DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 16-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 4, 8, and 14 stand currently amended.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Finality of Office Action
The following is a brief summary description of new ground(s) of rejection (if any) and the reason why those new ground(s) are made necessary by this amendment:
A new §103 prior art grounds of rejection over US patent 10,824,173 B2 Karkov, et al. [herein “Karkov”] in view of US patent 9,645,575 B2 Watson [herein “Watson”] and US patent 8,644,993 B1 Craft, et al. [herein “Craft”] is made based on the amended scope of the upper variance and lower variance values. This grounds of rejection coincides with the previous prior art rejection presented in the office action dated 20 May 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 22 September 2025 have been fully considered and Examiner’s response is as follows:
Applicant’s arguments partially address the §112(a) new matter rejection and fully address the §112(b) rejections. However, the change to claim scope re-introduces the relevance of prior art under §103. Applicant’s remarks do not address the new §103 rejection herein nor the part of the §112(a) rejection which is maintained herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – New Matter
Claim 1 has been appropriately corrected. However, Examiner maintains the §112(a) rejection of claim 4 as follows:
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites “the variable pump drive being configured to: vary a control signal in response to said detected change in flow to drive said pump to increase flow when current flow is above a variance value….” Specification paragraph 25 states:
The system may further include a pump controller 312 that outputs a speed control signal 314 to the pump drive 316 …. The pump controller 312 may execute an algorithm for increasing pump speed in order to maximize production from the well. The controller 312 may output the speed control signal, typically a preset current, to increase pump speed until a decrease in flow is detected by the flow sensor 311 and/or measuring equipment 306.
This disclosure teaches a pump controller outputting, and varying, the control signal. The Specification fails to teach a variable pump drive performing this function.
Examiner suggests amending claim 4 to recite “and a pump controller configured to: vary a control signal….”
Dependent claims 19 and 20 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) – Indefiniteness
Claim 4 has been corrected. Accordingly, Examiners §112(b) rejection of claims 4, 19, and 20 under §112(b) is withdrawn.
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, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, and 19
Claims 1, 4, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 10,824,173 B2 Karkov, et al. [herein “Karkov”] in view of US patent 9,645,575 B2 Watson [herein “Watson”] and US patent 8,644,993 B1 Craft, et al. [herein “Craft”].
Claim 1 recites “1. A method for optimizing production from a well.” Karkov abstract discloses “control for individual pumps or groups [of] pumps.” Karkov column 4 lines 29-30 disclose “to further optimise the applied computation models within the controls.” Optimizing is an optimization.
Karkov does not explicitly disclose wells; however, in analogous art of controlling pumps, Watson column 5 lines 34-36 teaches “a sucker rod pump controller for oil wells for controlling and optimizing the operation thereof.” Oil wells are wells.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Karkov and Watson. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use optimizing oil wells into the system of statistical evaluation of pump assemblies for the advantageous purpose of optimizing dynamic pump processes. See Watson column 5 lines 37-40.
Claim 1 further recites “the method comprising: operatively coupling a pump to the well, the pump being driven by a control signal from controller at one of a plurality of operating setpoints to generate production flow.” Watson column 5 lines 34-36 teaches “a sucker rod pump controller for oil wells for controlling and optimizing the operation thereof.” A pump controller for the well corresponds with a pump operatively coupled to the well. Controlling and optimizing operation of the well corresponds with driving the pump with a control signal.
Karkov column 7 lines 63-67 disclose:
The data which is transferred to the server 8 can be current operating data, such as motor current, motor voltage, speed, measured flow rate, calculated flow rate, measured differential pressure, calculated differential pressure, operating time, etc.
Current operating data corresponds with the pump generating a flow. The speed of the pump corresponds with a respective setpoint.
Claim 1 further recites “monitoring by said controller, at a current operating setpoint, to detect a change in flow.” Karkov column 7 lines 63-67 disclose:
The data which is transferred to the server 8 can be current operating data, such as motor current, motor voltage, speed, measured flow rate, calculated flow rate, measured differential pressure, calculated differential pressure, operating time, etc.
Current operating data corresponds with the pump generating a flow. The speed of the pump corresponds with a respective setpoint. Transferring the current operating data corresponds with monitoring current operating setpoint.
Karkov does not explicitly disclose detecting a change in flow rate; however, in analogous art of controlling pumps, Watson column 10 lines 32-39 “status agent” teaches:
Status Agent
The primary role of the Status agent is to identify any potential variation or deviation from normal or predicted operation occurring such as an external disturbance or a change in process conditions or parameters.
Consists of a mechanism to detect deviation from normal, ideal or predicted operation,
Identifying a variation, deviation, or change in process condition corresponds with detecting a change in flow.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Karkov and Watson. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use optimizing oil wells into the system of statistical evaluation of pump assemblies for the advantageous purpose of optimizing dynamic pump processes. See Watson column 5 lines 37-40.
Claim 1 further recites “and varying the control signal in response to said change in flow to drive said pump to increase flow when current flow is above a lower variance value associated with the current operating setpoint, and to drive said pump to decrease flow when current flow is below an upper variance value associated with the current operating setpoint.” Karkov column 11 lines 58-61 disclose “the data set to be used is applied in the already available model and it is examined as to whether the value determined with this lies within the standard deviation of the applied model.” Examining the data set to determine that it is within the standard deviation is confirming that the well profile maps to an associated variance value.
Karkov column 10 lines 19-25 discloses “the pump curves … can be statistically evaluated, …, in order to bring these pump assemblies … to the actual operating points.” The operating points correspond with the respective operating points of the pumps.
Note, Examiner cites Craft below regarding usage of the variance value. The variance value taught in Craft is different from the standard deviation value of Karkov discussed immediately above.
Craft column 7 lines 40-41 control equation and respective “aggressive threshold” and “moderate threshold” of Craft column 8 lines 28-39 correspond with the variance value. Craft column 8 lines 30-33 teaches “The aggressive threshold may be, for example, between about 20% and about 40%, and may particularly be about 25%, about 30% or about 35%.” Craft column 8 lines 39-42 teaches “The moderate threshold may be, for example, between about 10% and about 20%, and may particularly be about 12%, about 15% or about 18%.” The percentage is a mapping relative to the setpoint. Accordingly, each setpoint maps to a corresponding different set of aggressive and moderate thresholds. Thus, the setpoints and variance values taught by Craft correspond with input operating setpoints mapping to associated variance values of respective percentage differences.
Karkov does not explicitly disclose controlling a pump to increase/decrease when a monitored flow is above/below a variance value separate from the setpoint itself; however, in analogous art of maintaining a setpoint flow control, Craft column 7 lines 27-31 and column 8 lines 28-52 teaches:
The controller 134 applies a feedback control loop to control the pump motor according to a tiered control scheme wherein a more aggressive (faster) response is applied to greater values of e(t) and a more conservative (slower and more stable) response is applied to smaller values of e(t).
…
The controller 134 periodically compares the actual flow rate with the setpoint to determine if e(t) has fallen below an aggressive threshold, as depicted in block 220. …. The controller 134 periodically compares the actual flow rate with the setpoint to determine if e(t) has fallen below a moderate threshold, …. When the controller 134 is operating in the conservative control loop, it remains in the conservative control loop until the user presses a stop button, until the setpoint changes as depicted in block 228, or until e(t) exceeds the moderate threshold.
The error value e(t), aggressive threshold, and moderate threshold correspond with variance values from an operating setpoint. Determining that the aggressive threshold or moderate threshold is exceeded corresponds with monitoring a change in flow compared with a current operating setpoint.
Craft column 7 lines 40-41 teach a control equation. In this control equation, the sign of the error function e(t) determines whether the pump motor control signal u(t) is an increase or a decrease of the respective pump flow. Craft column 7 lines 23-25 teaches “uses a feedback control loop function to modify the actual flow rate to minimize the error.” Minimizing the error corresponds with a decrease when above a respective lower variance value and increase when below a respective upper variance value.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Karkov, Watson, and Craft. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a tiered control scheme of a pump motor into the system of evaluation of pump assemblies for the advantageous purpose of automatic pump control with both fast pump speed changes and steady pump speed control. See Craft column 2 lines 23-31.
