DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #19/275,932 filed on 06/03/2026.
Claims 1-16 are now pending and have been examined.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of Application No. 18/830,833, now U.S. Patent No. 12,400,193. Claim 1 of the current claim set in the current application is simply a broader version of patented claims 1 and 16 of the patented parent application. There is no need for a secondary reference. The limitation “divide the plurality of inspection sub-routes into three categories of objects to be inspected based on the inspection type parameter,” absent any further detail as to what the three types of objects are and absent any tie-in with other limitations of the claimed invention, is considered an obvious variant of the patented claims. Claims 2-16 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 and are therefore also rejected.
Outlined below, the highlighted portions of claim 16 of Patent No. 12,400,193 claim the entirety of claim 1 of the current application:
CLAIM 16 (of Patent No. 12,400,193)
16. (Currently Amended) An Internet of Things (IoT) system for smart gas supervision information, comprising a public user platform, a citizen cloud service platform, a government gas supervision management platform, a government gas supervision sensor network platform, a government gas supervision object platform, a gas company sensor network platform, and a gas equipment object platform; wherein
the public user platform is configured as a terminal device; the citizen cloud service platform is configured as a computer cloud platform; the government gas supervision management platform includes at least one central processing unit; the government gas supervision sensor network platform is configured as a communication network or a gateway, the government gas supervision object platform includes at least one storage device, the gas company sensor network platform is configured as the communication network or the gateway, the gas equipment object platform is configured as an inspection equipment, the inspection equipment includes a drone and a robot;
the public user platform and the citizen cloud service platform perform bidirectional interaction;
the government gas supervision management platform performs upward bidirectional interaction with the citizen cloud service platform and performs downward bidirectional interaction with the government gas supervision sensor network platform, wherein the government gas supervision management platform is configured to:
obtain an inspection route based on the gas company management platform; determine a plurality of inspection sub-routes by performing segmentation processing on the inspection route, and store the plurality of inspection sub-routes to the government gas supervision object platform;
generate a calling instruction and send the calling instruction to the gas company management platform of the government gas supervision object platform for implementation, wherein the calling instruction is configured to obtain pipeline supervision information corresponding to the plurality of inspection sub-routes, the pipeline supervision information including at least one of pipeline defective information and a pipeline inspection result of a first historical time period, wherein a duration of the first historical time period is positively correlated with remaining computing resources of the government gas supervision management platform, and the remaining computing resources are determined based on an average occupancy of all central processing units within the government gas supervision management platform, and to generate the calling instruction and send the calling instruction to the gas company management platform of the government gas supervision object platform for implementation, the government gas supervision management platform is further configured to: automatically generate the calling instruction based on a manually preset instruction template and send the calling instruction to the government gas supervision object platform for implementation through the government gas supervision sensor network platform;
the government gas supervision object platform is configured to:
call, based on the calling instruction, the pipeline supervision information corresponding to the plurality of inspection sub-routes stored in the government gas supervision object platform;
generate an acquisition instruction based on the gas company management platform and send the acquisition instruction to the gas equipment object platform
for implementation, wherein the acquisition instruction is configured to control gas appurtenant facilities deployed on the plurality of inspection sub-routes to acquire and upload facility supervision information
wherein to generate the acquisition instruction based on the gas company management platform and send the acquisition instruction to the gas equipment object platform for implementation, the government gas supervision management platform is further configured to:
automatically generate the acquisition instruction based on the manually preset instruction template and send the acquisition instruction to the gas equipment object platform for implementation through the government gas supervision sensor network platform via the government gas supervision object platform and the gas company sensor network platform;
determine an inspection type parameter of each of the plurality of inspection sub-routes based on the pipeline supervision information and the facility supervision information, wherein the inspection type parameter includes at least one of drone inspection, robotic inspection, and manual inspection[[;] wherein to determine the inspection type parameter of each of the plurality of inspection sub- routes based on the pipeline supervision information and the facility supervision information, the government gas supervision management platform is further configured to:
predict a predicted inspection effect of the inspection type parameter based on the pipeline supervision information and the facility supervision information, the predicted inspection effect including a predicted accuracy rate and a predicted coverage; and
determine the inspection type parameter of each of the plurality of inspection sub-routes based on the predicted inspection effect that satisfies a second preset condition;
wherein to predict the predicted inspection effect of the inspection type parameter based on the pipeline supervision information and the facility supervision information the government gas supervision platform is further configured to:
determine the predicted inspection effect through an inspection model based on the pipeline supervision information, the facility supervision information, and a pipeline distribution, wherein the inspection model is a Neural Networks model; and
train the inspection model via a gradient descent based on first training samples with first labels, the first training samples include sample pipeline distributions, sample pipeline supervision information, and sample facility supervision information of sample inspection sub-routes, and the first labels include actual inspection accuracies and actual inspection coverages corresponding to the first training samples;
determine an inspection assignment parameter based on the inspection type parameter;
generate an inspection instruction and send the inspection instruction to the gas equipment object platform for implementation, wherein the inspection instruction is configured to control the inspection equipment and/or an inspector to perform the inspection assignment parameter
wherein to generate an inspection instruction and send the inspection instruction to the gas equipment object platform for implementation, the government gas supervision management platform is further configured to:
automatically generate the inspection instruction based on the manually preset instruction template and send the inspection instruction to the gas equipment object platform for implementation through the government gas supervision sensor network platform and the gas company sensor network platform;
during the inspection,
in response to determining that an actual coverage of one or more inspection sub-routes satisfies a first preset condition, update the plurality of inspection sub- routes to obtain new inspection sub-routes, the new inspection sub-routes including uncovered sub-routes
adjust the inspection assignment parameter based on the uncovered sub- routes;
send an updated inspection assignment parameter to the gas equipment object platform for implementation; and
the gas equipment object platform is further configured to control the inspection equipment to perform an inspection operation based on the updated inspection assignment parameter;
after the inspection is completed, send a current pipeline inspection result and the pipeline defective information corresponding to the new inspection sub-routes to the gas company management platform of the government gas supervision object platform for storage;
the government gas supervision sensor network platform performs downward bidirectional interaction with the government gas supervision object platform;
the government gas supervision object platform performs downward bidirectional interaction with the gas company sensor network platform, wherein the government gas supervision object platform includes a gas company management platform, the government gas supervision object platform is configured to store the plurality of inspection sub-routes and the pipeline supervision information, and execute the calling instruction issued by the government gas supervision management platform, and the gas company management platform is configured to obtain the inspection route; and
the gas company sensor network platform performs downward bidirectional interaction with the gas equipment object platform, and the gas equipment object platform is configured to execute the acquisition instruction and the inspection instruction issued by the government gas supervision management platform.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claim 1 claims a system comprising various platforms. The platforms are recited to be structural components of the system. Therefore, the system is interpreted as an apparatus, which is a statutory category for patentability.
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims are directed to an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims are directed towards an abstract idea. Specifically, the claims are directed to
“obtaining an inspection route based on the gas company management platform, determining a plurality of inspection sub-routes by performing segmentation processing on the inspection route, generating a calling instruction, wherein the calling instruction is configured to obtain pipeline supervision information corresponding to the plurality of inspection sub-routes, the pipeline supervision information including at least one of pipeline defective information and a pipeline inspection result of a first historical time period, generating an acquisition instruction based on the gas company management platform, wherein the acquisition instruction is configured to control gas appurtenant facilities deployed on the plurality of inspection sub-routes to acquire and upload facility supervision information, determining an inspection type parameter of the plurality of inspection sub-routes based on the pipeline supervision information and the facility supervision information, wherein the inspection type parameter includes at least one of drone inspection, robotic inspection, and manual inspection, determining an inspection assignment parameter based on the inspection type parameter, divide the plurality of inspection sub-routes into three categories of objects to be inspected based on the inspection type parameter, and determine candidate assignment parameters of the three categories of objects to be inspected, determine predicted inspection time based on the candidate assignment parameters, determine an inspection assignment parameter based on the predicted inspection time, wherein the inspection assignment parameter is an assignment combination of inspection equipment or an inspector to inspect the inspection sub-route, and generating an inspection instruction, wherein the inspection instruction is configured to control inspection equipment and/or an inspector to perform the inspection assignment parameter; during the inspection, determine an inspection type parameter of the plurality of inspection sub-routes based on the pipeline supervision information and the facility supervision information, control the inspection equipment and/or an inspector to inspect the inspection sub-routes based on the inspection instruction. ” The claims are directed to an abstract idea, namely a mental process. A human operator with access to the inspection routes can analyze the routes and determine sub-routes, generate instructions to obtain pipeline supervision information, generate acquisition instructions, determine inspection type parameters based on the acquired information, determine inspection assignment parameters, generate an inspection instruction, determine an actual coverage of one or more inspection sub-routes meets a predetermined condition, updated the inspection sub-routes including uncovered routes, adjust the inspection assignment parameters, and generate inspection result and defective information results. All of this can be done as a mental process by analyzing the available data and making judgments and determinations based on the data. The claims automate the mental process using a computer. The claims are secondarily directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity,” specifically “commercial interactions, business relations.” Inspections to gas pipelines are made, reports are generated, inspection and route assignments are managed, and leaks or other defects are identified for remote or robotic repair. This is part of a routine business management exercise that takes place when managing such as a fleet of vehicles with specific routes or utility and communication networks such as electricity, railroads, telephone, and water and gas lines. This has taken place on a more manual scale for decades by visual inspection, by airplane, using sensors, and in other ways. Once the data is gathered, decisions are made on inspection routes, repair needs, and other such maintenance decisions. The claims potentially automate the process using a computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity,” specifically “commercial interactions, business relations.”
