DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the application filed on June 05, 2025. Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse in the reply filed on January 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant elected:
Group 1: Figure 2 fuel distribution system;
Group 2: 4 nozzles in the first subset;
Group 3: 18 nozzles in the second subset;
Group 4: fuel flow nvPM emissions index ratio of 0.0238;
Group 5: Wf,idle = 0.178 kg/s;
Group 6: Wf,maxTO = 1.88 kg/s
The traversal is on the grounds that “the subject matter of all species is sufficiently related that… search and examination of the entire application could be made without serious burden”. This is not found persuasive because the inventions as claimed have been shown to be distinct based on their mutually exclusive configurations pursuant to MPEP § 806.04 and because search and examination burden has been established pursuant to MPEP § 808.02 (see pp. 2-4 of prior Office Action). Each patentably distinct species requires a different field of search (employing different search strategies and search queries). Applicant has not specifically pointed out any supposed errors in the established burden. Moreover, Applicant has not stated on the record or submitted evidence that the species are not patentably distinct.
Pursuant to MPEP § 904.02, the search covers the claimed subject matter AND the disclosed features which might reasonably be expected to be claimed. In the instant case, if the application were not restricted to one patentably distinct species, the search would be required to cover unique features reasonably expected to be claimed for the numerous mutually exclusive configurations. It is additionally pointed out that the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes that effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, normally require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional invention examined. Concurrent examination of multiple inventions would thus typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive. In the instant case, it would be necessary to search for each patentably distinct species in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the others. The claims encompass such a multiplicity of species that an unduly extensive and burdensome search would be necessary to search the entire scope of the claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/892,696, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, in Claims 1-18 it fails to provide support for each nvPM emissions index being “system loss corrected”.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, it is noted that the foreign priority document fails to provide support for each nvPM emissions index being “system loss corrected”,
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because using phrases which can be implied (e.g., “is also disclosed”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. See SPEC pages 172-173 (ICAO, Durand 2023, Corbin 2022, Harper 2022 and Saffaripour 2019).
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 1-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to Claim 1, the recitation that EIidle is “the system loss corrected nvPM emission index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust for given operating conditions” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Various system loss corrections exist and the recitation raises question if “the system loss corrected” refers to (i) a particular type of correction or (ii) any type of system loss correction being required by the claim.
As to Claim 1, the recitation that EImaxTO is “the system loss corrected nvPM emission index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Various system loss corrections exist and the recitation raises question if “the system loss corrected” refers to (i) a particular type of correction or (ii) any type of system loss correction being required by the claim.
As to Claim 1, “Wf,idle is the rate of fuel flow to the fuel spray nozzles in kg/s at around 7% available thrust…” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “the fuel spray nozzles” refers to the aforementioned: (i) the plurality of fuel spray nozzles; (ii) the fuel nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles; or (ii) the fuel nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles.
As to Claim 1, “Wf,maxTO is the rate of fuel flow to the fuel spray nozzles in kg/s at around 100% available thrust…” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “the fuel spray nozzles” refers to the aforementioned: (i) the plurality of fuel spray nozzles; (ii) the fuel nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles; or (ii) the fuel nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles.
As to Claim 18, the recitation that EIidle is “the system loss corrected nvPM emission index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust for given operating conditions” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Various system loss corrections exist and the recitation raises question if “the system loss corrected” refers to (i) a particular type of correction or (ii) any type of system loss correction being required by the claim.
As to Claim 18, the recitation that EImaxTO is “the system loss corrected nvPM emission index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. Various system loss corrections exist and the recitation raises question if “the system loss corrected” refers to (i) a particular type of correction or (ii) any type of system loss correction being required by the claim.
As to Claim 18, “Wf,idle is the rate of fuel flow to the fuel spray nozzles in kg/s at around 7% available thrust…” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “the fuel spray nozzles” refers to the aforementioned: (i) the plurality of fuel spray nozzles; (ii) the fuel nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles; or (ii) the fuel nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles.
As to Claim 18, “Wf,maxTO is the rate of fuel flow to the fuel spray nozzles in kg/s at around 100% available thrust…” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if “the fuel spray nozzles” refers to the aforementioned: (i) the plurality of fuel spray nozzles; (ii) the fuel nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles; or (ii) the fuel nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles.
Claims 2-17 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
Prior Art Relied Upon
This action references the following issued US Patents and/or Patent Application Publications:
US PATENT or PUBLICATION NUMBER
HEREINAFTER
US-11591973-B1
“SWANN”
US-20100263382-A1
“MANCINI”
This action references the following non-patent documents:
AUTHOR OR EDITOR
TITLE (DATE),
PUBLISHER,
EDITION
CHAPTERS / PAGES
COPY
HEREINAFTER
Schripp et al.
Aircraft engine particulate matter emissions from sustainable aviation fuels: Results from ground-based measurements during the NASA/DLR campaign ECLIF2/ND-MAX (2022),
NRC PUB. ARCHIVE/FUEL,
325
ALL
COPY PROVIDED BY APPLICANT WITH 3/11/2026 IDS
“SCHRIPP”
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWANN in view of MANCINI and SCHRIPP.
Re Claims 1, 17 and 18 SWANN teaches a gas turbine engine 10 for an aircraft and method of operating the gas turbine engine, the gas turbine engine comprising:
a combustor 16 (36:14-44), comprising a combustion chamber and a plurality of fuel spray nozzles configured to inject fuel into the combustion chamber (43:3 to 46:9), and the gas turbine engine is configured to provide fuel comprising a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) to the plurality of fuel spray nozzles (38:18 to 39:36) and wherein the method comprises providing fuel comprising the sustainable aviation fuel to the plurality of fuel nozzles (38:18 to 39:36). In SWANN, the gas turbine engine necessarily comprises:
a fuel-flow nvPM emissions index ratio according to the equation claimed (See SWANN at 32:13 to 34:47 and Figures 18-19, 24-25) defined as:
E
I
i
d
l
e
×
W
f
,
i
d
l
e
E
I
m
a
x
T
O
×
W
f
,
m
a
x
T
O
where:
EIidle is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust for given operating conditions (e.g., during idle or other around 7% available thrust condition of aircraft; Figs. 24-25, 32:20-40);
EImaxTO is the system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions (e.g., during climb or other around 100% available thrust condition of aircraft; Figs. 24-25, 32:38 to 33:18);
W
f
,
i
d
l
e
is the rate of fuel flow to the fuel spray nozzles in kg/s at around 7% available thrust for the given operating conditions (e.g., during idle or other around 7% available thrust condition of aircraft; Figures 18-19, 32:20-40); and
W
f
,
m
a
x
T
O
is the rate of fuel flow to the fuel spray nozzles in kg/s at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions (e.g., during climb or other around 100% available thrust condition of aircraft; Figures 18-19, 32:38 to 33:18). SWANN further notes that the plurality of fuel spray nozzles may include subsets of injectors which are separately staged (44:16-43).
However, SWANN fails to expressly teach wherein the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a first subset of fuel spray nozzles and a second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein the combustor is operable in a condition in which each of the fuel spray nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles is supplied with fuel at a greater fuel flow rate than each of the fuel spray nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein a ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:3 to 1:6.
MANCINI teaches a gas turbine combustor wherein a plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a first subset of fuel spray nozzles 190 and a second subset of fuel spray nozzles 192 (Figure 1, ¶¶0046-0048), wherein the combustor is operable in a condition in which each of the fuel spray nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles is supplied with fuel at a greater fuel flow rate than each of the fuel spray nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles (¶0047), wherein a ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles (four) to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles (eighteen) is in the range of 1:3 to 1:6 (ratio = 1 to 4.5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine wherein the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a first subset of fuel spray nozzles and a second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein the combustor is operable in a condition in which each of the fuel spray nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles is supplied with fuel at a greater fuel flow rate than each of the fuel spray nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein a ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:3 to 1:6, in order to provide efficient operation at sub-idle, high relight capability at altitude, reduced acoustic resonance and/or low power operability (MANCINI ¶¶0009, 0047).
However, SWANN in view of MANCINI fails to expressly teach the fuel-flow nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 0.3.
SCHRIPP teaches an engine having a fuel-flow nvPM emissions index ratio is defined as:
E
I
i
d
l
e
×
W
f
,
i
d
l
e
E
I
m
a
x
T
O
×
W
f
,
m
a
x
T
O
where:
EIidle is the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 7% available thrust for given operating conditions (Figure 7 and/or Table 3);
EImaxTO is the nvPM emissions index in mg/kg of the gas turbine engine if operating at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions (Figure 7 and/or Table 3);
W
f
,
i
d
l
e
is the rate of fuel flow to the fuel spray nozzles in kg/s at around 7% available thrust for the given operating conditions (Figure 7 and/or Table 3); and
W
f
,
m
a
x
T
O
is the rate of fuel flow to the fuel spray nozzles in kg/s at around 100% available thrust for the given operating conditions (Figure 7 and/or Table 3);
wherein the fuel-flow nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine is less than 0.3. From Table 3 for example,
E
I
i
d
l
e
(
71.9
)
×
W
f
,
i
d
l
e
(
482.4
3600
)
E
I
m
a
x
T
O
230.7
×
W
f
,
m
a
x
T
O
(
3776.4
3600
)
= 0.03981
PNG
media_image1.png
702
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
SCHRIPP teaches emissions indices may be system loss corrected (pages 4-5, 7-9) and teaches that given excellent agreement for the particular engine type certification results and field results, and since field results appear elevated with respect to certification value measurements, system loss appears negligible when comparing finding shown in Figure 7 (See SCHRIPP page 8). As such, SCHRIPP in and of itself would suggest a fuel-flow nvPM emissions index ratio as claimed of the gas turbine engine that is less than 0.3 to one of ordinary skill (whether or not the EIidle and/or EImaxTO are system loss corrected).
Furthermore, SWANN characterizes nvPM emissions indices (such as EIidle and/or EImaxTO) as result-effective variables that achieve desired emissions levels and which are routinely optimized through selection/blending of fuel (See SWANN 46:10 to 49:49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the engine wherein EIidle and EImaxTO are system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg resulting in the fuel-flow nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine being less than 0.3, in order to achieve recognized result of desired flight conditions and emissions levels for given flight phases via blending of fuel at selected rates (See SWANN 46:10 to 47:45), since it has been held that the optimization of result effective variables by routine experimentation was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Re Claims 2-3, 6-7, SWANN in view of MANCINI and SCHRIPP teaches the engine of claim 1. Referring to the rejection of Claim 1 above and with reference to the discussion of SWANN and SCHRIPP, wherein the fuel flow ratio is less than 0.241 / 0.15 and greater than or equal to 0.0138 / 0.0189. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine wherein the fuel flow ratio is less than 0.241 / 0.15 and greater than or equal to 0.0138 / 0.0189 as already discussed above in Claim 1 and for the same reasons as set forth in Claim 1.
Re Claims 4-5, 8-9, SWANN in view of MANCINI and SCHRIPP teaches the engine of claim 1. However, SWANN in view of MANCINI and SCHRIPP as discussed so far fails to teach expressly teach wherein the fuel-flow nvPM emissions index ratio is less than or equal to 0.0357 / 0.0285 or in the range of 0.0138 to 0.0357 / 0.0189 to 0.0285.
Furthermore, SWANN characterizes nvPM emissions indices (such as EIidle) as result-effective variables that achieve desired emissions levels and which are routinely optimized through blending of fuel with a quantity of SAF fuel (See SWANN 46:10 to 49:49). SCHRIPP further teaches SAF fuels that provides lower nvPM emission at around 7% (Figure 4; SAJF1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the engine wherein EIidle are system loss corrected nvPM emissions index in mg/kg yielding the fuel-flow nvPM emissions index ratio of the gas turbine engine being less than or equal to 0.0357 / 0.0285 or in the range of 0.0138 to 0.0357 / 0.0189 to 0.0285, in order to achieve recognized result of reduced emissions levels for flight idle at 7% via blending of fuel at selected rates with an SAF (See SWANN 46:10 to 47:45 and SCHRIPP Figure 4), since it has been held that the optimization of result effective variables by routine experimentation was an obvious extension of prior art teachings. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2144.05 II.
Re Claim 10, SWANN in view of MANCINI and SCHRIPP teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, but as discussed so far fails to teach wherein: a) Wf,idle is in the range of 0.142 to 0.263 kg/s; and/or b) Wf,maxTO is in the range 1.50 to 3.36 kg/s.
As discussed above in Claim 1, SCHRIPP teaches Wf,idle of 0.134 kg/s at an idle condition of 7%. SWANN further notes operation at idle may increase to 9% and even higher (SWANN 32:20-36; each still ‘around’ 7%). As will appreciated, increasing idle percentage will increase fuel flow Wf,idle accordingly. One of ordinary skill would have expected idling, such that Wf,idle is in the range of 0.142 to 0.263 kg/s (e.g., at 1.42 kg/s), to share the same properties as that of SCHRIPP and SWANN. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Wf,idle is in the range of 0.142 to 0.263 kg/s, in order to idle at a higher rate (e.g., 8, 9 or 10% consonant with SWANN 32:20-36). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP § 2144.05. A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Re Claims 11-13, SWANN in view of MANCINI and SCHRIPP teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:4 to 1:5 (see claim 1 above with respect to MANCINI; ratio 1:4.5), wherein the first subset of fuel spray nozzles includes between 1 and 10 fuel spray nozzles (see claim 1 above with respect to MANCINI; four, wherein the second subset of fuel spray nozzles includes between 10 and 25 fuel spray nozzles (see claim 1 above with respect to MANCINI; eighteen).
Re Claims 14-15, SWANN in view of MANCINI and SCHRIPP teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1, but has yet to discuss wherein the combustor comprises one or more ignitors.
MANCINI further teaches the combustor comprises one or more ignitors 210, 212, wherein each of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles is located nearer a respective one or more of the ignitors than the second subset (Fig. 11; ¶¶ 0047), and/or wherein one or more of the ignitors is arranged diametrically opposite another one or more of the ignitors. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the engine wherein the combustor comprises one or more ignitors wherein each of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles is located nearer a respective one or more of the ignitors than the second subset, and/or wherein one or more of the ignitors is arranged diametrically opposite another one or more of the ignitors, in order to provide efficient operation at sub-idle, high relight capability at altitude, reduced acoustic resonance and/or low power operability (MANCINI ¶¶0009, 0047).
Re Claim 16, SWANN in view of MANCINI and SCHRIPP teaches the gas turbine engine of claim 1. SWANN further teaches wherein the fuel provided to the combustor comprises a %SAF in the range of 50% to 100 (38:1 to 39:9; 46:62 to 47:4, 49:15-62).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2004/0221582 A1 to Howell is deemed pertinent to wherein the plurality of fuel spray nozzles comprises a first subset of fuel spray nozzles and a second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein the combustor is operable in a condition in which each of the fuel spray nozzles of the first subset of fuel spray nozzles is supplied with fuel at a greater fuel flow rate than each of the fuel spray nozzles of the second subset of fuel spray nozzles, wherein a ratio of the number of fuel spray nozzles in the first subset of fuel spray nozzles to the number of fuel spray nozzles in the second subset of fuel spray nozzles is in the range of 1:3 to 1:6.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON H DUGER whose telephone number is (313) 446-6536. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30a to 4:30p EST Monday & Tuesday and 8:00a to 2:00p Wednesday, and is OFF Thursday and Friday.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian, can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
JASON H DUGER
PRIMARY EXAMINER, ART UNIT 3741
PHONE (313) 446 6536
FAX (571) 270 9083
DATE
March 21, 2026
/JASON H DUGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741