SYSTEM FOR AIR-CONDITIONING THE AIR OF A PASSENGER COMPARTMENT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE AS WELL AS METHOD FOR OPERATING THE SYSTEM

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 . This action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on 02/19/2025. Claims 24-46 are pending in this application. claims 1-23 have been cancelled. Claim Objections Claim 24-26, 33-35, 39-42, 44 and 46 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 24 recites the limitation “a refrigerant circuit” in line 11 which should be recited to “the refrigerant circuit” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 24 recites the limitation “an evaporator” in line 16-17 which should be recited to “the evaporator” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 24 recites the limitation “the first expansion member” in line 22 which should be recited to “the upstream first expansion member” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 24 recites the limitation “the second expansion member” in lines 23-24 which should be recited to “the upstream second expansion member” for proper antecedent basis. In line 26 of claim 24, the open parenthesis should be removed. Claim 25 recites the limitation “a fourth refrigerant/air heat exchanger” in lines 5-6 which should be recited to “the fourth refrigerant/air heat exchanger” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 25 recites the limitation “an evaporator” in line 6 which should be recited to “the evaporator” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 25 recites the limitation “a fifth refrigerant/air heat exchanger” in line 7 which should be recited to “the fourth refrigerant/air heat exchanger” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 25 recites the limitation “an evaporator” in line 7 which should be recited to “the evaporator” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 26 recites the limitation “the first expansion member” in lines 4-5 which should be recited to “the upstream first expansion member” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 33 recites the limitation “the second expansion member” in line 3 which should be recited to “the upstream second expansion member” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 33 recites the limitation “the third expansion member” in line 6 which should be recited to “the upstream third expansion member” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 33 recites the limitation “an evaporator” in the last line which should be recited to “the evaporator” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 34 recites the limitation “an evaporator” in lines 2-3 which should be recited to “the evaporator” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 34 recites the limitation “a condenser/gas cooler” in line 4 which should be recited to “the condenser/gas cooler” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 34 recites the limitation “an evaporator” in line 8 which should be recited to “the evaporator” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 35 recites the limitation “an evaporator” in lines 2-3 which should be recited to “the evaporator” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 39 recites the limitation “a condenser/gas cooler” in line 2 which should be recited to “the condenser/gas cooler” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 40 recites the limitation “the first expansion member” in lines 5 and 8 which should be recited to “the upstream first expansion member” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 40 recites the limitation “a condenser/gas cooler” in line 6 which should be recited to “the condenser/gas cooler” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 40 recites the limitation “the second expansion member” in lines 14, 22 which should be recited to “the upstream second expansion member” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 40 recites the limitation “the air flow channels” in lines 31-32 which should be recited to “the plurality of air flow channels” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 40 recites the limitation “an evaporator” in lines 14 and 17-18 which should be recited to “the evaporator” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 41 recites the limitation “the air flow channels” in lines 9 and 11 which should be recited to “the plurality of air flow channels” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 42 recites the limitation “an evaporator” in line 6 which should be recited to “the evaporator” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 44 recites the limitation “a condenser/gas cooler” in line 14 which should be recited to “the condenser/gas cooler” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 44 recites the limitation “the first expansion member” in lines 23 and 30 which should be recited to “the upstream first expansion member” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 44 recites the limitation “an evaporator” in lines 23, 27, 31, 35, 38, 42 and 46 which should be recited to “the evaporator” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 44 recites the limitation “the second expansion member” in lines 35-37 which should be recited to “the upstream second expansion member” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 46 recites the limitation “the first expansion member” in lines 2-3 which should be recited to “the upstream first expansion member” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 46 recites the limitation “an evaporator” in lines 2, 4 and 6 which should be recited to “the evaporator” for proper antecedent basis. Claim 46 recites the limitation “the third expansion member” in lines 5 and 7 which should be recited to “the upstream third expansion member” for proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation 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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the limitation “an upstream first expansion member” in claim 24 includes a generic/nonce term “member” coupled with function “expansion” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “an upstream first expansion member” can be implemented in various ways, such as “an upstream first expansion valve” [0033]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof; the limitation “an upstream second expansion member” in claim 24 includes a generic/nonce term “member” coupled with function “expansion” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “an upstream second expansion member” can be implemented in various ways, such as “an upstream second expansion valve” [0033]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof; the limitation “an upstream third expansion member” in claim 24 includes a generic/nonce term “member” coupled with function “expansion” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “an upstream third expansion member” can be implemented in various ways, such as “an upstream third expansion valve” [0033]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof; the limitation “an upstream expansion member” in claim 24 includes a generic/nonce term “member” coupled with function “expansion” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “an upstream third expansion member” can be implemented in various ways, such as “an upstream expansion valve” [0033]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof; the limitation “an upstream fourth expansion member” in claim 24 includes a generic/nonce term “member” coupled with function “expansion” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “an upstream fourth expansion member” can be implemented in various ways, such as “an upstream fourth expansion valve” [0033]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof; the limitation “an upstream fifth expansion member” in claim 24 includes a generic/nonce term “member” coupled with function “expansion” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “an upstream fifth expansion member” can be implemented in various ways, such as “an upstream fifth expansion valve” [0033]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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. Claims 24-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 24 recites the limitation “at least one component of a drive train” in line 11 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what actual structure corresponds to the limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “battery cells”. Claim 24 recites the limitation “they can be charged with refrigerant independently from one another and in parallel to one another” in lines 18-19 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear what the limitation “they” refers to. Second, the recitation “can be” is a conditional recitation. It is unclear whether the limitation “charged with refrigerant independently from one another and in parallel to one another” required by the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the second refrigerant/air heat exchanger, the third refrigerant/air heat exchanger and the first refrigerant/coolant heat exchanger can be charged with refrigerant independently from one another and in parallel to one another”. Claim 24 recites the limitation “each with an upstream expansion member” in line 28 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “an upstream first expansion member”, “an upstream second expansion member, “an upstream third expansion member” or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the fourth refrigerant/air heat exchanger with an upstream fourth expansion member and the fifth refrigerant/air heat exchanger with an upstream fifth expansion member”. Claim 25 recites the limitation “they can be charged with refrigerant independently from one another and in parallel to one another” in lines 4-5 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear what the limitation “they” refers to. Second, the recitation “can be” is a conditional recitation. It is unclear whether the limitation “charged with refrigerant independently from one another and in parallel to one another” required by the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the fourth refrigerant/air heat exchanger and the fifth refrigerant/air heat exchanger can be charged with refrigerant independently from one another and in parallel to one another”. Claim 25 recites the limitation "a fourth refrigerant/air heat exchanger" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the fourth refrigerant/air heat exchanger". Claim 25 recites the limitation "a fifth refrigerant/air heat exchanger" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the fifth refrigerant/air heat exchanger". Claim 34 recites the limitation "a first one of the air flow channels" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a first one of the plurality of air flow channels ". Claim 34 recites the limitation "a second one of the air flow channels" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a second one of the plurality of air flow channels ". Claim 35 recites the limitation "a third one of the air flow channels" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a third one of the plurality of air flow channels ". Claim 36 recites the limitation “a refrigerant/air heat exchanger” in line 2 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a first refrigerant/air heat exchanger”, “a second refrigerant/air heat exchanger”, “a third refrigerant/air heat exchanger”, “a fourth refrigerant/air heat exchanger”, “a fifth refrigerant/air heat exchanger” or something else. Further clarification is required. Claim 36 recites the limitation "each of the air flow channels" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “each of the plurality of air flow channels ". Claim 37 recites the limitation “a branching point” in line 2 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a first branching point” of claim 24 or something else. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a second branching point”. Claim 38 recites the limitation “the refrigerant/air heat exchanger” in line 3 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “a first refrigerant/air heat exchanger”, “a second refrigerant/air heat exchanger”, “a third refrigerant/air heat exchanger”, “a fourth refrigerant/air heat exchanger”, “a fifth refrigerant/air heat exchanger” or something else. Further clarification is required. Claim 38 recites the limitation "a condenser/gas cooler" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the condenser/gas cooler". Claim 40 recites the limitation “each with the upstream expansion member” in line 18 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “an upstream first expansion member”, “an upstream second expansion member”, “an upstream third expansion member”, “an upstream fourth expansion member” or “an upstream fifth expansion member”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the fourth refrigerant/air heat exchanger with the upstream fourth expansion member and the fifth refrigerant/air heat exchanger with the upstream fifth expansion member”. Claim 40 recites the limitation “the upstream expansion member” in line 22 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “an upstream first expansion member”, “an upstream third expansion member”, “an upstream fourth expansion member” or “an upstream fifth expansion member”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the upstream third expansion member”. Regarding claim 40, the phrase “optionally” in line 26 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 