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims include “an IoT system,” “via the gas equipment object platform,” and a variety of “platforms” which correspond to various components such as a terminal device, a CPU, and a communication network. However, these “platforms” are considered generic recitations of technical elements as they are recited at a high level of generality. These elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements also include “sending the calling instruction to the gas company management platform for implementation,” “sending the acquisition instruction to the gas equipment object platform for implementation,” “sending the inspection instruction to the gas equipment object platform for implementation,” and “sending an updated inspection assignment parameter to the gas equipment object platform for implementation.” These additional elements, absent further detail, are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network,” which is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning- see “receiving or transmitting data over a network” citing TLI Communications, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, buySAFE v Google. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements also include “storing the plurality of inspection sub-routes to the government gas supervision object platform.” These additional elements, absent further detail, are considered “receiving, processing, and storage of data,” which is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (iii) and (iv) as an example of conventional computer functioning- see “electronic recordkeeping” citing Alice Corp., “storing and retrieving information in a memory,” citing Versata Dev Grp v SAP, OIP Techs v Amazon.com. Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The addition by amendment of “control…the inspection equipment and/or the inspector to inspect the inspection sub-routes based on the inspection instruction” is considered a generic recitation of a technical element and the equivalent of “apply it” or using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea, as the fact that the instruction could CONTROL even a human inspector makes it clear that the limitation simply transmits instructions to an automated or human inspector. The transmittal of the instructions is considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network,” which is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning- see “receiving or transmitting data over a network” citing TLI Communications, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, buySAFE v Google. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements of the claims include “an IoT system,” “via the gas equipment object platform,” and a variety of “platforms” which correspond to various components such as a terminal device, a CPU, and a communication network. However, these “platforms” are considered generic recitations of technical elements as they are recited at a high level of generality. These elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements also include “sending the calling instruction to the gas company management platform for implementation,” “sending the acquisition instruction to the gas equipment object platform for implementation,” “sending the inspection instruction to the gas equipment object platform for implementation,” and “sending an updated inspection assignment parameter to the gas equipment object platform for implementation.” These additional elements, absent further detail, are considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network,” which is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning- see “receiving or transmitting data over a network” citing TLI Communications, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, buySAFE v Google. Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements also include “storing the plurality of inspection sub-routes to the government gas supervision object platform.” These additional elements, absent further detail, are considered “receiving, processing, and storage of data,” which is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (iii) and (iv) as an example of conventional computer functioning- see “electronic recordkeeping” citing Alice Corp., “storing and retrieving information in a memory,” citing Versata Dev Grp v SAP, OIP Techs v Amazon.com. Therefore, these additional elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The addition by amendment of “control…the inspection equipment and/or the inspector to inspect the inspection sub-routes based on the inspection instruction” is considered a generic recitation of a technical element and the equivalent of “apply it” or using a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea, as the fact that the instruction could CONTROL even a human inspector makes it clear that the limitation simply transmits instructions to an automated or human inspector. The transmittal of the instructions is considered “receiving and/or transmission of data over a network,” which is listed in the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning- see “receiving or transmitting data over a network” citing TLI Communications, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, buySAFE v Google. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim is still considered to be directed to an abstract idea as the claims in the ordered combination simply recite the logical mental steps to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claim 2 is considered part of the abstract idea, as predicting an inspection effect based on the pipeline supervision information and the facility supervision information including a predicted accuracy rate and predicted coverage and determining the inspection type parameter of each of the sub-routes that satisfies a preset condition is considered part of the mental process of analysis of the data followed by making a judgment or determination and carrying out calculations. Claim 3 is considered part of the abstract idea, as the predicted coverage being compared to a threshold or a threshold determined based on values such as density are still considered part of a mental process. Claim 4 is considered part of the abstract idea, as comparison to a threshold or determining a gas risk value based on such as a count of accidents is still considered part of a mental process. Claims 6-8 are considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or suing a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea. The claims recite at a high level of generality the training and use of one or more models, but there is no detail as to the training steps other than what data is used for the training. There is also no technical step to show the use of the models, only that they are used to determine such as a predicted success rate. Claims 9-11 are considered part of the abstract idea as determining, selecting, or adjusting at least one target sub-route and an adjustment type compared to thresholds, the thresholds based on certain calculated values or values obtained from the MLM, is considered part of the mental process. Claims 12-15 are considered the equivalent of “apply it,” or suing a computer as a tool to automate the abstract idea. The claims recite at a high level of generality the training and use of one or more models, but there is no detail as to the training steps other than what data is used for the training. The determination steps such as determining of the predicted inspection time are considered part of the abstract idea. Claim 16 is considered part of the abstract idea, as updating the inspection type parameter of the at least one target sub-route based on the predicted inspection effect corresponding to the at least one target sub-route is considered part of the mental process.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Double Patenting Rejection:
The amendments do not change the rejection as they only add limitations already present in the parent patented application.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101:
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 14-16 of the response that the claims as amended are not directed to an abstract idea or at the very least integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims “generate an inspection instruction to control equipment and inspectors while solving the problems of ineffective and repeated inspection and improving inspection efficiency” and “this approach has automated the resource allocation process and solved the technical problems of manual or limited unmanned inspections”:
The examiner does not see any alleged solution to a TECHNICAL problem. The MPEP at 2106.05 (f) gives as a criteria for an abstract idea being integrated into a practical application as “an improvement to the computer, another technology, or the technical field.” Ineffective and repeated inspections and improving inspection efficiency arguments are not technical fields and there is no technology being improved. As the applicant points out, the approach has AUTOMATED the resource allocation process. The claims do not make any technical improvement to the manner in which an unmanned drone or robot would do an inspection, but it is the instructions to inspect that are generated and transmitted, and this is not even always done to a drone but sometimes the instructions are transmitted to a live inspector. There is no improvement to the way these instructions are transmitted or any other such technology or technical field.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 17-18 of the response that the additional elements under Step 2B amount to significantly more and are therefore patent eligible because “by determining assignment combinations and sub-routes, amended claim 1 has matched resources to the actual status of the gas network, effectively avoiding repeated or ineffective inspections and reducing waste of manpower and time:
The examiner did not consider determination of assignment combinations and sub-routes and matching of resources to the status of the gas network under Step 2B because they are already part of the abstract idea. Further, these are not technical elements, but determining assignment combinations and matching resources to a gas network status are very much in the realm of the abstract, absent further detail. And avoidance of repeated ineffective inspections is not any kind of computer functioning or technology but only describes what is avoided, namely waste of manpower and time.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 18-19 of the response that the findings under Step 2B that additional elements are the equivalent of conventional computer functioning are improper based on the Berkheimer Memo because there is no proof presented:
The examiner points out that the Berkheimer Memorandum specifically gives as acceptable kinds of proof different options including Official Notice (which the applicant can then traverse), an appropriate number of prior art references put forth as evidence, and citations from the MPEP and Case Law if the MPEP lends support to the specific example of conventional computer functioning with accompanying case law. The examiner used one or more of these options in all of the Step 2B additional element analyses.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 20 of the response that claim 12 is not directed to an abstract idea because of the training and use of a temporal neural network model:
The examiner reminds the applicant that the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is used to determine if the claims RECITE an abstract idea. This does not mean that each and every limitation must be entirely encompassed by the mental process or certain method of organizing human activity. Otherwise the mere presence of a computer, transmittal of data over a network, display screen presenting data, or any other such limitation would automatically make the claims patent eligible. But, the Courts have on multiple occasions, such as in buySAFE v Google, OIP Techs v Amazon.com, and others found claims to be patent ineligible despite the presence of such technical components. Further, the examiner points the applicant to the USPTO Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance Examples from August 2024 regarding claims that involve machine learning and AI, such as example 47, in which the presence of training and use of a model at a high level of generality is not sufficient for patent eligibility.
Regarding the applicant’s argument on pages 21-22 of the response that claim 12 is eligible under the Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B analyses:
The applicant uses the same rationale as that for the arguments directed to claim 1. Those have been addressed above in the earlier responses to arguments.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is sustained.
Conclusion
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
