DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 11/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 17 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully
consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed
invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed
by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the
claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the
invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the
specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology
familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can
be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited
references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the
applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of
compact prosecution.
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.
Response to Arguments
Non-statutory Double Patenting Rejection:
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s submitted Terminal Disclaimer to Obviate a Provisional Double Patenting Rejection Over a Pending “Reference” Application. Rejection due to non-statutory double patenting is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 6, 14 and 20 to provide limitation clarification. Previous rejections to claims 6, 14 and 20, along with dependent claims 7 and 15, due to lack of clarity are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 17 and 20.
Applicants arguments have been fully considered, but were not persuasive. Rejections to claims 1-20 are maintained.
Applicant argues [Pg.1-2] that amended claims integrate “the determination of wear parameters into a practical application.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons:
The steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent eligible subject matter is the following:
Step 1: Determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-8 are directed towards a method, therefore fall within the statutory category of a process. Claims 9-16 are directed towards a non-transitory CRM, therefore fall within the statutory category of manufacture. And claims 17-20 are directed towards an apparatus, therefore fall within the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A: Determine if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are all directed towards an abstract idea (mental processes) – see 35 USC §101 analysis below.
Step 2B: Determine if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As shown in 35 USC §101 analysis section below, the additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional claim limitations identified within independent claims 1, 9, and 17 can be summarized as simply applying the judicial exception (mental processes), i.e. the additional limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome, i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished and/or invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"”, and “use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Due to the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Similar rationale for rejection is provided for dependent claims below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 17 and 20.
Applicants arguments have been fully considered, but were not persuasive.
Rejections to claims 1-20 are maintained. Note: Applicant’ s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Applicant argues [Pg.2-3] that Huang (primary referenced art) doesn’t disclose the amended limitation of “determining a final element wear profile of the at least one element representative of a post-drilling condition of the at least one element, wherein final element wear profile is determined based on the wear depth of the at least one element of the drill bit”, but instead discloses “an iterative bit design process that produces new drill bit/cutting elements to compensate for expected cutter wear, not a representation of the same drill bit element’s worn condition after drilling a wellbore with said drill bit.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As shown in Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §102 section below, Huang discloses
determining a final element wear profile of the at least one element representative of a post-drilling condition of the at least one element, wherein final element wear profile is determined based on the wear depth for the at least one element of the drill bit; (“the invention provides a method for designing a fixed cutter bit (i.e. final element wear profile) [...] The method includes selecting bit design parameters, drilling parameters, and an earth formation to be represented as drilled (i.e. post-drilled), at step 152. Then a bit having the selected bit design parameters is simulated as drilling in the selected earth formation under the conditions dictated by the selected drilling parameters, at step 154. The simulating includes calculating the interaction between the cutters on the drill bit and the earth formation at selected increments during drilling. This includes calculating parameters for the cuts made in the formation by each of the cutters on the bit and determining the forces and the wear on each (i.e. at least one) of the cutters (i.e. element) during drilling.” Huang [P.0183]). Therefore, Applicant’s argument isn’t persuasive. Independent claims 9 and 17 recite substantially the same subject matter as claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a process.
Claims 9-16 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of manufacture.
Claims 17-20 are directed to an apparatus, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of machine.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 1):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per claim 1, the claim recites the limitations of:
determining an initial element wear profile of at least one element of a drill bit prior to the drill bit being used for drilling a wellbore; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. For instance, a person can reasonably inspect a drill bit and determine an initial element wear profile with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
determining a wear depth for each of the at least one element of the drill bit after the drill bit has drilled at least a portion of the wellbore; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably inspect a drill bit and determine a wear depth for at least one element with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
determining a final element wear profile of the at least one element representative of a post-drilling condition of the at least one element, wherein final element wear profile is determined based on the wear depth of the at least one element; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate element wear depth, post-drilling, and then determine a final element wear profile with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
and performing the following for each of one or more intermediate steps between the initial element wear profile and the final element wear profile, determining an intermediate element wear profile of the at least one element; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably determine an intermediate element wear profile with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
and determining at least one wear parameter for the at least one element based on the intermediate element wear profile. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) . For instance, a person can reasonably determine, based on the intermediate element wear profile, at least one wear parameter for the at least one element with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 1):
As per claim 1, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
modifying one or more parameters of a drilling operation for the wellbore or a future wellbore using the at least one wear parameter (The additional element amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e. mental processes) per MPEP 2106.05(f), aka “apply it”. When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Specifically, the additional element recites only the idea of a solution or an outcome, i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B (Claim 1):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(f).