Claim 1 further recites “the upper and lower variance values being determined by: sampling multiple values of flow while operating said pump at said current operating setpoint; and applying a statistical function to the sampled multiple flow values to generate said upper and lower variance values.” Karkov column 8 lines 40-42 disclose “The data transferred from the pump assemblies, in step 18 is then processed with the help of statistical methods and/or mathematical pump models.”
Karkov column 4 lines 6-9 disclose “Advantageously, pump parameters, in particular pump curves of a multitude of pump assemblies or pump assembly groups are statistically evaluated, for example by way of mean formation and determining the standard deviation.” Evaluating pump curves mean and standard deviation via statistical evaluation corresponds to generating a plurality of statistically derived values.
Claim 4 recites “4. A pump controller for optimizing production from a well.” Karkov column 4 lines 29-30 disclose “to further optimise the applied computation models within the controls.” Optimizing is an optimization.
Karkov does not explicitly disclose wells; however, in analogous art of controlling pumps, Watson column 5 lines 34-36 teaches “a sucker rod pump controller for oil wells for controlling and optimizing the operation thereof.” Oil wells are wells.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Karkov and Watson. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use optimizing oil wells into the system of statistical evaluation of pump assemblies for the advantageous purpose of optimizing dynamic pump processes. See Watson column 5 lines 37-40.
Claim 4 further recites “comprising: a variable pump drive for driving the pump operatively coupled to the well at a plurality of operating setpoints to generate production flow; and a processor.” Watson column 5 lines 34-36 teaches “a sucker rod pump controller for oil wells for controlling and optimizing the operation thereof.” A pump controller for the well corresponds with a pump operatively coupled to the well. Controlling and optimizing operation of the well corresponds with driving the pump with a control signal.
Karkov column 7 lines 63-67 disclose:
The data which is transferred to the server 8 can be current operating data, such as motor current, motor voltage, speed, measured flow rate, calculated flow rate, measured differential pressure, calculated differential pressure, operating time, etc.
Current operating data corresponds with the pump generating a flow. The speed of the pump corresponds with a respective setpoint. The data transferred to the server corresponds with inputting well data to a processor.
Claim 4 further recites “configured to detect at a current operating setpoint, a change in flow.” Karkov column 7 lines 63-67 disclose:
The data which is transferred to the server 8 can be current operating data, such as motor current, motor voltage, speed, measured flow rate, calculated flow rate, measured differential pressure, calculated differential pressure, operating time, etc.
Current operating data corresponds with the pump generating a flow. The speed of the pump corresponds with a respective setpoint. Transferring the current operating data corresponds with monitoring current operating setpoint.
Karkov does not explicitly disclose detecting a change in flow rate; however, in analogous art of controlling pumps, Watson column 10 lines 32-39 “status agent” teaches:
Status Agent
The primary role of the Status agent is to identify any potential variation or deviation from normal or predicted operation occurring such as an external disturbance or a change in process conditions or parameters.
Consists of a mechanism to detect deviation from normal, ideal or predicted operation,
Identifying a variation, deviation, or change in process condition corresponds with detecting a change in flow.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Karkov and Watson. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use optimizing oil wells into the system of statistical evaluation of pump assemblies for the advantageous purpose of optimizing dynamic pump processes. See Watson column 5 lines 37-40.
Claim 4 further recites “and the variable pump drive being configured to: vary a control signal in response to said detected change in flow to drive said pump to increase flow when current flow is above a lower variance value associated with the current operating setpoint, and to drive said pump to decrease flow when the current flow is below an upper variance value associated with the current operating setpoint.” Karkov column 11 lines 58-61 disclose “the data set to be used is applied in the already available model and it is examined as to whether the value determined with this lies within the standard deviation of the applied model.” Examining the data set to determine that it is within the standard deviation is confirming that the well profile maps to an associated variance value.
Karkov column 10 lines 19-25 discloses “the pump curves … can be statistically evaluated, …, in order to bring these pump assemblies … to the actual operating points.” The operating points correspond with the respective operating points of the pumps.