41 recites the limitation “the upstream expansion member” in line 6 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “an upstream first expansion member”, “an upstream second expansion member”, “an upstream third expansion member”, “an upstream fourth expansion member” or “an upstream fifth expansion member”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the upstream third expansion member”. Regarding claim 41, the phrase “optionally” in lines 7 and 12 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claim 42, the phrase “optionally” in line 7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claim 44, the phrase “optionally” in line 11 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claim 44, the phrase “optionally” in line 18 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 44 recites the limitation “each with the upstream expansion member” in line 27 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “an upstream first expansion member”, “an upstream second expansion member”, “an upstream third expansion member”, “an upstream fourth expansion member” or “an upstream fifth expansion member”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the fourth refrigerant/air heat exchanger with the upstream fourth expansion member and the fifth refrigerant/air heat exchanger with the upstream fifth expansion member”. Claim 44 recites the limitation “each with the upstream expansion member” in lines 42-43 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “an upstream first expansion member”, “an upstream second expansion member”, “an upstream third expansion member”, “an upstream fourth expansion member” or “an upstream fifth expansion member”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the fourth refrigerant/air heat exchanger with the upstream fourth expansion member and the fifth refrigerant/air heat exchanger with the upstream fifth expansion member”. Claim 44 recites the limitation “a respective one of the upstream expansion member” in line 44 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “an upstream first expansion member”, “an upstream second expansion member”, “an upstream third expansion member”, “an upstream fourth expansion member” or “an upstream fifth expansion member”. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “a respective one of the upstream first expansion member, the upstream second expansion member, the upstream third expansion member, the upstream fourth expansion member and the upstream fifth expansion member”. Regarding claim 44, the phrase “optionally” in line 47 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 44 recites the limitation "the air flow channels" in line 51. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “air flow channels”. Regarding claim 45, the phrase “optionally” in lines 7 and 13 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 45 recites the limitation “the upstream expansion member” in line 6 which is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation refers to “an upstream first expansion member”, “an upstream second expansion member”, “an upstream third expansion member”, “an upstream fourth expansion member” or “an upstream fifth expansion member”. Further clarification is required. Regarding claim 46, the phrase “optionally” in line 7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 26-33, 39 and 43 are rejected by the virtual dependency of claim 24. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 24-46 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 24, Hotzel et al. (2020/0164720) discloses a system to air-condition incoming air of a passenger compartment of a motor vehicle, having a refrigerant circuit (abstract) comprising: a compressor (3), a first refrigerant/air heat exchanger (9) operable as a condenser/gas cooler for heating the incoming air of the passenger compartment (62; see figure 2A); a refrigerant path with a second refrigerant/air heat exchanger (21) operable as a condenser/gas cooler (21) or as an evaporator for heat exchange with ambient air with an upstream first expansion member (22) and a third refrigerant/air heat exchanger (6) operable as an evaporator for conditioning the incoming air of the passenger compartment (62) with an upstream second expansion member (5; see figure 2A); and a refrigerant circuit with a first refrigerant/coolant heat exchanger (11) operable as an evaporator for heat exchange between a coolant for controlling a temperature of at least one component of a drive train of the motor vehicle (paragraph [0120]) and a refrigerant with an upstream third expansion member (10) , wherein the refrigerant path with the second refrigerant/air heat exchanger (21) and the third refrigerant/air heat exchanger (6; see figure 2A) and a refrigerant path with the first refrigerant/coolant heat exchanger (11) operable as an evaporator respectively extend from a first branching point (15) to a first opening point and are formed such that they can be charged with the refrigerant independently from one another and in parallel to one another (figure 2A shows the first refrigerant/coolant heat exchanger 11 and the third refrigerant/gas heat exchanger 6 are charge with refrigerant independently from one another and in parallel to one another), wherein the refrigerant circuit has a first connection point (17) with a first port, a second port and a third port (see figure 2A). However, Hotzel fails to disclose the first port is arranged between the first refrigerant/air heat exchanger and the first expansion member of the second refrigerant/air heat exchanger and the third port is arranged between the second refrigerant/air heat exchanger and the second expansion member of the third refrigerant/air heat exchanger and a refrigerant path extends from the third port to a second opening point, in a fourth refrigerant/air heat exchanger and a fifth refrigerant/air heat exchanger operable as an evaporator for conditioning the incoming air of the passenger compartment each with an upstream expansion member is arranged, wherein the second opening point is arranged in a flow direction of the refrigerant upstream of the compressor. The primary reference Hotzel fails to disclose the claimed structure detail of the system to air-condition incoming air of the passenger compartment of the motor vehicle as required in claim 24. Also, the prior art of record, fails to provide further teachings or motivation to modify the system of Hotzel in order to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 24-46 are allowable. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm. 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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. 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. /KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763