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/Restrictions
Applicant's amendment filed on 07/30/2025: with claims 1-4 and 15-22 are pending (claims 5-14 are canceled, claims 15-22 are new). The 3/31/2025 Election/Restrictions mailed on 3/31/25 has been withdrawn. An action on the merits for claims 1-4 and 15-22 is as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/27/2024 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1. 97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: element 425 found in figure 1, element 270 found in figure 5. 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. 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.
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, under claims 1 and 15 respectively, the “a self-shielding flux cored wire electrode;” 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 Limitation
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
A. Claim limitation “a metal deposition device configured to deposit metal material” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “to deposit” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 15 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0005], a metal deposition device configured to deposit a metal material during an additive manufacturing process. Spec. [0016], Fig 4. metal deposition system 250.
B. Claim limitation “controller is configured to command the metal deposition device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “controller” coupled with functional language “to command” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 15 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0021], Figs 4-5, Control system 210 may include control circuitry and one or more microprocessors or controllers.
C. Claim limitation “motor system configured to move the metal deposition device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “to move” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 15 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0021], Fig 4, motor system 240.
D. Claim limitation “sensor system configured to detect” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “system” coupled with functional language “to detect” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 2 and 16 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0032], Fig 4, sensor system 230 may have one or more sensors 202.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 2, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the electrode” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the deposited material” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the deposited material” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “an array of self-shielding flux cored wire electrodes” in line 2 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “an array of self-shielding flux cored wire electrodes” and a self-shielding flux cored wire electrode mentioned in claim 15 line 5 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 15-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al. (US 2019/0160530 A1) in view of MACMULLEN et al. (US 2020/0269506 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Peters et al. disclose a robotic welding system for wire-arc additive manufacturing (see Title, [0034], Figs 1-3), comprising: a) a metal deposition device (metal deposition device 10, [0035], Fig 1) configured to deposit metal material during an additive manufacturing process (a metal deposition device (MDD) configured to deposit a metal material during an additive manufacturing process, [0034]); b) a controller (metal deposition device 10 includes a controller 80, [0041], Fig 1) operatively coupled to the metal deposition device (see Fig 1); c) a system configured to move the metal deposition device (controller 80 also controls the operating characteristics of the drive roll 50 (e.g., wire feed speed and arc establishment for each electrode 32 in the array 30), [0041], Fig 1); and d) a self-shielding flux cored wire electrode (electrodes 32 may be… self-shielded… flux cored wires, [0035], Fig 1); wherein the controller is configured to command the metal deposition device to deposit an infill pattern based on one or more stored patterns (Patterns of multiple layers of a three-dimensional (3D) part to be additively manufactured are represented and stored as digital data, [0030]).
Peters et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose c) a motor system configured to move the metal deposition device in three dimensions.
MACMULLEN et al. further teach an additive manufacturing system (determining a position of a nozzle of a 3D printer, Abstract; the field of additive manufacturing, [0001]), and a motor system (positioning instrument may include one or more actuators, such as stepper motors, [0065]) configured to move the metal deposition device in three dimensions (Positioning instrument 120 may provide a reading of the position of print head 100 and/or readings of the positions of nozzles 110 in three dimensions, e.g., along the X, Y, Z-axes, [0065], print head 100 and/or print bed 200 relative to each other in one or more dimensions, [0066], Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Peters et al. with MACMULLEN et al.’s further teaching of c) a motor system configured to move the metal deposition device in three dimensions; because MACMULLEN et al. teach, in Para. [0001], of providing an excellent additive manufacturing system for performing three-dimensional calibration during operation.
Regarding Claims 2-4, Peters et al. in view of MACMULLEN et al. further teach: Claim 2, further comprising a sensor system configured to detect at least one of: a) a location of the metal deposition device relative to a substrate; b) an alignment of the electrode relative to the substrate; or c) a temperature of the deposited material (embodiment, a sensor 60 is configured to detect at least one of a location of the electrode head 20 on the base/substrate or part 51, [0040], Fig 1, Peters et al.).
Claim 3, wherein the motor system (positioning instrument may include one or more actuators, such as stepper motors, [0065], MACMULLEN et al.) comprises: a) an x-axis actuator for moving the metal deposition device left and right; b) a y-axis actuator for moving the metal deposition device forward and backward; and c) a z-axis actuator for moving the metal deposition device up and down (Positioning instrument 120 may provide a reading of the position of print head 100 and/or readings of the positions of nozzles 110 in three dimensions, e.g., along the X, Y, Z-axes, [0065], print head 100 and/or print bed 200 relative to each other in one or more dimensions, [0066], Fig 1, MACMULLEN et al.).
Claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to implement a repeating human-like infill pattern (to form an infill pattern within a region outlined by the contour, Abstract, Peters et al.; clearly, “the controller is” capable of “implement a repeating human-like infill pattern” as claimed).
Regarding Independent Claim 15, Peters et al. disclose a robotic welding system for wire-arc additive manufacturing (see Title, [0034], Figs 1-3), comprising: a) a metal deposition device (metal deposition device 10, [0035], Fig 1) configured to deposit metal material during an additive manufacturing process (a metal deposition device (MDD) configured to deposit a metal material during an additive manufacturing process, [0034]) without requiring external shielding gas (electrodes 32 may be… self-shielded… flux cored wires, [0035], Fig 1); b) a controller (metal deposition device 10 includes a controller 80, [0041], Fig 1) operatively coupled to the metal deposition device (see Fig 1); c) a system configured to move the metal deposition device (controller 80 also controls the operating characteristics of the drive roll 50 (e.g., wire feed speed and arc establishment for each electrode 32 in the array 30), [0041], Fig 1); and d) a flux cored arc welding device (a welding process such as, for example, gas metal arc welding, [0034]) with a self-shielding flux cored wire electrode (electrodes 32 may be… self-shielded… flux cored wires, [0035], Fig 1) configured to produce its own protective shield from a surrounding atmosphere during welding, wherein the self-shielding flux cored wire electrode eliminates a need for an external shielding gas system (electrodes 32 may be… self-shielded… flux cored wires, [0035], Fig 1); wherein the controller is configured to command the metal deposition device (controller 80 also controls the operating characteristics of the drive roll 50 (e.g., wire feed speed and arc establishment for each electrode 32 in the array 30), [0041], Fig 1) to deposit an infill pattern based on one or more stored patterns using the self-shielding flux cored wire electrode (Patterns of multiple layers of a three-dimensional (3D) part to be additively manufactured are represented and stored as digital data, [0030])o enable outdoor operation and reduce cleaning requirements between layers.
Peters et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose c) a motor system configured to move the metal deposition device in three dimensions.
MACMULLEN et al. further teach an additive manufacturing system (determining a position of a nozzle of a 3D printer, Abstract; the field of additive manufacturing, [0001]), and a motor system (positioning instrument may include one or more actuators, such as stepper motors, [0065]) configured to move the metal deposition device in three dimensions (Positioning instrument 120 may provide a reading of the position of print head 100 and/or readings of the positions of nozzles 110 in three dimensions, e.g., along the X, Y, Z-axes, [0065], print head 100 and/or print bed 200 relative to each other in one or more dimensions, [0066], Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Peters et al. with MACMULLEN et al.’s further teaching of c) a motor system configured to move the metal deposition device in three dimensions; because MACMULLEN et al. teach, in Para. [0001], of providing an excellent additive manufacturing system for performing three-dimensional calibration during operation.
Regarding Claims 16-22, Peters et al. in view of MACMULLEN et al. further teach: Claim 16, wherein the self-shielding flux cored wire electrode comprises flux core materials that generate a protective gas shield when melted by an electric arc (electrodes 32 may be… self-shielded… flux cored wires, [0035], arc establishment for each electrode 32 in the array 30, [0041], Fig 1, Peters et al.), and further comprising a sensor system configured to detect at least one of: a) a location of the metal deposition device relative to a substrate; b) an alignment of the self-shielding flux cored wire electrode relative to the substrate; or c) a temperature of the deposited material (a sensor 60 is configured to detect at least one of a location of the electrode head 20 on the base/substrate or part 51, [0040] , Peters et al.).
Claim 17, wherein the motor system (positioning instrument may include one or more actuators, such as stepper motors, [0065], MACMULLEN et al.) comprises: a) an x-axis actuator for moving the metal deposition device left and right; b) a y-axis actuator for moving the metal deposition device forward and backward; and c) a z-axis actuator for moving the metal deposition device up and down (Positioning instrument 120 may provide a reading of the position of print head 100 and/or readings of the positions of nozzles 110 in three dimensions, e.g., along the X, Y, Z-axes, [0065], print head 100 and/or print bed 200 relative to each other in one or more dimensions, [0066], Fig 1, MACMULLEN et al.), wherein the motor system enables precise positioning of the self-shielding flux cored wire electrode for additive manufacturing without contamination from external gas delivery systems (includes at least one positioning instrument for moving print head 100 and print bed 200 relative to each other in three dimensions, Fig 1, MACMULLEN et al.).
Claim 18, wherein the controller is configured to implement a repeating human-like infill pattern (to form an infill pattern within a region outlined by the contour, Abstract, Peters et al.; clearly, “the controller is” capable of “implement a repeating human-like infill pattern” as claimed) using the self-shielding flux cored wire electrode to achieve improved microstructural properties without limitations imposed by external shielding gas requirements (electrodes 32 may be… self-shielded… flux cored wires, [0035], Fig 1, Peters et al.).
Claim 19, wherein the controller is configured to command the metal deposition device to deposit a wave infill pattern (to form an infill pattern within a region outlined by the contour… infill pattern is a wave shape having a wavelength, Abstract, Peters et al.) using the self-shielding flux cored wire electrode (electrodes 32 may be… self-shielded… flux cored wires, [0035], Fig 1, Peters et al.), wherein the wave infill pattern: a) modulates heat input across the deposited layer (a laser subsystem capable of focusing a laser beam 110 onto a base/substrate or part 115 to heat the
base/substrate, [00473], Fig 3, Peters et al.); b) controls a height of each weld row (wires/rods can be used as the support structures instead of having to additively manufacture the support structures, layer by layer, [0068], Peters et al.); and c) adjusts depth of weld penetration into a substrate (metal wires/rods can be used as a build base instead of using a separate base/substrate, [0068]); wherein the wave infill pattern is achieved through coordinated movement of the metal deposition device (Positioning instrument 120 may provide a reading of the position of print head 100 and/or readings of the positions of nozzles 110 in three dimensions, e.g., along the X, Y, Z-axes, [0065],
print head 100 and/or print bed 200 relative to each other in one or more dimensions,
[0066], Fig 1, MACMULLEN et al.) to create arc manipulation patterns not achievable by manual welding operations (Clearly, Peters et al. in view of MACMULLEN et al. capable of “create arc manipulation patterns not achievable by manual welding operations” as claimed).
Claim 20, wherein the metal deposition device comprises an electrode head housing an array of self-shielding flux cored wire electrodes in a spaced apart configuration (the electrode head 20 concurrently houses an array 30 of multiple electrodes 32, [0035], Peters et al.), each electrode of the array of self-shielding flux cored wire electrodes configured to be independently fed at a respective rate determined by the controller based on material composition and welding parameters (the multiple electrodes 32 can be continuously fed, periodically fed, or fed based on a predetermined order, [0035], Fig 1, Peters et al.).
Claim 21, further comprising a sensor system having one or more temperature sensors (a temperature sensor, [0079], Peters et al.) configured to monitor temperature during deposition (senses the temperature of the ceramic infill portion of the part during the metal shell deposition phase, [0079], Peters et al.) to prevent hydrogen cracking, wherein the controller is configured to adjust deposition parameters of the self-shielding flux cored wire electrode in response to temperature data without requiring external gas flow adjustments (provides a related feedback signal to the controller. The controller is configured to adjust parameters of the metal deposition device to keep the temperature within acceptable limits based on the feedback signal, [0079], Peters et al.).
Claim 22, wherein the self-shielding flux cored wire electrode enables outdoor operation of the robotic welding system (kinematic control elements (e.g., robotics), [0032]; the metal deposition device may typically be used to help additively manufacture a part, layer-by-layer, by a welding process, [0034], Peters et al.) without environmental enclosures required for shielding gas containment (electrodes 32 may be… self-shielded… flux cored wires, [0035], Fig 1, Peters et al.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 EST.
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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. 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.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761