Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@KN3345

KN3345/1st_OA_non-final.md Secret

Last active June 27, 2024 20:01
Show Gist options

  • Select an option

    Learn more about clone URLs
  • Save KN3345/67f3cec15be712bcb1f76cf3f2e4b73c to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.

Select an option

Learn more about clone URLs
Save KN3345/67f3cec15be712bcb1f76cf3f2e4b73c to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Download ZIP
過去のOA対応のやり取り
Raw
1st_OA_non-final.md

<<< Examiner's non-final office action >>>

DETAILED ACTION

Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status

  1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.

Priority

  1. 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.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102

  1. 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.

  1. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huijsing (US 2020/0217725) as evidenced by Klok (US 2020/0248907).

  2. With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Huijsing teaches an electric oven (Figs 1, 2, oven 102, 0025, 0026) comprising: a body (Figs 1, 2, exterior of oven 102) having one open side (oven 102 inherently having open side as evidenced by Klok, figure 2C) and configured to accommodate and heat food to be cooked; an opening or closing door hinge-coupled (oven 102 inherently having hinged door as evidenced by Klok, figures 2A-2C, oven door 102, 0026, 0029, the oven door 102 may be hingedly coupled to the oven body 116) to the body and configured to cover an open part of the body to be opened or closed; and an alarm display portion (Fig 2, temperature related warning 202, 0029, 0031) attached to the opening or closing door and configured to display an alarm design when the body heats the food and thus a temperature of the opening or closing door reaches a set temperature (Figs 5A-5C, transitional states 502, 504, 506, 0036-0040, 0045).

  3. With respect to the limitations of claim 4, Huijsing teaches the alarm display portion is a thermo-sensitive film (0039, thermochromic paint) manufactured by mixing a film-printing solution with thermo-sensitive microcapsules.

  4. The limitation of "manufactured by mixing a film-printing solution with thermo-sensitive microcapsules" is a product by process claim, here it is noted that a comparison of the recited process with the prior art processes does NOT serve to resolve the issue concerning patentability of the product. In re Fessman, 489 F2d 742, 180 U.S. P.Q. 324 (CCPA 1974). Whether a product is patentable depends on whether is known in the art or it is obvious, and is not governed by whether the process by which it is made is patentable. In re Klug, 333 F2d 905, 142 U.S.P.Q 161 (CCPA 1964). In an ex parte case, product-by-process claims are not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. In re Hirao et al., 535 F2d 67, 190 U.S.P.Q. 15, see footnote 3. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Huijsing (US 2020/0217725) as applied to claim 1.

  2. With respect to the limitations of claims 2 and 3, Huijsing teaches the alarm display portion changes in color when a surface temperature of the opening or closing door reaches 50 °C and restores to an original color from a changed color when the surface temperature of the opening or closing door reaches less than 50 °C (Figs 5A-5C, transitional states 502, 504, 506, 0045-0047, temperature-related warning 500 may transition from the first transitional state 502, to the second transitional state 504, to the third transitional state 506 as the temperature decreases); the alarm display portion loses color and chroma and becomes transparent as the surface temperature of the opening or closing door becomes closer to 40 °C (Figs 5A-5C, transitional states 502, 504, 506, 0045-0047, temperature-related warning 500 may transition from the first transitional state 502, to the second transitional state 504, to the third transitional state 506 as the temperature decreases).

  3. Huijsing discloses the claimed invention except for the target transitioning temperature is 40 °C. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to set the target transitioning temperature to 40 °C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable target transitioning temperature involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).

  4. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Huijsing (US 2020/0217725) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ono (US 2020/0071532).

  5. With respect to the limitations of claim 4, Huijsing teaches the alarm display portion is a thermo-sensitive film (0039, thermochromic paint). Huijsing discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly showing the thermo-sensitive film is manufactured by mixing a film-printing solution with thermo-sensitive microcapsules. However, Ono discloses the thermo-sensitive film is manufactured by mixing a film-printing solution with thermo-sensitive microcapsules (0026, 0127, thermochromic color-memory microcapsule pigment, and a vehicle; printing ink) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the electric oven of Huijsing having a thermochromic alarm display portion silent to the manufacturing process of the thermochromic alarm display with the thermo-sensitive film is manufactured by mixing a film-printing solution with thermo-sensitive microcapsules of Ono for the purpose of providing a known process for the production of a thermochromic color-memory composition (Abstract, 0026) that is suitable for printing ink (0280, 0281).

