DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/26/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The Information Disclosure Statement cites foreign patent document JP-2012-207621 A, however, a copy of the cited document has not been provided. Since the foreign patent document is used for the rejection under the prior art as discussed below, a copy of the document (and an English translation) has been attached to the instant Office Action.
It appears applicant has mistakenly attached a copy of JP 2014-63322 A, which was not cited in the Information Disclosure Statement filed 02/26/2025.
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 7-9, 14, 17-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites “a depth of the left side bump”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if the dept of the left side bump is measured in the same manner as the middle bump, or in a different manner. The claim only describes how the depth of the middle bump is to be measured, and not how the depth of the left side bump is defined. The instant specification Para. 0033 states “The left side bump 428 has a depth that is measured the same way as the middle bump 420”, however, limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the inner edge extends from one side to the other side”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what the “sides” belong to (i.e. “one side” of what? the “inner edge”? the “exit frame”?).
Claim 17 recites “a depth of the left side bump”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear if the dept of the left side bump is measured in the same manner as the middle bump, or in a different manner. The claim only describes how the depth of the middle bump is to be measured, and not how the depth of the left side bump is defined. The instant specification Para. 0033 states “The left side bump 428 has a depth that is measured the same way as the middle bump 420”, however, limitations from the Specification are not read into the claims.
Claims 8, 9, 15, 18-19 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claims 7, 14 & 17 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujimura (JP 2012-207621 A, see attached English translation).
Regarding independent claim 1, Fujimura discloses a transition duct (Fig. 2) comprising:
a liner 4 defining an inlet opening (connected to combustor 23) and an outlet opening (Fig. 2); and
an exit frame 4a-4d (Fig. 3, Fig. 5, the exit frame formed where flange 8 is on the transition duct; alternatively, the seal member 11, Para. 0023) connected to the liner 4 and disposed around a perimeter of the outlet opening (Fig. 3-6), the exit frame comprising:
a first side panel 4c;
a second side panel 4d;
an outer diameter panel 4b disposed between the first side panel and the second side panel;
an inner diameter panel 4a disposed between the first side panel and the second side panel; and
a middle bump 30a (“convex portion”) extending from the inner diameter panel toward the outer diameter panel (Fig. 4, 5, 6, Para. 0020-23, the middle bump 30a that is in the middle of the inner diameter panel, Fig. 4 & 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
611
961
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Fujimura discloses the transition duct of claim 1, wherein the inner diameter panel 4a defines an inner edge (the downstream edge of the transition duct, Fig. 4 above) that includes a non-bump portion 30b (“concave portion”, Fig. 6(b-1 & b-2) above) and the middle bump 30a (Para. 0020-21, 0026).
Regarding claim 3, Fujimura discloses the transition duct of claim 2, wherein the non-bump portion 30b extends between the first side panel 4c and the second side panel 4d along a curve that is defined by a second order polynomial (Fig. 3-6, the non-bump portion 30b is formed along the downstream edge of the inner diameter panel 4a as part of a “circumferentially continuous wave-shape”, which shown in Fig. 3 is curved along an inner diameter of the end of the transition duct which forms an annular flow passage; such a curve would naturally be defined by some second order polynomial, ax2+bx+c = 0, since such polynomials are used to define curved shapes, such as a circle/annular shape).
Regarding independent claim 11, Fujimura discloses a transition duct (Fig. 2) comprising:
a liner 4 defining an inlet opening (connected to combustor 23) and an outlet opening (Fig. 2);
an exit frame connected to the liner (Fig. 3 & 5, the frame being the portion with flange 9 of the transition duct; alternatively, the seal member 11, Para. 0023), the exit frame defining an inner perimeter edge that surrounds the outlet opening (the edge having sides 4a-4d as shown);
a middle bump 30a extending from the inner perimeter edge into the outlet opening (Fig. 4-6);
a left side bump 30aL disposed at a left side of the middle bump (when facing the exit frame from the downstream side, Fig. 4 above) and extending from the inner perimeter edge into the outlet opening; and
a right side bump 30aR disposed at a right side of the middle bump (when facing the exit frame from the downstream side, Fig. 4 above) and extending from the inner perimeter edge into the outlet opening (Fig. 4 above; the bumps can also be formed on the seal member 11, Para. 0023).
