbed by the, power grid, wherein the pumping process efficiency is obtained when the generator, the water pump, and the hydraulic turbine in the three- machine pumped storage unit operate simultaneously; determining a first relational expression based on the pumping process efficiency and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station, wherein the first, relational expression reflects a relationship between the pumping process efficiency and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station; establishing a second relational expression based on the first relational expression, wherein the second relational expression characterizes power of the hydraulic turbine; determining a third relational expression based on the power absorbed by the power grid and the second relational expression; wherein the third relational expression reflects a first regulation range of the power absorbed by the power grid during pumping by the three-machine pumped storage unit; and determining a fourth relational expression based on the third relational expression, wherein the fourth relational expression reflects the regulation range of the pumping power of the three-machine pumped storage unit” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A method for determining a regulation range of pumping power of a three-machine pumped storage unit, the three-machine pumped storage unit comprising a generator, a water pump, and a hydraulic turbine, a main shaft of the generator having one end connected to the water pump and other end connected to the hydraulic turbine, the method comprising” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“obtaining a first parameter set of pumping measurement parameters for characterizing the three-machine pumped storage unit, wherein the first parameter set comprises, a gravitational acceleration, a water head, an inflow, power absorbed by a power grid, and a design efficiency of a pumped storage power station” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining a pumping process efficiency based on the gravitational acceleration, the water head, the inflow, and the power absorbed by the, power grid, wherein the pumping process efficiency is obtained when the generator, the water pump, and the hydraulic turbine in the three- machine pumped storage unit operate simultaneously” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining a first relational expression based on the pumping process efficiency and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station, wherein the first, relational expression reflects a relationship between the pumping process efficiency and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“establishing a second relational expression based on the first relational expression, wherein the second relational expression characterizes power of the hydraulic turbine “ does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining a third relational expression based on the power absorbed by the power grid and the second relational expression, wherein the third relational expression reflects a first regulation range of the power absorbed by the power grid during pumping by the three-machine pumped storage unit“ does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining a fourth relational expression based on the third relational expression, wherein the fourth relational expression reflects the regulation range of the pumping power of the three-machine pumped storage unit“ does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A method for determining a regulation range of pumping power of a three-machine pumped storage unit, the three-machine pumped storage unit comprising a generator, a water pump, and a hydraulic turbine, a main shaft of the generator having one end connected to the water pump and other end connected to the hydraulic turbine, the method comprising” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“obtaining a first parameter set of pumping measurement parameters for characterizing the three-machine pumped storage unit, wherein the first parameter set comprises, a gravitational acceleration, a water head, an inflow, power absorbed by a power grid, and a design efficiency of a pumped storage power station” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining a pumping process efficiency based on the gravitational acceleration, the water head, the inflow, and the power absorbed by the, power grid, wherein the pumping process efficiency is obtained when the generator, the water pump, and the hydraulic turbine in the three- machine pumped storage unit operate simultaneously” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining a first relational expression based on the pumping process efficiency and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station, wherein the first, relational expression reflects a relationship between the pumping process efficiency and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“establishing a second relational expression based on the first relational expression, wherein the second relational expression characterizes power of the hydraulic turbine” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining a third relational expression based on the power absorbed by the power grid and the second relational expression, wherein the third relational expression reflects a first regulation range of the power absorbed by the power grid during pumping by the three-machine pumped storage unit” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“determining a fourth relational expression based on the third relational expression, wherein the fourth relational expression reflects the regulation range of the pumping power of the three-machine pumped storage unit” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, “wherein obtaining power absorbed by a power grid in the first parameter set comprises: obtaining power of the water pump and the power of the hydraulic turbine; and calculating the power absorbed by the power grid based on the power of the water pump and the power of the hydraulic turbine” is directed to math because the power absorbed from the grid to drive a pump is calculated by dividing the hydraulic power by the pump’s efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, wherein obtaining an inflow in the first parameter set comprises: obtaining a weighted average efficiency of the water pump and a weighted average efficiency of the hydraulic turbine; calculating a flow of the water pump based on the power of the water pump, the weighted average efficiency of the water pump, the gravitational acceleration, and the water head; calculating a flow of the hydraulic turbine based on the power of the hydraulic turbine, the weighted average efficiency of the hydraulic turbine, the gravitational acceleration, and the water head; and calculating the inflow based on the flow of the water pump and the flow of the hydraulic turbine” is directed to math because calculating a flow of the water pump based on the power of the water pump, the weighted average efficiency of the water pump, the gravitational acceleration, and the water head is directly relate mathematics, algebra, and fluid physics. This process involves rearranging a fundamental power equation to solve for the unknown flow rate, using algebraic operations.
Regarding claim 4, “wherein determining a first relational expression based on the pumping process efficiency and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station comprises: determining the first relational expression based on the gravitational acceleration, the water head, the power of the water pump, the weighted average efficiency of the water pump, the power of the hydraulic turbine, the weighted average efficiency-of the hydraulic turbine, and the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station” is directed to math because it requires formulating and solving equations to relate physical principles (gravity, mass, head) to mechanical and electrical output (power, efficiency). The process involves mathematical modeling, which creates a functional relationship to calculate energy, efficiency, or capacity, such as in the formula for energy storage.
Regarding claim 5, “wherein establishing a second relational expression based on the first relational expression comprises: transforming the first relational expression to obtain the second relational expression, wherein the second relational expression is determined based on the power of the water pump, the weighted average efficiency of the water pump, the weighted average efficiency of the hydraulic turbine, and the-design efficiency of the pumped storage power station” is directed to math .
Regarding claim 6, “wherein determining a third relational expression based on the power absorbed by the power grid and the second relational expression comprises: determining the third relational expression based on the power of the water pump, the weighted average efficiency of the water pump, the weighted average efficiency of the hydraulic turbine, and-the design efficiency of the pumped storage power station” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 7, “wherein determining a fourth relational expression based on the third relational expression comprises: determining a fifth relational expression based on the power absorbed by the power grid, wherein the fifth relational expression reflects a second regulation range of the power absorbed by the power grid; and determining the fourth relational expression based on the fifth relational expression and the third relational expression” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 8, “a three-machine pumped storage unit configured to perform the method for determining a regulation range of pumping power of a three-machine pumped storage unit, the three-machine pumped storage unit being arranged in a horizontal manner and comprising a generator, a water pump, and an impulse turbine, wherein a main shaft of the generator has one end connected to the water pump and the other end connected to the impulse turbine”. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”). On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 8 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 8.
Claim 9 is similar to claim 1 but recites an apparatus for determining a regulation range of pumping power of a three-machine pumped storage unit, the three-machine pumped storage unit comprising a generator, a water pump, and a hydraulic turbine, a main shaft of the generator having one end connected to the water pump and the other end connected to the hydraulic turbine, the apparatus comprising: an obtaining module configured, a first determination module configured, a second determination module configured, an establishment module configured, a third determination module configured, and a fourth determination module configured. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”). On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 9 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 9.
Hence the claims 1-9 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Other Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xie (CN 114001270 A) disclose a water-gas heat comprehensive energy storage system and method. The system comprises a plurality of pressure vessels, a water pump, a water turbine, a generating motor, a generating motor driving controller, an air pump, a heat source and a radiator; the generating motor is connected with the electric network through the generating motor driving controller; the generating motor respectively connected with the water pump and the water turbine; a plurality of pressure vessels are connected with each other; at least one pressure container respectively connected with the heat source, a radiator and an air pump, the rest pressure container respectively connected with the water pump, water turbine; the energy storage system is cooled by the pressure container, the pressure container stores energy, the pressure container is heated and pressurized, the energy storage system is capable of generating four orders and parallel stages, and the energy storing and releasing process is realized. The invention is liquid as energy storage, energy release working medium, which can reduce the energy loss of the system and improve the system efficiency.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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 H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857