Conclusion

  1. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-5:00].

  2. 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.

  3. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.

  4. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.

/THIEN S TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
12/2/2022

Raw
1st_response.md

<<< Applicant's response to the non-final action>>>

Claims

In the Claims: The claims are as follows:

  1. (Currently Amended) An electric oven comprising:

    • a body having one open side and configured to accommodate and heat food to be cooked;
    • an opening or closing door hinge-coupled to the body and configured to cover an open part of the body to be opened or closed; and
    • an alarm display portion attached to the opening or closing door and configured to display an alarm design when the body heats the food and thus a temperature of the opening or closing door reaches a set temperature, wherein the alarm display portion changes in color when a surface temperature of the opening or closing door reaches 40°C and restores to an original color from a changed color when the surface temperature of the opening or closing door reaches less than 40°C, loses color and chroma and becomes transparent as the surface temperature of the opening or closing door becomes closer to 40°C and then completely changes in color to display a design notifying a danger of a high temperature as soon as the surface temperature reaches 45°C.

  2. (Cancelled)

  3. (Cancelled)

  4. (Original) The electric oven of claim 1, wherein the alarm display portion is a thermo-sensitive film manufactured by mixing a film-printing solution with thermo-sensitive microcapsules.

  5. (New) The electric oven of claim 1, wherein the alarm display portion maintains a state in which color has completely changed in response to the surface temperature reaching 45°C, as the surface temperature exceeds 45°C.

  6. (New) The electric oven of claim 1, wherein the alarm display portion completely changes color from the original color when the surface temperature reaches 45°C.

REMARKS

Applicant has amended claim 1, cancelled claims 2-3, and added new claims 5-6 during instant prosecution of this patent application. Applicant is not conceding in this patent application that the original claims are not patentable over the art cited by the Examiner because the claim amendments are only for facilitating expeditious prosecution of this patent application. Applicant respectfully reserves the right to pursue the original claims, and other claims, in one or more continuations and/or divisional patent applications. Furthermore, the instant claim amendments are done without prejudice, and thus Applicant may seek broader protection in this application in the future.

The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as allegedly being anticipated by Huijsing (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0217725) as evidenced by Klok (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0248907).

The Examiner has rejected claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Huijsing (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0217725).

The Examiner has rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Huijsing (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0217725), further in view of Ono (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0071532).

Applicant respectfully traverses the Examiner rejections with the following arguments:

35 U.S.C. 102(b):

The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as allegedly being anticipated by Huijsing (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0217725) as evidenced by Klok (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0248907).

Applicant contends that amended claim 1 is not anticipated by Huijsing because Huijsing does not teach each and every element of amended claim 1. For example, Huijsing does not teach:

wherein the alarm display portion changes in color when a surface temperature of the opening or closing door reaches 40 °C and restores to an original color from a changed color when the surface temperature of the opening or closing door reaches less than 40 °C, loses color and chroma and becomes transparent as the surface temperature of the opening or closing door becomes closer to 40 °C and then completely changes in color to display a design notifying a danger of a high temperature as soon as the surface temperature reaches 45 °C.¹

Applicant refers to FIGs. 5A-5C of Huijsing, which depicts transitional states of a warning:

[Images of transitional states omitted]

As can be seen, the transitional states become less transparent as temperature rises. However, the transitional states do not teach a complete change in color once the last transitional state (e.g. 45 °C) is reached. Huijsing mentions color changes (e.g. blue to green to yellow, etc.) but the color completely changes color for each transitional state and not just the final state. Further, Huijsing does not teach that the alarm display portion maintains a state in which color has completely changed in response to the surface temperature reaching 45 °C, as the surface temperature exceeds 45 °C.

Therefore, Huijsing does not teach each and every element of amended claim 1. Claims depending from independent claim 1 are likewise in condition for allowance at least based on their dependency from independent claim 1.

Based on the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and removal of the anticipation rejection, and further contends that the pending claims are in condition for allowance.

¹ Amended claim 1 (emphasis added)

35 U.S.C. § 103:

The Examiner has rejected claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Huijsing (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0217725).

Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled without prejudice.

The Examiner has rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Huijsing (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0217725), further in view of Ono (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0071532).

Because claim 4 depends from independent claim 1, if independent claim 1 is allowable, claim 4 is likewise allowable. Applicant contends that at least based on the foregoing, independent claim 1 is allowable. Therefore, claim 4 is likewise allowable.

Based on the forgoing, Applicant requests reconsideration and removal of the obviousness rejection, and further contends that the pending claims are in condition for allowance.

CONCLUSION

Based on the preceding arguments, Applicant respectfully believes that all pending claims and the entire application meet the acceptance criteria for allowance and therefore request favorable action. If the Examiner believes that anything further would be helpful to place the application in better condition for allowance, Applicant invites the Examiner to contact Applicant's representative at the telephone number listed below. The Director is hereby authorized to charge and/or credit Deposit Account 19-0513.

Date: March 7, 2023 /Jason A. Murphy/

Jason A. Murphy Registration No. 63,423 Customer No. 5409 Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts 22 Century Hill Drive, St. 302 Latham, New York 12110 Tel. (518) 220-1850 Fax: (518) 220-1857

Raw
Final_OA.md

<<< Examiner's final office action >>>

DETAILED ACTION

Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status

  1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.

Priority

  1. 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.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. Claims 1, 4, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Huijsing (US 2020/0217725) as evidenced by Klok (US 2020/0248907).

  2. With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Huijsing teaches an electric oven Figs 1, 2, oven 102, 0025, 0026) comprising: a body (Figs 1, 2, exterior of oven 102) having one open side (oven 102 inherently having open side as evidenced by Klok, figure 2C) and configured to accommodate and heat food to be cooked; an opening or closing door hinge-coupled (oven 102 inherently having hinged door as evidenced by Klok, figures 2A-2C, oven door 102, 0026, 0029, the oven door 102 may be hingedly coupled to the oven body 116) to the body and configured to cover an open part of the body to be opened or closed; and an alarm display portion (Fig 2, temperature related warning 202, 0029, 0031) attached to the opening or closing door and configured to display an alarm design (Fig 2, Warning Oven may have hot surface, 0030) when the body heats the food and thus a temperature of the opening or closing door reaches a set temperature (0045), the alarm display portion changes in color (0044, colors) when a surface temperature of the opening or closing door reaches 50 °C and restores to an original color from a changed color when the surface temperature of the opening or closing door reaches less than 50 °C (0045), loses color and chroma and becomes transparent as the surface temperature of the opening or closing door becomes closer to 50 °C (0041, the temperature-related warning 500 is substantially imperceptible at a first temperature, and "appears" as the temperature changes) and then completely changes in color to display a design notifying a danger of a high temperature as soon as the surface temperature reaches 55 °C (0044, 0045).

  3. Huijsing discloses the claimed invention except for the alarm display portion changes in color when the surface temperature reaches 40 °C, restores to an original color when the surface temperature reaches less than 40 °C, loses color or becomes transparent as the surface temperature becomes closer to 40 °C and then completely changes in color as soon as the surface temperature reaches 45 °C.

  4. However, the alarm display portion changes in color when the surface temperature reaches 40 °C, restores to an original color when the surface temperature reaches less than 40 °C, loses color or becomes transparent as the surface temperature becomes closer to 40 °C and then completely changes in color as soon as the surface temperature reaches 45 °C is known in the art. Huijsing discloses adapting the target temperatures at which the transitional states of the temperature related warning 202 changes can be made based on temperatures which pose a risk of thermal burns (0045, may be configured to alert a user as to temperatures which pose a risk of thermal burns (e.g., thermal burn temperatures). The temperature ranges are provided solely for illustration, and are not to be regarded as limiting, unless noted otherwise herein). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the target color change transition temperature of Huijsing with the alarm display portion changes in color when the surface temperature reaches 40 °C, restores to an original color when the surface temperature reaches less than 40 °C, loses color or becomes transparent as the surface temperature becomes closer to 40 °C and then completely changes in color as soon as the surface temperature reaches 45 °C for the purpose of using adapting the target color change transition temperature to temperatures that alert a user of temperatures which pose a risk of thermal burns (0045).