Regarding claim 12, Fujimura discloses the transition duct of claim 11, wherein the inner perimeter edge includes an inner edge 4a (the radially inner side of the inner perimeter edge, Fig. 3), and wherein the middle bump 30a, the left side bump 30aL, and the right side bump 30aR extend from the inner edge (Fig. 4-6, the bumps extend from the edge in an upstream direction).
Regarding claim 13, Fujimura discloses the transition duct of claim 12, wherein the inner edge 4a, the middle bump 30a, the left side bump 30aL, and the right side bump 30aR cooperate to define a continuous curve (Fig. 6(b-2), the edge and bumps form “circumferentially continuous wave-shaped irregularities 30 on the inner peripheral wall 4a”, Para. 0021-22).
Regarding claim 14, Fujimura discloses the transition duct of claim 12, wherein the inner edge 4a extends from one side to the other side (interpreted as from one circumferential side of the exit frame to the other, i.e. from side edge 4c to side edge 4d, Fig. 3) and includes a non-bump portion 30b, the middle bump 30a, the left side bump 30aL, and the right side bump 30aR (Fig. 4-6, Para. 0021-23).
Regarding claim 15, Fujimura discloses the transition duct of claim 14, wherein the non-bump portion 30b has a curve that is defined by a second order polynomial (Fig. 3-6, the non-bump portion 30b is formed along the downstream edge of the inner diameter panel 4a as part of a “circumferentially continuous wave-shape”, which shown in Fig. 3 is curved along an inner diameter of the end of the transition duct which forms an annular flow passage; such a curve would naturally be defined by some second order polynomial, ax2+bx+c = 0, since such polynomials are used to define curved shapes, such as a circle/annular shape).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4-10, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura.
Regarding claim 4, Fujimura discloses the transition duct of claim 2, wherein a height of the middle bump 30a is measured from a radial peak of the middle bump to a projection of the inner edge beneath the radial peak (Fig. 6(b-1) & (b-2) above), wherein the radial peak is in the same plane as the inner diameter panel (Fig. 4 & 6 above & Fig. 5, the peak is on the plane of the exit frame which includes the inner diameter panel).
Fujimura fails to disclose wherein the height is between 3mm to 30mm.
Fujimura does discuss the distance in which the radial peak protrudes into the gas flow path affects the flow velocity and pressure of the gas flow as it passes across the middle bump 30a, which affects the pressure distribution as well as the amount of sealing air necessary to be used between the end of the transition piece and the first stage turbine stator blades (Para. 0021-22). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the radial height of the middle bump is a result-effective variable.
It has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have discovered the optimal radial height of the middle bump in the transition duct of Fujimura, such as a height between 3mm to 30mm, in order to optimize the flow velocity and pressure of the gas flow across the middle bump, to improve pressure distribution uniformity at the exit frame, reducing the amount of sealing air needed between the end of the transition duct and the first stage turbine stator blade section, and also preventing a flow of seal air from being biased towards a suction side of the first stage stator vanes and the pressure side of the first stage stator vanes (Fujimura Para. 0021-22). Fujimura teaches the basic structure of the claim, and one skilled in the art would know to optimize the radial height of the bumps to achieve a desired level of performance, which could be achieved through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 5, Fujimura teaches the transition duct of claim 4, further comprising a left side bump 30aL positioned at a left side of the middle bump 30a and a right side bump 30aR positioned at a right side of the middle bump (Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 6, Fujimura teaches the transition duct of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein a height of the left side bump 30aL and a height of the right side bump are equal to the height of the middle bump 30a.