Note, Examiner cites Craft below regarding usage of the variance value. The variance value taught in Craft is different from the standard deviation value of Karkov discussed immediately above.
Craft column 7 lines 40-41 control equation and respective “aggressive threshold” and “moderate threshold” of Craft column 8 lines 28-39 correspond with the variance value. Craft column 8 lines 30-33 teaches “The aggressive threshold may be, for example, between about 20% and about 40%, and may particularly be about 25%, about 30% or about 35%.” Craft column 8 lines 39-42 teaches “The moderate threshold may be, for example, between about 10% and about 20%, and may particularly be about 12%, about 15% or about 18%.” The percentage is a mapping relative to the setpoint. Accordingly, each setpoint maps to a corresponding different set of aggressive and moderate thresholds. Thus, the setpoints and variance values taught by Craft correspond with input operating setpoints mapping to associated variance values of respective percentage differences.
Karkov does not explicitly disclose controlling a pump to increase/decrease when a monitored flow is above/below a variance value separate from the setpoint itself; however, in analogous art of maintaining a setpoint flow control, Craft column 7 lines 27-31 and column 8 lines 28-52 teaches:
The controller 134 applies a feedback control loop to control the pump motor according to a tiered control scheme wherein a more aggressive (faster) response is applied to greater values of e(t) and a more conservative (slower and more stable) response is applied to smaller values of e(t).
…
The controller 134 periodically compares the actual flow rate with the setpoint to determine if e(t) has fallen below an aggressive threshold, as depicted in block 220. …. The controller 134 periodically compares the actual flow rate with the setpoint to determine if e(t) has fallen below a moderate threshold, …. When the controller 134 is operating in the conservative control loop, it remains in the conservative control loop until the user presses a stop button, until the setpoint changes as depicted in block 228, or until e(t) exceeds the moderate threshold.
The error value e(t), aggressive threshold, and moderate threshold correspond with variance values from an operating setpoint. Determining that the aggressive threshold or moderate threshold is exceeded corresponds with monitoring a change in flow compared with a current operating setpoint.
Craft column 7 lines 40-41 teach a control equation. In this control equation, the sign of the error function e(t) determines whether the pump motor control signal u(t) is an increase or a decrease of the respective pump flow. Craft column 7 lines 23-25 teaches “uses a feedback control loop function to modify the actual flow rate to minimize the error.” Minimizing the error corresponds with a decrease when above a respective lower variance value and increase when below a respective upper variance value.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Karkov, Watson, and Craft. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a tiered control scheme of a pump motor into the system of evaluation of pump assemblies for the advantageous purpose of automatic pump control with both fast pump speed changes and steady pump speed control. See Craft column 2 lines 23-31.
Claim 4 further recites “an upper and lower variance values being determined by: sampling multiple values of flow while operating said pump at said current operating setpoint; and applying a statistical function to the sampled multiple flow values to generate said upper and lower and variance values.” Karkov column 8 lines 40-42 disclose “The data transferred from the pump assemblies, in step 18 is then processed with the help of statistical methods and/or mathematical pump models.”
Karkov column 4 lines 6-9 disclose “Advantageously, pump parameters, in particular pump curves of a multitude of pump assemblies or pump assembly groups are statistically evaluated, for example by way of mean formation and determining the standard deviation.” Evaluating pump curves mean and standard deviation via statistical evaluation corresponds to generating a plurality of statistically derived values.
Claim 8 further recites “8. The method of claim 1, wherein the variance values correspond to a standard deviation.” Karkov column 4 lines 6-9 disclose “Advantageously, pump parameters, in particular pump curves of a multitude of pump assemblies or pump assembly groups are statistically evaluated, for example by way of mean formation and determining the standard deviation.”
Claim 9 further recites “9. The method of claim 1, wherein the variance includes a mean and a standard deviation from the mean.” Karkov column 4 lines 6-9 disclose “Advantageously, pump parameters, in particular pump curves of a multitude of pump assemblies or pump assembly groups are statistically evaluated, for example by way of mean formation and determining the standard deviation.”
Claim 13 further recites “13. The method of claim 1, said applying including using one or more of Frequentist inferences, and Bayesian inference for deriving the variations in sampled data.” From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “a Frequentist inferences.”
Craft and Karkov does not explicitly disclose the variance is a Frequentist inference. However, in analogous art of controlling pumps, Watson column 9 lines 32-34 teaches “The references further include a statistically generated mean reference with standard deviations of key measured and derived process parameters.” Statistics based on mean and standard deviation (without probability or likelihood) is a frequentist approach.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Karkov, Craft, and Watson. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use statistically generated mean and standard deviation into the system of statistical evaluation of pump assemblies for the advantageous purpose “to filter out process noise and external disturbances.” See Watson column 9 lines35-36.
Claim 14 further recites “14. The method of claim 1, including generating well profiles having said upper and lower variance values correlated to operating setpoints for respective ones of a plurality of wells.” Karkov abstract discloses “control for individual pumps or groups or pumps, … multitude of pump assemblies.” A group of pumps and/or a multitude of pump assemblies corresponds with a plurality of pumps.
Karkov does not explicitly disclose wells; however, in analogous art of controlling pumps, Watson column 5 lines 34-36 teaches “a sucker rod pump controller for oil wells for controlling and optimizing the operation thereof.” Oil wells are wells.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Karkov and Watson. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use optimizing oil wells into the system of statistical evaluation of pump assemblies for the advantageous purpose of optimizing dynamic pump processes. See Watson column 5 lines 37-40.
Claim 16 further recites “16. The method of claim 1, wherein said applying is performed after a predetermined time interval.” Karkov column 5 lines 8-9 disclose “This procedure can be effected automatically, for example in certain time intervals.” Effecting automatically at certain time intervals corresponds with applying after predetermined time intervals.
Dependent claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 16 above and is rejected for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 17 and 18
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karkov, Watson, and Craft as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of US 11,795,787 B2 Sandnes, et al. [herein “Sandnes”].
Claim 17 further recites “17. The method of claim 16, wherein said time interval is based on inputting of a predetermined number of samples.” Watson column 10 lines 32-59 teach a status agent identifying variation or deviation from normal. Watson column 10 lines 49-50 teaches this optimizes use of computation capacity.
But neither Craft, Watson, nor Karkov explicitly disclose a time interval is based on inputting a predetermined number of samples; however, in analogous art of modeling oil and gas industry flow data, Sandnes column 18 lines 47-52 teaches “A data table of both stable production and transient events may hence be produced. This may include information about the stable production time intervals such as category, start time, duration and/or statistical information such as one or more of mean, median, variance, constant term, linear term, r-squared, and/or number of sample points.” Producing a data table of a respective production time interval according to a number of sample points corresponds with having a time interval based on inputting a number of samples.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Karkov, Watson, Craft, and Sandnes. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use statistical information tables of a number of sample points into the system of evaluation of pump assemblies for the advantageous purpose of “effective compression of the original.” See Sandnes column 18 lines 55-59.
Claim 18 further recites “18. The method of claim 1, wherein said applying is performed after input of a predetermined plurality of samples.” Watson column 10 lines 32-59 teach a status agent identifying variation or deviation from normal. Watson column 10 lines 49-50 teaches this optimizes use of computation capacity.
But neither Watson, Craft, nor Karkov explicitly disclose a time interval is based on inputting a predetermined number of samples; however, in analogous art of modeling oil and gas industry flow data, Sandnes column 18 lines 47-52 teaches “A data table of both stable production and transient events may hence be produced. This may include information about the stable production time intervals such as category, start time, duration and/or statistical information such as one or more of mean, median, variance, constant term, linear term, r-squared, and/or number of sample points.” Producing a data table of a respective production time interval according to a number of sample points corresponds with having a time interval based on inputting a number of samples.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Karkov, Watson, Craft, and Sandnes. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use statistical information tables of a number of sample points into the system of evaluation of pump assemblies for the advantageous purpose of “effective compression of the original.” See Sandnes column 18 lines 55-59.
Dependent claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 18 above and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 14 November 2025