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 9):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per independent Claim 9, the claim recites the limitations of:
:
determining an initial element wear profile of at least one element of a drill bit prior to the drill bit being used for drilling a wellbore; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to performing Mental Processes on a computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions) or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid, on a generic computer. Note: per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably inspect a drill bit and determine an initial element wear profile with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
determining a wear depth for each of the at least one element of the drill bit; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to performing Mental Processes on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably inspect a drill bit and determine a wear depth for each of the at least one element with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
determining a final element wear profile of the at least one element representative of a post-drilling condition of the at least one element, wherein final element wear profile is determined based on the wear depth of the at least one element of the drill bit; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to performing Mental Processes on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate element wear depth, post-drilling, and then determine a final element wear profile with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
and performing the following for each of one or more intermediate steps between the initial element wear profile and the final element wear profile, determining an intermediate element wear profile of the at least one element; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to performing Mental Processes on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably determine an intermediate element wear profile with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
and determining at least one wear parameter for the at least one element based on the intermediate element wear profile. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to performing Mental Processes on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) . For instance, a person can reasonably determine, based on the intermediate element wear profile, at least one wear parameter for the at least one element with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 9):
As per Claim 9, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor to perform operations comprising: (The additional claim limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, this limitation amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.)
modifying one or more parameters of a drilling operation for the wellbore or a future wellbore using the at least one wear parameter (The additional element amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e. mental processes) per MPEP 2106.05(f), aka “apply it”. When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Specifically, the additional element recites only the idea of a solution or an outcome, i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished and/or invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B (Claim 9):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.”
Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(d) states the following non-exhaustive examples of elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Claim 17):
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover Mental Processes, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per independent claim 17, the claim recites the limitations of:
determine an initial element wear profile of at least one element of a drill bit prior to the drill bit being used for drilling a wellbore; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to performing Mental Processes on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), which are defined as concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind (e.g. observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions) or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid, on a generic computer. Note: per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. For instance, a person can reasonably inspect a drill bit and determine an initial element wear profile with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
determine a wear depth for each of the at least one element of the drill bit after the drill bit has drilled at least a portion of the wellbore; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to performing Mental Processes on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably inspect a drill bit and determine a wear depth for at least one element with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
and determine a final element wear profile of the at least one element representative of a post-drilling condition of the at least one element, wherein final element wear profile is determined based on the wear depth of the at least one element of the drill bit; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to performing Mental Processes on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate element wear depth, post-drilling, and then determine a final element wear profile with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
and perform the following for each of one or more intermediate steps between the initial element wear profile and the final element wear profile, determine an intermediate element wear profile of the at least one element; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to performing Mental Processes on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably determine an intermediate element wear profile with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
and determine at least one wear parameter for the at least one element based on the intermediate element wear profile. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation amounts to performing Mental Processes on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) . For instance, a person can reasonably determine, based on the intermediate element wear profile, at least one wear parameter for the at least one element with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Claim 17):
As per independent Claim 17, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
An apparatus comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to (The additional claim limitation amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, this limitation amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.)
modify one or more parameters of a drilling operation for the wellbore or a future wellbore using the at least one wear parameter (The additional element amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e. mental processes) per MPEP 2106.05(f), aka “apply it”. When determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Specifically, the additional element recites only the idea of a solution or an outcome, i.e. fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished and/or invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B (Claim 17):
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.”
Additionally, MPEP 2106.05(d) states the following non-exhaustive examples of elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity:
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
For the foregoing reasons, Claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2 further recites, wherein performing the following for each of the one or more intermediate steps comprises: determining an intermediate bit profile of the drill bit based on the intermediate element wear profile of the at least one element, wherein determining the at least one wear parameter for the at least one element comprises determining the at least one wear parameter for the at least one element based on the intermediate element wear profile of the at least one element. The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. The additional limitations further amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably perform the claim limitations with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3, the method of claim 2, further recites, wherein performing the following for each of the one or more intermediate steps comprises: executing a drill bit-rock interaction simulation according to a drill bit motion, wherein the drill bit-rock interaction simulation is based on the intermediate element wear profile of the at least one element and the intermediate bit profile, (The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. The additional claim elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
wherein determining the at least one wear parameter for the at least one element comprises determining the at least one wear parameter for the at least one element based on drill bit-rock interaction simulation. (The additional claim elements further amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably perform the claim limitations with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4, the method of Claim 3, further recites, wherein the drill bit motion comprises at least one of a steady state bit motion, a drilling with a motion, and a directional drilling motion. The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. The additional limitations elaborate on the simulation previously determined to be directed towards Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claim further amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5 further recites, wherein performing the following for each of the one or more intermediate steps comprises determining at least one bit design characteristic based on the at least one wear parameter. The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. The additional limitations further amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably perform the claim limitations with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6, the method of Claim 5, further recites, generating an offset drill bit model based on the at least one bit design characteristic; generating simulated values of at least one attribute of drilling of a different wellbore based on inputting the offset drill bit model into a force model; (The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome (i.e. the generation of an offset drill bit model and simulated values) and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
determining at least one calibration factor for the at least one attribute of the drilling of the different wellbore; (The additional limitations further amount to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably perform the claim limitations with/without the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, to “determine” is inherent to a mental process since it requires observation, evaluation, and judgement.)
calibrating the simulated values based on the at least one calibration factor; generating an offset run drill bit representation based on the calibrated simulated values; and generating a drill bit design based on the offset run drill bit representation, for a different drill bit to be used to drill the different wellbore. (The additional limitations, as written, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or an outcome (i.e. calibrating the simulated values, generating an offset run drill bit representation and drill bit design) and fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.)
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7, the method of Claim 6, further recites, wherein the at least one attribute of drilling of the different wellbore comprises at least one of a surface rate of penetration, a surface torque on the drill string that includes the drill bit, a weight on the drill bit, and a torque on the drill bit. The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. The additional limitations elaborate on the at least one attribute previously determined to be directed to a mental process. Thus, this claim further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8 further recites, wherein the at least one wear parameter comprises at least one of an engagement area of the at least one element with a subsurface formation in which the wellbore is drilled, a contact length of the at least one element with the subsurface formation, and at least one force on the at least one element. The analysis of the parent claim is incorporated. The additional limitations elaborate on the at least one wear parameter previously determined to be directed to a mental process. Thus, this claim further amounts to Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 8 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claims 6 and 7 combined, and is rejected under similar rationale and further failure to add significantly more. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. US Pub. No. 2010/0211362 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Huang”)
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses, A method comprising (“the invention relates to methods for modeling the drilling performance of a fixed cutter bit drilling through an earth formation, methods for designing fixed cutter drill bits, and methods for optimizing the drilling performance of a fixed cutter drill bit.” Huang [P.0006]):
determining an initial element wear profile of at least one element of a drill bit prior to the drill bit being used for drilling a wellbore; (“bit design parameters 404 provided as input include the cutter locations and orientations (e.g., radial and angular positions, heights, profile angles, back rake angles, side rake angles, etc.) and the cutter sizes (e.g., diameter), shapes (i.e., geometry) and bevel size. Additional bit design parameters 404 may include the bit profile, bit diameter, number of blades on bit, blade geometries, blade locations, junk slot areas, bit axial offset (from the axis of rotation), cutter material make-up (e.g., tungsten carbide substrate with hard facing overlay of selected thickness), etc. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that cutter geometries and the bit geometry can be meshed, converted to coordinates and provided as numerical input.” Huang [P.0088]. The cutter is interpreted to mean “element wear profile” due to Applicant’s disclosure, “Elements of the drill bit can include primary cutters, backup cutters, DOCCs, etc.” Spec. [P.0057])
determining a wear depth for each of the at least one element of the drill bit after the drill bit has drilled at least a portion of the wellbore; (“Wear of the cutters is also accounted for during drilling. In one implementation, cutter wear is determined for each cutter (i.e. each of the at least one element of the drill bit) based on the interaction parameters calculated for the cutter and cutter/interaction data, wherein the cutter interaction data includes wear data... the cutter shape (i.e. wear depth) is then modified using cutter wear results to form worn cutters reflective of how the cutters would be worn during drilling” Huang [P.0115]. References to “cutter shape” is interpreted to mean “wear depth” due to Applicant’s disclosure, “The wear depth can be the amount of material worn off of and/or the shape of the primary cutter after drilling” Spec. [P.0049]. Also, “cutter” is interpreted mean “element” due to Applicant’s disclosure, “Elements of the drill bit can include primary cutters, backup cutters, DOCCs, etc.” Spec. [P.0057])
determining a final element wear profile of the at least one element representative of a post-drilling condition of the at least one element, wherein final element wear profile is determined based on the wear depth for the at least one element of the drill bit; (“the invention provides a method for designing a fixed cutter bit (i.e. final element wear profile) [...] The method includes selecting bit design parameters, drilling parameters, and an earth formation to be represented as drilled (i.e. post-drilled), at step 152. Then a bit having the selected bit design parameters is simulated as drilling in the selected earth formation under the conditions dictated by the selected drilling parameters, at step 154. The simulating includes calculating the interaction between the cutters on the drill bit and the earth formation at selected increments during drilling. This includes calculating parameters for the cuts made in the formation by each of the cutters on the bit and determining the forces and the wear on each (i.e. at least one) of the cutters (i.e. element) during drilling.” Huang [P.0183])
and performing the following for each of one or more intermediate steps between the initial element wear profile and the final element wear profile (“The dynamic simulation may also generate worn cutters (i.e. element wear profile) after each iteration (i.e. intermediate step) and use the worn cutters in the next iteration. By using the worn cutters in the simulation, the results will be more accurate.” Huang [P.0139]), determining an intermediate element wear profile of the at least one element; (“The performance of the worn cutters (i.e. element wear profile) may be simulated with a constrained centerline model or a dynamic model to generate parameters for the worn cutters and a graphical display of the wear. The parameters of the worn cutters can be used in a next iteration of simulation. For example, the worn cutters can be displayed to the design engineer and the parameters can be adjusted by the design engineer accordingly, to change wear or to change one or more other performance characteristics” Huang [P.0135])
and determining at least one wear parameter for the at least one element based on the intermediate element wear profile. (“In each step of the simulation, the cutter (or drill bit)-formation interactions are determined (step 183). The force (i.e. at least one wear parameter) that acts on the cutter (i.e. intermediate element wear profile) or drill bit can be determined from these interactions. Finally, the wear of the cutter (or the drill bit) can then be calculated from the force acting on the cutter and other parameters” Huang [P.0132]. The “force” that acts on the cutter is interpreted as “at least one wear parameter” due to Applicant’s disclosure, “Wear parameters may include engagement area with the subsurface formation while drilling, contact length with the subsurface formation while drilling, and the forces applied to the element” Spec. [P.0064])
and modifying one or more parameters of a drilling operation for the wellbore or a future wellbore using the at least one wear parameter. (“The simulation procedure may be used to calculate forces acting on each cutting element and to further calculate force distribution over the surface of an individual cutting element. Iterative design may be used to, for example, reposition selected cutting elements, reshape selected cutting elements, or modify the material composition of selected cutting elements (e.g., cutting elements at different locations on the drill bit) to minimize wear and breakage. These modifications may include, for example, changing cutting element spacing, adding or removing cutting elements, changing cutting element surface geometries, and changing base materials or adding hard facing materials to cutting elements, among other modifications.” Huang [P.0194])
Regarding claim 2, Huang further discloses, wherein performing the following for each of the one or more intermediate steps (“The adjusting at least one design parameter 156 and the repeating of the simulating 154 are repeated until a desired set of bit design parameters is obtained.” Huang [P.0183]) comprises,
determining an intermediate bit profile of the drill bit based on the intermediate element wear profile of the at least one element, (”Being able to model the wear of the cutting elements (cutters) (i.e. intermediate element wear profile) and/or the bit accurately makes it possible to design a fixed cutter bit to achieve the desired wear characteristics. In addition, the wear modeling may be used during a drilling modeling to update the drill bit (i.e. intermediate bit profile) as it wears. This can significantly improve the accuracy of the drilling simulation.” Huang [P.0141])
wherein determining the at least one wear parameter for the at least one element comprises determining the at least one wear parameter for the at least one element based on the intermediate element wear profile of the at least one element. (“The simulating includes calculating the interaction between the cutters on the drill bit and the earth formation at selected increments during drilling. This includes calculating parameters for the cuts made in the formation by each of the cutters on the bit and determining the forces (i.e. wear parameter) and the wear on each of the cutters during drilling.” Huang [P.0183]. The “forces” are interpreted as “wear parameters” due to Applicant’s disclosure, “Wear parameters may include engagement area with the subsurface formation while drilling, contact length with the subsurface formation while drilling, and the forces applied to the element” Spec. [P.0064])
Regarding claim 3, the method of claim 2, Huang further discloses, wherein performing the following for each of the one or more intermediate steps (“The adjusting at least one design parameter 156 and the repeating of the simulating 154 are repeated until a desired set of bit design parameters is obtained.” Huang [P.0183]) comprises, executing a drill bit-rock interaction simulation according to a drill bit motion (“As shown in FIG. 17C and previously discussed, the forces on each of the cutters is calculated (i.e. simulation) based on the movement (i.e. drill bit motion) of the cutter, the calculated interference parameters (the depth of cut, the interference surface area, and the engaging edge for each of the cutters), bit/cutter design parameters (such as back rake angle, side rake angle, and bevel size, etc. for each of the cutters) and cutter/formation interaction data (i.e. drill-bit rock interaction), wherein the forces required on the cutting elements are obtained from cutter/interaction data records having interaction parameter values similar to those calculated for on a cutter during drilling.” Huang [P.0114]. The “cutter/formation interaction data” is interpreted to include “drill-bit rock interaction” because “a rock sample from a formation of interest (which may be inhomogeneous), may be used to determine the interaction between a selected cutter and the selected inhomogeneous formation” Huang [P.0077]),
wherein the drill bit-rock interaction simulation is based on the intermediate element wear profile of the at least one element and the intermediate bit profile, (“The steps of the main simulation loop 320 described above are repeated by applying a subsequent incremental rotation to the bit (i.e. bit profile) 322 and repeating the calculations to obtain forces and wear on the cutters (i.e. element wear profile) and an updated bottomhole geometry to reflect the incremental drilling. Successive incremental rotations are repeated to simulate the performance of the drill bit drilling through earth formations” Huang [P.0117]. The simulation loop is interpreted to include the intermittent profiles – See Huang FIG. 17A-C.)
wherein determining the at least one wear parameter for the at least one element comprises determining the at least one wear parameter for the at least one element based on the drill bit-rock interaction simulation. (“the forces (i.e. wear parameters) on each of the cutters (i.e. elements) is calculated based on the movement of the cutter, the calculated interference parameters (the depth of cut, the interference surface area, and the engaging edge for each of the cutters), bit/cutter design parameters (such as back rake angle, side rake angle, and bevel size, etc. for each of the cutters) and cutter/formation interaction data, wherein the forces required on the cutting elements are obtained from cutter/interaction data records having interaction parameter values similar to those calculated for on a cutter during drilling.” Huang [P.0114]. The forces on each of the cutters is interpreted as “at least one wear parameter” per Applicant’s disclosure, “Wear parameters may include engagement area with the subsurface formation while drilling, contact length with the subsurface formation while drilling, and the forces applied to the element” Spec. [P.0064])
Regarding claim 4, the method of claim 3, Huang further discloses, wherein the drill bit motion comprises at least one of a steady state bit motion, a drilling with a motion, and a directional drilling motion. (“the bit is moved up a fractional incremental distance (or, expressed alternatively, the incremental axial movement of the bit is reduced), and the calculations in the axial force equilibrium loop 326 are repeated to determine the forces on the bit at the adjusted incremental axial displacement.” Huang [P.0112])
Regarding claim 5, Huang further discloses, wherein performing the following for each of the one or more intermediate steps (“The adjusting at least one design parameter 156 and the repeating of the simulating 154 are repeated until a desired set of bit design parameters is obtained.” Huang [P.0183]) comprises determining at least one bit design characteristic based on the at least one wear parameter. (“all of the forces (i.e. wear parameter) on cutters in the axial direction are summed to obtain the total axial force (i.e. bit design characteristic) on the bit” Huang [P.0112]. The total axial force is interpreted to mean “bit design characteristic” due to Applicant’s disclosure, “Drill bit design characteristics include drilling efficiency, bit side cutting efficiency (SCE), bit whirl index, total DOCC contact area, total axial force on the DOCCs, and total torque on the DOCCs.” Spec. [P.0066])
Regarding claim 6, the method of claim 5, Huang further discloses, generating an offset drill bit model based on the at least one bit design characteristic (“modeling the dynamic performance of a fixed cutter bit drilling earth formations includes selecting a drill bit design and an earth formation to be represented as drilled, wherein a geometric model of the bit and a geometric model of the earth formation to be represented as drilled are generated... The method further includes determining the forces on the cutters during the incremental rotation based on data from a cutter / formation interaction model (i.e. offset drill bit model) and the calculated interaction between the bit and the earth formation.” Huang [P.0056]. The cutter/formation interaction model is interpreted as an “offset drill bit model” because, “The cutter / formation interaction model may comprise empirical data obtained from cutter/formation interaction tests conducted for one or more cutters on one or more different formations (i.e. offset/different wellbore locations) in one or more different orientations” Huang [P.0057]);
generating simulated values of at least one attribute of drilling of a different wellbore based on inputting the offset drill bit model into a force model; (“force or wear on at least one cutter on a bit, such as during the simulation of a bit (i.e. drill bit model) drilling earth formation (i.e. offset wellbore) is determined using cutter/formation interaction data in accordance with the description above... The method generates a numerical representation of the bit and a numerical representation of the earth formation and simulates the bit drilling in the earth... and the forces on the cutters resulting from the interference are determined” Huang [P.0082-83])
determining at least one calibration factor for the at least one attribute of the drilling of the different wellbore; (“Output information, such as forces on cutters, weight on bit, and cutter wear, may be provided as output information , at 436. The output information may include any information or data which characterizes aspects of the performance of the selected drill bit drilling the specified earth formations. ” Huang [P.101]. Weight on bit is interpreted to be “at least one calibration factor” due to Applicant’s disclosure, “Calibration factors may include surface ROP, surface and/or at bit WOB, and surface and/or at bit TOB and the corresponding depths and/or times.” Spec. [P.0096])
calibrating the simulated values based on the at least one calibration factor; (“Simulating, displaying and adjusting (i.e. calibrating) of the worn cutters can be repeated, to optimize a wear characteristic, or to optimize or one or more other performance characteristics” Huang [P.0135])
generating an offset run drill bit representation based on the calibrated simulated values; (“the visual representation of the entire bit, bottomhole surface, or other aspects of the invention may be visually represented from input data or based on simulation calculations” Huang [P.0148])
and generating a drill bit design based on the offset run drill bit representation, for a different drill bit to be used to drill the different wellbore. (”Methods in accordance with this aspect of the invention can also be used to determine optimum locations or orientations for cutters on the bit, such as to balance forces on the bit or to optimize the drilling performance (rate of penetration, useful life, etc.) of the bit.” Huang [P.0186])
Regarding claim 7, the method of claim 6, Huang further discloses, wherein the at least one attribute of drilling of the different wellbore comprises at least one of a surface rate of penetration, a surface torque on the drill string that includes the drill bit, a weight on the drill bit, and a torque on the drill bit. (“for simulating, at least one drilling operation parameter from a group consisting of consisting of weight on bit, bit torque, rate of penetration, rotary speed, rotating time, wear flat area, hole diameter, mud type, mud density, vertical drilling, drilling tilt angle, platform/table rotation, directional drilling, down hole motor rotation, bent drill string rotation, and side load.” Huang [P.0178].
Regarding claim 8, Huang further discloses, wherein the at least one wear parameter comprises at least one of an engagement area of the at least one element with a subsurface formation in which the wellbore is drilled, a contact length of the at least one element with the subsurface formation, and at least one force on the at least one element. (“Determining cutter interaction with the bottomhole includes calculating the depth of cut, the interference surface area, and the contact edge length for each cutter contacting the formation during the increment of drilling by the bit. These cutter/formation interaction parameters can be calculated using geometrical calculations known in the art” Huang [P.0093])
Claim 9 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 9 further recites, A non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by a processor to perform operations comprising (“A system comprising: a processor; a memory operatively connected to the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to” Huang [Claim 169]).
Claim 10 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 3 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 4 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 6 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 7 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 8 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Claim 17 further recites, An apparatus comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the processor to cause the processor to (“A system comprising: a processor; a memory operatively connected to the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to” Huang [Claim 169]).
Claim 18 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 2 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claim 5 and is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same subject matter as Claims 6 and 7 combined, and is rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Propes et al. (Optimization Of Drill Bit Cutting Structure – US Pub. No 20120312603 A1). “Disclosed herein are methods for designing a fixed cutter drill bit and optimizing its cutting structure.” [P.0012]
Chen (Roller Cone Bit Design Using Multi-objective Optimization – US Pub. No 20040230413 A1). “The present application describes techniques for optimization of drill bit designs using multiple objectives.” [Abstract]
Chen (Roller-cone Bits, Systems, Drilling Methods, And Design Methods With Optimization Of Tooth Orientation – US Patent No 6095262 A). “A novel and improved roller cone drill bit and method of design are disclosed.” [Abstract]
Mathews et al. (Drill Bit And Design Method For Optimizing Distribution Of Individual Cutter Forces, Torque, Work, Or Power - US Patent No. 8437995 B2). “A design process and resulting bit structure is provided for drill bits wherein cutter geometries on the face of the bit are tailored to optimize the distribution of one or more of forces, torque, work, or power of each cutter relative to other cutters.”
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186