  5. Huijsing discloses the claimed invention except for the alarm display portion changes in color when the surface temperature reaches 40 °C, restores to an original color when the surface temperature reaches less than 40 °C, loses color or becomes transparent as the surface temperature becomes closer to 40 °C and then completely changes in color as soon as the surface temperature reaches 45 °C. However, It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to have the alarm display portion changes in color when the surface temperature reaches 40 °C, restores to an original color when the surface temperature reaches less than 40 °C, loses color or becomes transparent as the surface temperature becomes closer to 40 °C and then completely changes in color as soon as the surface temperature reaches 45 °C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable target transitioning temperature involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).

  6. With respect to the limitations of claim 4, Huijsing teaches the alarm display portion is a thermo-sensitive film (0039, thermochromic paint) manufactured by mixing a film-printing solution with thermo-sensitive microcapsules.

  7. The limitation of "manufactured by mixing a film-printing solution with thermo-sensitive microcapsules" is a product by process claim, here it is noted that a comparison of the recited process with the prior art processes does NOT serve to resolve the issue concerning patentability of the product. In re Fessman, 489 F2d 742, 180 U.S. P.Q. 324 (CCPA 1974). Whether a product is patentable depends on whether is known in the art or it is obvious, and is not governed by whether the process by which it is made is patentable. In re Klug, 333 F2d 905, 142 U.S.P.Q 161 (CCPA 1964). In an ex parte case, product-by-process claims are not construed as being limited to the product formed by the specific process recited. In re Hirao et al., 535 F2d 67, 190 U.S.P.Q. 15, see footnote 3. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.

  8. With respect to the limitations of claims 5 and 6, the alarm display portion maintains a state in which color has completely changed (0044, 0045, white, gray, black) in response to the surface temperature reaching 45 °C, as the surface temperature exceeds 45 °C (adapting temperature range is obvious as set forth above); the alarm display portion completely changes color from the original color (0044, 0045, white, gray, black) when the surface temperature reaches 45 °C (adapting temperature range is obvious as set forth above)

  9. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Huijsing (US 2020/0217725) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ono (US 2020/0071532).

  10. With respect to the limitations of claim 4, Huijsing teaches the alarm display portion is a thermo-sensitive film (0039, thermochromic paint). Huijsing discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly showing the thermo-sensitive film is manufactured by mixing a film-printing solution with thermo-sensitive microcapsules. However, Ono discloses the thermo-sensitive film is manufactured by mixing a film-printing solution with thermo-sensitive microcapsules (0026, 0127, thermochromic color-memory microcapsule pigment, and a vehicle; printing ink) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the electric oven of Huijsing having a thermochromic alarm display portion silent to the manufacturing process of the thermochromic alarm display with the thermo-sensitive film is manufactured by mixing a film-printing solution with thermo-sensitive microcapsules of Ono for the purpose of providing a known process for the production of a thermochromic color-memory composition (Abstract, 0026) that is suitable for printing ink (0280, 0281).

Response to Amendments

  1. Claim 1 has been amended.

  2. Claims 2-3 are cancelled.

  3. Claims 1 and 4-6 are pending.

Response to Arguments

  1. Applicant's arguments filed 3/7/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.

  2. The applicant has argued on pages 4-5 about claim 1 that Huijsing fails to disclose the limitations of "then completely changes in color to display a design notify a danger of a high temperature as soon as the surface temperature reaches 45 °C" because the color completely changes for each transitional state and not just the final state and does not teach a surface temperature reach 45 °C that causes the color transition, the examiner respectfully disagrees.

  3. Huijsing discloses that the surface temperature of the door can be adapted to the preferences of a user, based on temperatures the user considers are pertinent and that may pose a risk of thermal burns (0045). Additionally, the Huijsing discloses that the transitionally states 502, 504, 506 can each have particular colors (0044, white, gray, black), where a change in color from white to gray to black is a complete color change, therefore, Huijsing fully disclose all the limitations of the claims as set forth above.

Conclusion

  1. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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).

  2. 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.

  3. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should clearly be labeled "Comments on Statement for Reasons for Allowance."

  4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday [8:00-5:00].

  5. 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.

  6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.

  7. 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.

/THIEN S TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
4/21/2023

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment