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 .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-2, drawn to “An annular part”, classified in B33Y80/00.
II. Claims 3-19, drawn to “A method of making an annular part”, classified in B22F10/85.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of groups II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process such as by molten material printhead deposition instead of powder bed fusion.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with George Romanik on 10/17/2025, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of “A method of making an annular part”, group II, claims 3-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-2 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Double Patenting
Claims 3 & 4 of this application are patentably indistinct from claims 15 & 20 of Application No. 18/758451. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 & 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error.
In claims 10 & 11, lines 2, the term “in” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16 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 16, as written, it is unclear if ‘manually examining’ the part for defects consists of an operator manually examining the imaging data of the in-situ annular part, or the operator physically inspecting the part by hand - such as a final inspection after the finished part has been removed from the AM system.
Therefore, claim 16 is indefinite.
For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 16 will be examined as ‘the operator manually examining the imaging data of the in-situ annular part’, as disclosed in the instant specification [0030].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Corsmeier (US20190070663A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
3. A method of making an annular part with a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system, comprising: installing in the PBF additive manufacturing system an annular build plate including an inner radius wall and an outer radius wall, wherein the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall define a build area on the annular build plate between the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall; delivering, with a powder delivery mechanism, build powder to the build area to form a build powder bed while the build plate rotates; distributing, with a recoater, the build powder in the build powder bed to provide even distribution of the build powder in the build powder bed while the build plate rotates; directing energy, from an optical array positioned over the build area on the build plate, to the build powder in the build powder bed to form a melt pool in the build powder bed while the build plate rotates; and selectively sintering, using from the energy from the optical array, build powder from the melt pool to form a continuous, single layer of sintered and consolidated build powder that is helically overlapped on itself while the build plate rotates to form a consolidated part.
With respect to claim 3, the prior art of Corsmeier teaches a method of making an annular part (Fig. 3, item 330) with a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system (Fig. 4, item 300), comprising: installing in the PBF additive manufacturing system an annular build plate including an inner radius wall (Fig. 4, item 326) and an outer radius wall (Fig. 4, item 324), wherein the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall define a build area (Fig. 4, item 314) on the annular build plate (Fig. 4, item 310) between the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall [0031-0034]; delivering, with a powder delivery mechanism (Fig. 4, item 204, 412), build powder to the build area to form a build powder bed while the build plate rotates [0032]; distributing, with a recoater blade (Fig. 4, item 408, 450), the build powder in the build powder bed to provide even distribution of the build powder in the build powder bed while the build plate rotates [0032-0033]; and directing energy, from an optical array (Fig. 4, item 206) positioned over the build area on the build plate, to the build powder in the build powder bed to form a melt pool in the build powder bed while the build plate rotates [0035].
Corsmeier teaches selectively sintering, using the energy from the optical array, a distributed layer of build powder from the melt pool to form a continuous, single layer of sintered and consolidated build powder that would be overlapped on itself layer-by-layer in a helical pattern while the build plate rotates to grow the consolidated part (Fig. 4, item 330; [0026, 0033]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corsmeier (US20190070663A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
4. The method of making an annular part of claim 3, further comprising: directing, with a gas manifold, a flow of inert gas across the optical array to diffuse soot generated from consolidating build powder.
With respect to claim 4, Corsmeier teaches directing, with a gas manifold (Fig .4, item 432), a flow of inert gas across the optical array [0032].
Corsmeier does not explicitly teach the gas flow functioning to diffuse soot generated from consolidating build powder.
However, the Examiner notes that this limitation is the intended results of the applying the process steps. As Corsmeier discloses the same process steps in substantially the same manner as the instant claims as discussed above, it is the Examiner’s position that substantially the same results will occur which is the removal of soot. Notably, the applicant’s disclosure does not specify any additional method steps (beyond flowing gas) that results in diffusion or dispersion of soot. If applying the same method steps in substantially the same manner does not inherently result in this soot diffusion, then a question of scope of enablement and/or omitting essential method limitation can be brought for the claim.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the gas manifold provided by Corsmeier, comprising a gas inlet (Fig. 4, item 434) above the powder bed irradiation area, would function to remove soot from the build area and prevent it from reaching the irradiation device.
5. The method of making an annular part of claim 3, wherein the continuous, single layer of sintered and consolidated build powder has a pitch determined by a build powder layer height and a rotational speed to form the part.
With respect to claim 5, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, Corsmeier teaches selectively sintering, using the energy from the optical array, a distributed layer of build powder from the melt pool to form a continuous, single layer of sintered and consolidated build powder that would be overlapped on itself layer-by-layer in a helical pattern while the build plate rotates to grow the consolidated part.
Corsmeier is silent on any teaching of a step-jump in the z-direction at any location during the rotation of the annular build plate.
These teachings are understood to implicitly teach a continuous single helical layer of sintered and consolidated build powder, with one layer thickness height increase per full revolution of the build plate.
Corsmeier does not explicitly teach the pitch of the layer being determined by a build powder layer height and a rotational speed to form the part.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that as this continuous build layer would have a constant pitch, so it would be prima facie obviously that the pitch could be determined by using the height of the powder layer deposited on a previously consolidated section, and the rotating rate of the build plate.
Claims 6-7 & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corsmeier (US20190070663A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 3, and further in view of Buller (US20240092024A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
6. The method of making an annular part of claim 3, wherein the optical array comprises a plurality of individual energy sources distributed radially over the build area of the build plate such that the individual energy sources irradiate overlapping portions of the build area.
With respect to claim 6, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, Corsmeier teaches the optical irradiation source (Fig. 4, item 206) is mounted on a build unit above the rotating build plate.
Corsmeier is silent on the optical array comprising a plurality of individual energy sources distributed radially over the build area of the build plate such that the individual energy sources irradiate overlapping portions of the build area.
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Buller teaches an alternative means of irradiating a powder bed for additive manufacturing, comprising an optical array comprising a plurality of individual energy sources (Fig. 9, items 910, 915, 920, 925) distributed radially around the perimeter of a circular build area (Fig. 9, item 904) of the build plate such that the individual energy sources irradiate overlapping portions (Fig. 9, see areas of overlapping items 914, 919, 924, 929) of the build area.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the means of irradiating a powder bed, taught by Buller, in place of the irradiation means taught by Corsmeier to predictably result in a known alternate means of powder bed irradiation to form a sintered part by overlapping irradiation zones over a rotating build plate.
Motivation for the modified process of Corsmeier, in view of Buller, could be for use of preferred or available equipment, or to accommodate the production of larger products. For example, a wider annular product could be produced by the modified process because Corsmeier teaches an irradiation source (See Fig. 4) just above the powder bed alongside the recoater, while Buller teaches the irradiation sources are at the top of the build chamber far above the recoater (See Fig. 8), and capable of irradiating a wider field of a powder bed.
7. The method of making an annular part of claim 6, further comprising scaling a power of each of the plurality of individual energy sources such that the power of each of the plurality of individual energy sources differs as a function of location within the optical array.
With respect to claim 7, Buller teaches scaling a power of each of the plurality of individual energy sources such that the power of each of the plurality of individual energy sources differs as a function of location within the optical array.
Buller broadly teaches that at least two of the energy beam sources can irradiate the surface simultaneously, cooperatively, and synchronously. Buller teaches “in some cases, at least two energy source(s) and/or beam(s) can comprise at least one different characteristic. The characteristics may comprise wavelength, power, amplitude, trajectory, footprint, intensity, energy, or charge [0220].”
As set forth in the rejection of claim 6, the modification of the process of Corsmeier, in view of Buller, teaches “to substitute the means of irradiating a powder bed, taught by Buller, in place of the irradiation means taught by Corsmeier to predictably result in a known alternate means of powder bed irradiation”; this would include the structure and the mode of operation of the irradiation sources.
As Buller teaches simultaneous and cooperative control of multiple irradiation sources, and that power of the multiple sources can be varied, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the modified process of Corsmeier, in view of Buller, would teach power scaling of each source as they work cooperatively based on the powder bed work location. Use of cooperative and synchronous control of multiple irradiation sources would provide the desired energy required for the sintering process at target locations that are at a distance in between the energy sources.
10. The method of making an annular part of claim 6, wherein each of the plurality of individual energy sources is a laser.
With respect to claim 10, Buller teaches each of the plurality of individual energy sources can be a laser [0070]. Corsmeier also teaches the irradiation source type can be a laser [0038]. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use lasers for the plurality of individual energy sources in the modified process of Corsmeier, in view of Buller.
11. The method of making an annular part of claim 6, wherein each of the plurality of individual energy sources is an electron beam source.
With respect to claim 11, Buller teaches each of the plurality of individual energy sources can be an electron beam source [0070]. Corsmeier also teaches the irradiation source type can be an electron beam [0038]. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use electron beams for the plurality of individual energy sources in the modified process of Corsmeier, in view of Buller.
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corsmeier (US20190070663A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 3, and further in view of Yang (US20220099062A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
12. The method of making an annular part of claim 3, further comprising: inspecting, with an integrated X-ray CT system, the consolidated part in situ as it forms.
With respect to claim 12, Corsmeier is silent on an integrated X-ray CT system, or any other type of inspection method.
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Yang teaches inspecting, with an integrated X-ray CT system, the consolidated part in situ as it forms [0028, Claim 1]. Yang teaches the CT with X-ray process provides a means to test quality during the part manufacture to detect a defect during production, store imaging data, and generating a warning [Claim 1]. The CT and X-ray test process is non-contact and non-destructive [0034].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique of in-situ CT using X-ray for an AM product during the build process, taught by Yang, to improve the powder bed AM process taught by Corsmeier in the same way. This improved AM process for Corsmeier, in view of Yang, would provide a means to test quality during the part manufacture to detect a defect during production and generating a warning.