Fujimura does discuss the height of the bumps 30a protruding into the gas flow path affects the flow velocity and pressure of the gas flow as it passes across the bumps, which affects the pressure distribution as well as the amount of sealing air necessary to be used between the end of the transition piece and the first stage turbine stator blades (Para. 0021-22). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the radial height of each of the bumps is a result-effective variable.
It has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have discovered the optimal radial heights of the left and right bumps in the transition duct of Fujimura, such as having a height that is equal to the middle bump, in order to optimize the flow velocity and pressure of the gas flow across all the bumps in the inner diameter panel, to improve pressure distribution uniformity at the exit frame, reducing the amount of sealing air needed between the end of the transition duct and the first stage turbine stator blade section, and also preventing a flow of seal air from being biased towards a suction side of the first stage stator vanes and the pressure side of the first stage stator vanes (Fujimura Para. 0021-22). Fujimura teaches the basic structure of the claim, and one skilled in the art would know to optimize the radial height of the bumps to achieve a desired level of performance, which could be achieved through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 7, Fujimura discloses the transition duct of claim 5, wherein a depth of the middle bump 30a is measured from a lateral peak of the middle bump to the inner diameter panel (Fig. 4-6, see the length of the middle bump), wherein the lateral peak is disposed on the liner 4 (the shape of the middle bump extends from the inner diameter side 4a of the liner of the transition duct 4 to its height as shown in Fig. 5 & 6).
Fujimura fails to disclose wherein the depth of the middle bump is greater than a depth of the left side bump (the depths of each bump 30a, 30aL, 30aR are shown in Fig. 4 as being the same).
However, applicant has not disclosed that having the middle bump depth be greater than the depth of the left side bump results in an unpredicted result not seen in the Prior Art and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the middle and left side bumps having the same depth, as taught by Fujimura. The instant Specification Para. 0033 describes “In the construction shown in FIG. 5, the middle bump 420 has a depth that is greater than a depth of the left side bump 428 and a depth of the right side bump 430. … In other constructions, the bumps may have different depths, for example, the depth of the middle bump 420 is equal to or less than the depth of the left side bump 428 and/or the depth of the right side bump 430, or the depth of the left side bump 428 may be different than the depth of the right side bump 430”, and does not discuss the functional significance of the depths of each bump with respect to each other, while suggesting an embodiment where the bumps are equal in depth. There is no discussion as to why specifically a “depth of the middle bump is greater than a depth of the left side bump” is functionally significant, or what unpredicted result is produced from its use, and consequently, the limitation appears to constitute a mere change in shape/size (especially since the disclosure states the depths can be equal to, less than, or greater than each other interchangeably). Absent persuasive evidence that the “depth of the middle bump is greater than a depth of the left side bump” is functionally significant, the limitations above constitute a mere change in size/shape and fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(a & b).
Regarding claim 8, Fujimura teaches the transition duct of claim 7, wherein the depth of the left side bump 30aL is equal to a depth of the right side bump 30aR (Fig. 4 above, the bumps are the same depth as shown).
Regarding claim 9, Fujimura teaches the transition duct of claim 7, wherein the middle bump 30a has a tapered surface that tapers from the radial peak to the lateral peak (Fig. 5 & 6, the upstream side of the middle bump 30a, and every bump 30a in general, tapers from its radial peak to the lateral peak on the liner 4a as shown).
Regarding claim 10, Fujimura discloses the transition duct of claim 1, wherein the outer diameter panel 4b defines an outer edge (Fig. 3-5, the edge at the end of the exit frame at the outer diameter panel 4b) and the first side panel 4c defines a first side edge (Fig. 3-5, the edge at the end of the exit frame running along the first side panel 4c), wherein the outer edge and the first side edge are joined by a first outer edge fillet (Fig. 3, there is a fillet/curve connecting the outer edge and first side edge at the corner of the exit frame as shown).
Fujimura fails to disclose wherein the first outer edge fillet is defined by a non-circular elliptical curve (the first outer edge fillet of Fujimura is shown simply as a non-descript curve or radius, Fig. 3).
However, applicant has not disclosed that using a non-circular elliptical curve results in an unpredicted result not seen in the Prior Art and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the curved fillet, as taught by Fujimura. The instant disclosure Para. 0031 describes “The first outer edge fillet 410 and the second outer edge fillet 412 are defined by a non-circular elliptical curve”, but also states “In other constructions, the first outer edge fillet 410, the second outer edge fillet 412, the first inner edge fillets 416, and the second inner edge fillet 414 may be defined by any shapes of curves to meet a requirement of the gas turbine engine 100”. Para. 0036 describes “The first outer edge fillet 410 … and the second outer edge fillet 412 … have a non-circular elliptical shape that reduces a deformation of a gap between the outer diameter panel 310 and the stationary turbine vane 126 at the turbine inlet 130 such that a uniform circumferential radial gap is maintained”, but does not describe how this non-circular elliptical shape would perform differently than a different curved shape (such as the curved shape of Fujimura’s fillet). There is no discussion as to why specifically a non-circular elliptical fillet for the first outer edge fillet is functionally significant, or what unpredicted result is produced from its use, and consequently, the limitation appears to constitute a mere change in shape (especially since the disclosure states the fillet can also be “any shapes of curves” to meet desired requirements of the engine). Absent persuasive evidence that the non-circular elliptical fillet is functionally significant, the limitations above constitute a mere change in shape and fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(4)(b).
Regarding claim 16, Fujimura discloses the transition duct of claim 12, wherein a height of the middle bump 30a is measured from a radial peak of the middle bump to a projection of the inner edge beneath the radial peak (Fig. 6(b-1) & (b-2) above), wherein the radial peak is in the same plane as the inner diameter panel (Fig. 4 & 6 above & Fig. 5, the peak is on the plane of the exit frame which includes the inner diameter panel).
Fujimura fails to disclose wherein the height is between 3mm to 30mm.
Fujimura does discuss the distance in which the radial peak protrudes into the gas flow path affects the flow velocity and pressure of the gas flow as it passes across the middle bump 30a, which affects the pressure distribution as well as the amount of sealing air necessary to be used between the end of the transition piece and the first stage turbine stator blades (Para. 0021-22). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the radial height of the middle bump is a result-effective variable.
It has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have discovered the optimal radial height of the middle bump in the transition duct of Fujimura, in order to optimize the flow velocity and pressure of the gas flow across the middle bump, to improve pressure distribution uniformity at the exit frame, reducing the amount of sealing air needed between the end of the transition duct and the first stage turbine stator blade section, and also preventing a flow of seal air from being biased towards a suction side of the first stage stator vanes and the pressure side of the first stage stator vanes (Fujimura Para. 0021-22). Fujimura teaches the basic structure of the claim, and one skilled in the art would know to optimize the radial height of the bumps to achieve a desired level of performance, which could be achieved through routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 17, Fujimura discloses the transition duct of claim 16, wherein a depth of the middle bump 30a is measured from a lateral peak of the middle bump to the exit frame (Fig. 4-6, see the length of the middle bump), wherein the lateral peak is disposed on the liner 4 (the shape of the middle bump extends from the inner diameter side 4a of the liner of the transition duct 4 to its height as shown in Fig. 5 & 6).
Fujimura fails to disclose wherein the depth of the middle bump is greater than a depth of the left side bump (the depths of each bump 30a, 30aL, 30aR are shown in Fig. 4 as being the same).
However, applicant has not disclosed that having the middle bump depth be greater than the depth of the left side bump results in an unpredicted result not seen in the Prior Art and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the middle and left side bumps having the same depth, as taught by Fujimura. The instant Specification Para. 0033 describes “In the construction shown in FIG. 5, the middle bump 420 has a depth that is greater than a depth of the left side bump 428 and a depth of the right side bump 430. … In other constructions, the bumps may have different depths, for example, the depth of the middle bump 420 is equal to or less than the depth of the left side bump 428 and/or the depth of the right side bump 430, or the depth of the left side bump 428 may be different than the depth of the right side bump 430”, and does not discuss the functional significance of the depths of each bump with respect to each other, while suggesting an embodiment where the bumps are equal in depth. There is no discussion as to why specifically a “depth of the middle bump is greater than a depth of the left side bump” is functionally significant, or what unpredicted result is produced from its use, and consequently, the limitation appears to constitute a mere change in shape/size (especially since the disclosure states the depths can be equal to, less than, or greater than each other interchangeably). Absent persuasive evidence that the “depth of the middle bump is greater than a depth of the left side bump” is functionally significant, the limitations above constitute a mere change in size/shape and fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(a & b).
Regarding claim 18, Fujimura teaches the transition duct of claim 17, wherein the depth of the left side bump 30aL is equal to a depth of the right side bump 30aR (Fig. 4 above, the bumps are the same depth as shown).
Regarding claim 19, Fujimura teaches the transition duct of claim 17, wherein the middle bump 30a has a tapered surface that tapers from the radial peak to the lateral peak (Fig. 5 & 6, the upstream side of the middle bump 30a, and every bump 30a in general, tapers from its radial peak to the lateral peak on the liner 4a as shown).
Regarding claim 20, Fujimura discloses the transition duct of claim 11, wherein the inner perimeter edge includes an outer edge 4b and a first side edge 4c (Fig. 3-6, along the outer side of the exit frame and the left side as shown), wherein the outer edge and the first side edge are joined by a first outer edge fillet (Fig. 3, there is a fillet/curve connecting the outer edge and first side edge at the corner of the exit frame as shown).
Fujimura fails to disclose wherein the first outer edge fillet is defined by a non-circular elliptical curve.
However, applicant has not disclosed that using a non-circular elliptical curve results in an unpredicted result not seen in the Prior Art and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the curved fillet, as taught by Fujimura. The instant disclosure Para. 0031 describes “The first outer edge fillet 410 and the second outer edge fillet 412 are defined by a non-circular elliptical curve”, but also states “In other constructions, the first outer edge fillet 410, the second outer edge fillet 412, the first inner edge fillets 416, and the second inner edge fillet 414 may be defined by any shapes of curves to meet a requirement of the gas turbine engine 100”. Para. 0036 describes “The first outer edge fillet 410 … and the second outer edge fillet 412 … have a non-circular elliptical shape that reduces a deformation of a gap between the outer diameter panel 310 and the stationary turbine vane 126 at the turbine inlet 130 such that a uniform circumferential radial gap is maintained”, but does not describe how this non-circular elliptical shape would perform differently than a different curved shape (such as the curved shape of Fujimura’s fillet). There is no discussion as to why specifically a non-circular elliptical fillet for the first outer edge fillet is functionally significant, or what unpredicted result is produced from its use, and consequently, the limitation appears to constitute a mere change in shape (especially since the disclosure states the fillet can also be “any shapes of curves” to meet desired requirements of the engine). Absent persuasive evidence that the non-circular elliptical fillet is functionally significant, the limitations above constitute a mere change in shape and fail to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(4)(b).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boston (GB 2361302 A) teaches a transition duct for a gas turbine engine combustor having a plurality of bumps/corrugations on the liner, extending to the exit frame.
Metcalfe (US 2704440 A) teaches a combustor liner exit having corrugated shapes.
Soechting (US 6860108 B2) teaches an aft frame/seal structure for a combustor transition piece, the aft frame having features for providing sealing air between the transition piece and the turbine first stage stator.
Correia (US 20180100433 A1, US 11067277 B2) teaches a combustor liner exit having a plurality of fins extending into the gas flow path at the exit of the combustor upstream of the first turbine stage.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached on 571 272 7118. 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.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741