13. The method of making an annular part of claim 12, wherein the integrated X-ray CT system comprises an X-ray scan head and an X-ray detector.
With respect to claim 13, Yang teaches the integrated X-ray CT system comprises an X-ray scan head (Fig. 1, item 4 – which can comprise an X-ray cone beam CT system with X-ray generator, and a translational and rotational motion control system [Claim 2]) and a flexible X-ray detector (Fig. 1, item 6).
14. The method of making an annular part of claim 13, wherein the X-ray scan head is positioned on an outer diameter of the annular build plate and the X-ray detector is positioned on an inner diameter of the annular build plate such that a linear path between the X-ray scan head the X-ray detector intersects the part.
With respect to claim 14, Yang teaches the X-ray scan head is positioned along the same height to the part on the build plate and the X-ray detector is positioned on the opposite side of the build plate such that a linear path between the X-ray scan head the X-ray detector intersects the part (See Fig. 1).
Yang teaches the scan head and the detector each are capable of translational and/or rotational motion by a control system [Claim 2].
Yang is silent on configuration of the scan head and the detector for an annular part, such as for the modified process of Corsmeier, in view of Yang.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to try positioning the X-ray/CT scan head on an outer diameter of the annular build plate with the X-ray detector positioned on an inner diameter of the annular build plate (or vice versa, if preferred) such that a linear path between the X-ray scan head the X-ray detector intersects only one section of the annular part.
This configuration would avoid scanning two of the part sections on opposite ends of the part simultaneously if the scan head and the detector were configured on opposite outer ends of the annular part.
15. The method of making an annular part of claim 14, further comprising: directing, by the X-ray scan head, X-ray energy through the part to the X-ray detector; receiving, by the X-ray detector, X-ray energy as it exits the part; forming, by the X-ray detector, an image of part; and examining the part for defects.
With respect to claim 15, Yang teaches directing, by the X-ray scan head, X-ray energy through the part to the X-ray detector; receiving, by the X-ray detector, X-ray energy as it exits the part; forming, by the X-ray detector, an image of part; and examining the part for defects [Claim 2].
16. The method of making an annular part of claim 15, wherein examining the part for defects is performed manually.
With respect to claim 16, Yang teaches an integrated X-ray CT system.
Corsmeier, in view of Yang, is silent on examining the part for defects being performed manually, either in-situ using collected imaging data, or physically after removal of the part from the AM system.
However, after initial automated examination of the part for defects an imaging analysis tool, an identification of a defect by the analysis tool will store image data and generate a warning for the operator [Claim 1]; when responding to the warning, the operator would prima facie obviously examine the part for defects manually using the imaging data to make a determination for further processing.
17. The method of making an annular part of claim 15, wherein examining the part for defects is performed automatically.
With respect to claim 17, Yang teaches examining the part for defects is performed automatically with an imaging analysis tool [Abstract, Claims 2 & 6].
18. The method of making an annular part of claim 15, wherein if the part includes defects, the integrated X-ray CT system presents options to an operator.
With respect to claim 18, Yang teaches the integrated X-ray CT system has an analysis tool to generate a warning if the analysis of the stored CT image data concludes that a defect has formed during the build process, wherein the warning includes an indication of a position and a size in the part [Claim 2].
The integrated X-ray CT system is silent on options presented to an operator.
However, the system does generate a warning [Claim 2] prima facie obviously for the operator, and has the automated ability to stop the build process [Claim 6] or to remove the existing part [Claim 7].
While not explicitly taught, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to have the available options that the system can perform, comprising stopping the part build or removing the current part, readily selectable for when the operator analyzes the warning and image data of the current defect. For example, if a defect was detected, and the build was stopped and a warning generated for operator review, it would have been prima facie obvious to provide the operator with a “remove the current part” option after their analysis.
19. The method of making an annular part of claim 18, wherein the options include: varying operating parameters of the PBF additive manufacturing system to include one or more of power to individual energy sources, rotational speed and/or height of the annular build plate, translation of the build head, operation of the powder dispensing mechanism, and operation of the powder heating element; or terminating operation of the PBF additive manufacturing system build campaign and manually reworking the part; or terminating operation of the PBF additive manufacturing system build campaign and scrapping the part.
With respect to claim 19, as set forth in the rejection of claim 18, Corsmeier, in view of Yang, teaches it would have been prima facie obvious to have the automated options that are available for the integrated X-ray CT system to also be selectable options for the operator, such as providing the operator with a “remove the current part” option after their defect analysis; this would change the operating parameters by terminating operation of the PBF additive manufacturing system build campaign and scrapping the part.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 & 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, no prior art was found to modify Corsmeier, in view of Buller, to teach the power of each of the plurality of individual energy sources is scaled to deliver constant energy density across a radius of the powder bed when the annular build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation.
Claim 9 is dependent to claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights