DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response dated 1/23/26 has resolved the previously presented drawing objections and 112(b) rejections from the previous Office Action of 10/23/25.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Please note concerning applicant’s new amendments, Greci, as modified, has been further modified by Fripp (US 20200370391 A1) to teach the newly amended subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 27 recites, “wherein the receptacle end comprises only non-metal annular seals.” It is unclear what applicant means by “comprises only”. It is noted that applicant has used the open-ended transition phrase “comprises” while using the phrase “only” to suggest that other elements are not permitted. These would appear to contradict one another. Additionally, it is noted, that this appears to be inconsistent with applicant’s specification which shows the receptacle including spacers, as depicted, the surrounding tubular, etc..
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-11, 13-17, 21, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greci (US 20210270103 A1), in view of Fripp (US 20200370391 A1), further in view of Lewis (US 20040112606 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Greci teaches a wellbore tieback system, comprising:
a liner disposed within a wellbore (Fig 11A-11C, tubular 1150 in wellbore 1130, note that “downhole tubular” meets all of the recited particulars of a liner), defining an annulus between an external surface of the liner and a wall of the wellbore (Fig 11A-11C, annulus between 1130 and 1150);
a tieback string (Fig 11A-11C, string 1110/1160 and 1120) configured to be disposed within the wellbore (Fig 11A-11C, within wellbore as seen), the tieback string comprising a receptacle end (Fig 11A-11C, end at 220) defining an inner diameter larger than an outer diameter of the liner (Fig 11A-11C, ID at end 220 is larger than OD of 1150) such that the receptacle end is configured to be disposed within the annulus to receive a portion of the liner (Fig 11B, end 220 receives tubular 1150); and
a seal system coupled to an internal surface of the receptacle end (Fig 11A-11C, seal 310), the seal system comprising at last one annular seal configured to swell inwardly to form, with the portion of the liner inserted within the receptacle end, a fluid connection and a seal with the external surface of the liner, the tieback string fluidly coupled, with the seal formed, to the liner to receive production fluid from the liner (Fig 11C, inward swelling of seal 310 are swollen into engagement; also note the open bore capable of receiving fluids. See also Para 0041, “the seal 310 is a swellable rubber seal member.”),
wherein the liner is set in the wellbore such that the tieback string forms, with the at least one annular seal swelled, a production completion with the liner (Fig 11C, liner/tubular 1150 is coupled to tie back string 1110/1160 and 1120; please see the response to arguments above, this meets all of the recited limitations of a production completion).
While Greci teaches the use of a fishing tool such as the one he discloses as intended to reattach to severed objects such as segments of production tubulars (Para 0001).
Greci is silent on a production wellhead that resides at an uphole end of a wellbore that extends from a terranean surface to a geological formation comprising a hydrocarbon reservoir.
Fripp teaches a production wellhead that resides at an uphole end of a wellbore that extends from a terranean surface to a geological formation comprising a hydrocarbon reservoir (Fig 1, wellhead 40 at uphole end of the wellbore 80 extending into a formation, as seen).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Greci by having the accompanying production equipment such as the wellhead as disclosed by Fripp because Greci teaches the use of his fishing tool in applications for reconnecting/repairing severed production tubing. The accompanying production equipment such as a wellhead would be necessary to implement the invention of Greci as invention and allow for surface safety control systems.
Greci as modified teaches the liner arranged to receive a production fluid from the hydrocarbon reservoir (Fig 1 of Fripp, as a modification to Greci, when coupled together production would be permitted via wellhead 40).
While Greci teaches an elastomer of the annular seal swells responsive to absorbing the production fluid to form the seal with an external surface of the liner (Fig 11C, sealing with external surface of liner 1150), Greci is silent on the portion of the liner comprises a rough or uneven external surface.
Fripp teaches the portion of the liner comprises a rough or uneven external surface (Para 0057, swellable seal occurs with “an adjacent surface having profile variances, a rough finish, etc. These surfaces are not smooth, even, and/or consistent at the area where the sealing is to occur. These surfaces may have any type of indentation or projection, for example, gashes, gaps, pocks, pits, holes, divots, and the like.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Greci by having the surface which is sealed to have a rough or uneven surface as disclosed by Fripp because Fripp teaches that such surfaces are known to occur in the art, for a variety of reasons including through gashing (which may occur during use) or by virtue of the manufacturing process and a swellable seal may engage with such as surface with the predictable result of sealing in a downhole environment.
While Greci teaches one non-metallic annular seal (Para 0041, “the seal 310 is a swellable rubber seal member”), Greci as modified is not explicit on the at last one annular seal comprising a plurality of non-metallic annular seals, and the fluid connection and the seal are formed with the plurality of non-metallic annular seals absent a metal-to-metal connection between the receptacle end and the line.
Fripp teaches the at last one annular seal comprising a plurality of non-metallic annular seals, and the fluid connection and the seal are formed with the plurality of non-metallic annular seals absent a metal-to-metal connection between the receptacle end and the liner (Fig 13, Para 0049-0050, a seal has a plurality of non-metal sealing elements 305. As a modification to Greci’s inwardly swelling seal, this would result in a plurality of swellable seals 305 which would be non-metal-to-metal).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Greci by having the seal system of Greci include a plurality of non-metal seals 305 bound between the metal seals by taught by Fripp because Fripp teaches a plurality of non-metal seals “working in tandem with the swellable metal sealing element 140 to create a differential annular seal” (Para 0050) and it is part of the known customization of such seals to allow the sealing to occur “as desired” (Para 0049).
Greci as modified is silent on the liner cemented to the wellbore and arranged to receive a production fluid from the hydrocarbon reservoir.
Lewis teaches the liner cemented to the wellbore and arranged to receive a production fluid from the hydrocarbon reservoir (see e.g. Fig 7).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Greci by having the production tubular cemented and arranged to receive production fluids as disclosed by Lewis because Greci teaches a production tubular that is severed and to-be-repaired, but, it does not show the downhole components and other implementing details. Lewis teaches such implementing details known in a wellbore production system. Inclusion of details such a cementing helps control the unwanted flow of production fluid uphole.
Regarding claim 3, Greci teaches wherein the at least one annular seal comprises a plurality of swellable seals configured to swell upon exposure to the production fluid or another wellbore fluid to form the seal (Fig 11C,seal may be construed as additionally including 230 and 310 which are swollen into engagement; also note the open bore capable of receiving fluids. See also Para 0041.).
Regarding claim 6, Greci teaches wherein the plurality of swellable seals are configured to swell through days of contact with the production fluid or the wellbore fluid (Fig 11A-11C, Para 0019, seal wells due to reaction to reactive fluid which may exist in the form of completion brine. See also Para 0018 and 0024).
Regarding claim 7, Greci as modified teaches wherein the liner is partially cemented in the wellbore to form the production completion with the tieback string for production (see e.g. Fig 7 of Lewis), the annulus extending from an uphole inlet of the liner to cement disposed between the liner and a wall of the wellbore (Fig 11A-11C, tubular 1150 has an uphole inlet end as seen. Fig 7 of Lewis, tubular is cemented in place. The examiner notes that the annulus may be defined at any various portions of the annular cement e.g. top of cement, bottom of cement, or any portions in between such that the limitation is met.).
Regarding claim 8, Greci teaches wherein the liner comprises a monobore completion liner (Fig 11A-11C, tubular 1150 has a single bore as shown), and the portion of the liner comprises an uphole fluid inlet formed upon cutting the liner and retrieving a second portion of the liner uphole of the portion of the liner (Fig 11A-11C, tubular 1150 has an uphole inlet as seen, Para 0061, “the downhole tubular is cut production tubing”).
Regarding claim 9, Greci teaches a wellbore assembly, comprising:
a casing pipe disposed within a wellbore, the casing pipe defining, with the casing pipe set on the wellbore (Fig 11A-11C, tubular 1150 in wellbore 1130, note that “downhole tubular” meets all of the recited particulars of a casing), an annulus between an external surface of the casing pipe and a wall of the wellbore (Fig 11A-11C, annulus between 1130 and 1150); and
a wellbore string (Fig 11A-11C, string 1110/1160 and 1120) configured to be disposed within the wellbore (Fig 11A-11C, within wellbore as seen), the wellbore string comprising a downhole end (Fig 11A-11C, end at 220) defining an inner diameter larger than an outer diameter of an uphole end of the casing pipe (Fig 11A-11C, ID at end 220 is larger than OD of 1150), the downhole end comprising at least one internal, annular seal (Fig 11A-11C, seals 230 and/or 310) configured to expand to form, with the uphole end of the casing pipe inserted within the downhole end of the wellbore string, a fluid connection and a seal with the external surface of the casing pipe, the wellbore string fluidly coupled, with the seal formed, to the casing pipe to flow fluid between the wellbore string and the casing pipe (Fig 11C, inward swelling of seal 230 and 310 are swollen into engagement; also note the open bore capable of receiving fluids. See also Para 0041, “the seal 310 is a swellable rubber seal member.”);
wherein the casing pipe is set in the wellbore such that the wellbore string forms, with the at least one annular seal swelled, a production completion with the casing pipe (Fig 11C, casing/tubular 1150 is coupled to tie back string 1110/1160 and 1120; please see the response to arguments above, this meets all of the recited limitations of a production completion).
While Greci teaches the use of a fishing tool such as the one he discloses as intended to reattach to severed objects such as segments of production tubulars (Para 0001).
Greci is silent on a production wellhead that resides at an uphole end of a wellbore that extends from a terranean surface to a geological formation comprising a hydrocarbon reservoir.
Fripp teaches a production wellhead that resides at an uphole end of a wellbore that extends from a terranean surface to a geological formation comprising a hydrocarbon reservoir (Fig 1, wellhead 40 at uphole end of the wellbore 80 extending into a formation, as seen) to allow production from the hydrocarbon reservoir to the production wellhead via the production completion (Fig 1, as a modification to Greci, when coupled together production would be permitted via wellhead 40).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Greci by having the accompanying production equipment such as the wellhead as disclosed by Fripp because Greci teaches the use of his fishing tool in applications for reconnecting/repairing severed production tubing. The accompanying production equipment such as a wellhead would be necessary to implement the invention of Greci as invention and allow for surface safety control systems.
Greci as modified teaches the casing pipe arranged to receive production fluid from the hydrocarbon reservoir (Fig 1 of Fripp, as a modification to Greci, when coupled together production would be permitted via wellhead 40).
Greci as modified is silent on the casing cemented to the wellbore and arranged to receive a production fluid from the hydrocarbon reservoir.
Lewis teaches the casing cemented to the wellbore and arranged to receive a production fluid from the hydrocarbon reservoir (see e.g. Fig 7).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Greci by having the production tubular cemented and arranged to receive production fluids as disclosed by Lewis because Greci teaches a production tubular that is severed and to-be-repaired, but, it does not show the downhole components and other implementing details. Lewis teaches such implementing details known in a wellbore production system. Inclusion of details such a cementing helps control the unwanted flow of production fluid uphole.
Regarding claim 11, Greci teaches wherein the at least one annular seal comprises at least one swellable seal configured to swell upon exposure to a wellbore fluid to form the seal (Fig 11C, inward swelling of seal 230 and 310 are swollen into engagement; also note the open bore capable of receiving fluids. See also Para 0041, “the seal 310 is a swellable rubber seal member.”).
Regarding claim 13, Greci teaches wherein the at least one swellable seal comprises an elastomer configured to absorb at least part of the wellbore fluid to swell over a period of time and form a seal with an unpolished or uneven surface of the casing pipe (Para 0041, “the seal 310 is a swellable rubber seal member.” This necessarily swells as a function of time. The examiner notes that the material of the prior art is substantially identical to that disclosed by applicant and thus would have the same functional characteristics recited; Para 0019, seal wells due to reaction to reactive fluid which may exist in the form of completion brine).
Regarding claim 14, Greci teaches wherein each swellable seal is disposed within a respective internal groove of the downhole end, each swellable seal comprising a compliant external surface configured to swell from the groove toward the external surface of the casing pipe (Fig 11A-11C, swellable seal 310 is between groove defined by metal 230; Para 0041, “the seal 310 is a swellable rubber seal member.”).
Regarding claim 15, Greci as modified teaches wherein the casing pipe is partially cemented in the wellbore to form the production completion with the tieback string for production (see e.g. Fig 7 of Lewis), the annulus extending from an uphole inlet of the casing pipe to cement disposed between the liner and a wall of the wellbore (Fig 11A-11C, tubular 1150 has an uphole inlet end as seen. Fig 7 of Lewis, tubular is cemented in place. The examiner notes that the annulus may be defined at any various portions of the annular cement e.g. top of cement, bottom of cement, or any portions in between such that the limitation is met.).
Regarding claim 16, Greci teaches wherein the seal fluidly isolates the annulus from a bore of the wellbore string and a bore of the casing pipe (Fig 11C, seal 310 in the actuated confirmation isolates the internal bores of the string as defined and the casing 1150).
Regarding claim 17, Greci teaches wherein the casing pipe comprises a monobore completion casing pipe (Fig 11A-11C, tubular 1150 has a single bore as shown), and the portion of the casing pipe comprises an uphole fluid inlet formed upon cutting the casing pipe and retrieving a second portion of the casing pipe uphole of the portion of the casing pipe (Fig 11A-11C, tubular 1150 has an uphole inlet as seen, Para 0061, “the downhole tubular is cut production tubing”).
Regarding claim 21, Greci as modified teaches wherein the tieback string is configured to remain within the wellbore to form, with the liner, a monobore completion to produce the wellbore (Fig 11A-11C, tie back string 1110/1160 and 1120 has all of the particulars required of a configuration to remain with a bore. When coupled to the liner 1150, there is a single bore as seen capable of production).
Regarding claim 25, Greci as modified teaches wherein liner comprises perforations that allow the liner to receive production fluid from the hydrocarbon reservoir (see e.g. Fig 7 of Lewis and perforations 106).
Regarding claim 26, Greci as modified teaches wherein the at last one annular seal comprises a plurality of elastomer (Para 0050 of Fripp, “a swellable non-metal material is a swellable elastomer”), annular seals each disposed within a respective internal groove defined between two fixed surfaces of the receptacle end (Fig 3 of Greci, the annular seal 310 are fixed between groove defined by the metal features 230. Note as modified by Fripp there are a plurality of these elastomeric seals between metal features).
Regarding claim 27, Greci as modified teaches wherein the receptacle end comprises only non-metal annular seals (As best understood, Fig 3 of Greci the receptacle end’s seals have only been drawn to the non-metal seals 310, note a plurality of such seals as modified by Fripp in the parent claim).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greci (US 20210270103 A1), in view of Fripp (US 20200370391 A1), further in view of Lewis (US 20040112606 A1), in view of Gozalo (US 20170015824 A1).
Regarding claim 4, while Greci teaches variability in time and temperature of the reaction/expansion (Para 0018), Greci is not explicit on wherein the at least one swellable seal is configured to swell upon exposure to the wellbore fluid at a temperature of between 150 and 350 degrees Fahrenheit.
Gozalo teaches wherein the plurality of swellable seal is configured to swell upon exposure to the production fluid or wellbore fluid at a temperature of between 150 and 350 degrees Fahrenheit (Para 0044-0045, “swellable composition, after curing, may swell […] in about 96 hours in about 5% brine solution at about 200 degrees Fahrenheit.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Greci by having the operating conditions of the fluid as disclosed by Greci because to operate the invention of Greci one would need to select the fluid conditions to facilitate the reaction/swelling; Gozalo provides such implementing details which would allow for the invention to be implemented in a downhole environment with predictable results. The references are analogous to the claimed invention because they are at least in the same field of endeavor i.e. swellable sealing compositions.
Regarding claim 5, Greci teaches the plurality of swellable seals comprise an elastomer (Para 0041, “the seal 310 is a swellable rubber seal member.” Note the claim does not require each of the swellable seals to be elastomer but merely the grouping to comprise an elastomer).
While Greci teaches variability in time and temperature of the reaction/expansion (Para 0018), Greci is not explicit on wherein the elastomer configured to absorb fluid to swell over a time period of 3 to 5 days to form the seal.
Gozalo teaches wherein the at least one swellable seal comprise an elastomer configured to absorb at least part of the production fluid or wellbore fluid to swell over a time period of 3 to 5 days to form the seal (Para 0044-0045, “swellable composition, after curing, may swell […] in about 96 hours in about 5% brine solution at about 200 degrees Fahrenheit.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Greci by having the operating conditions of the fluid as disclosed by Greci because to operate the invention of Greci one would need to select the fluid conditions to facilitate the reaction/swelling; Gozalo provides such implementing details which would allow for the invention to be implemented in a downhole environment with predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, while Greci teaches variability in time and temperature of the reaction/expansion (Para 0018), Greci is not explicit on wherein the at least one swellable seal is configured to swell upon exposure to the wellbore fluid at a temperature of between 150 and 350 degrees Fahrenheit.
Gozalo teaches the at least one swellable seal is configured to swell upon exposure to the wellbore fluid at a temperature of between 150 and 350 degrees Fahrenheit (Para 0044-0045, “swellable composition, after curing, may swell […] in about 96 hours in about 5% brine solution at about 200 degrees Fahrenheit.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Greci by having the operating conditions of the fluid and corresponding configuration for the seal as disclosed by Greci because to operate the invention of Greci one would need to select the fluid conditions to facilitate the reaction/swelling; Gozalo provides such implementing details which would allow for the invention to be implemented in a downhole environment with predictable results. The references are analogous to the claimed invention because they are at least in the same field of endeavor i.e. swellable sealing compositions.
Claim(s) 2, 10, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greci (US 20210270103 A1), in view of Fripp (US 20200370391 A1), further in view of Lewis (US 20040112606 A1), in view of Bell (US 3752232 A).
Regarding claim 2, Greci teaches wherein the tieback string comprises a tubular body from which the receptacle end extends, (Fig 11A-AAC, tubular string 1120).
Greci is silent on the tubular body defining an inner diameter such that the liner is unable to be inserted into the tieback string past the receptacle end.
Bell teaches the tubular body defining an inner diameter such that the liner is unable to be inserted into the tieback string past the receptacle end (Fig 2, tubular 5 and 27 has and ID such that the liner 4 is unable to be inserted past the receptacle end 27).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Greci by having the relative sizing for as disclosed by Bell because in seeking to implement the invention of Greci, one would be required to select the relative sizing of the components. Bell teaches one such set of relative sizing which is known to be usable in a wellbore environment to allow for coupling of an overshot tool to a pre-existing downhole tubular.
Regarding claim 10, Greci teaches wherein the wellbore string comprises a tubular body from which the downhole end extends (Fig 11A-AAC, tubular string 1120).
Greci is silent on the tubular body defining an inner diameter equal to than an inner diameter of the casing pipe.
Bell teaches the tubular body defining an inner diameter equal to than an inner diameter of the casing pipe (Fig 2, tubular 5 and 27 has and ID such that the casing 4 is unable to be inserted past the receptacle end 27).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Greci by having the relative sizing for as disclosed by Bell because in seeking to implement the invention of Greci, one would be required to select the relative sizing of the components. Bell teaches one such set of relative sizing which is known to be usable in a wellbore environment to allow for coupling of an overshot tool to a pre-existing downhole tubular.
Regarding claim 22, Greci is silent on wherein the inner diameter is equal to an inner diameter of the liner.
Bell teaches wherein the inner diameter is substantially equal to an inner diameter of the liner (Fig 2, the IDs are depicted as being similarly. See also Column 4, lines 61-69 and Column 5, lines 21-23).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Greci by having the inner diameter is equal to an inner diameter of the liner when considered in view of Bell because Bell teaches the inner diameter is substantially equal to an inner diameter of the liner (see above) and that variations in these dimensionalities would allow for the operation of the device in a downhole environment (Column 5, lines 21-23). Moreover in teaching inner diameters which are close, Greci, when considered in view of Bell, would find the inner diameters being equal to be obvious. As stated in MPEP 2144.05(I), “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”
Regarding claim 23, Greci is silent on wherein the receptacle end extends outwardly from an end of the tubular body of the tieback string, the end of the tubular body comprising an internal profile of reduced diameter preventing the liner from passing the profile into the tubular body.
Bell teaches wherein the receptacle end extends outwardly from an end of the tubular body of the tieback string (Fig 2, receptable end is at 27, tubular is from 5 to 26), the end of the tubular body comprising an internal profile of reduced diameter preventing the liner from passing the profile into the tubular body (Fig 2, shoulder 26 indicated at 40 functions and has an ID reduced relative to the opening and would prevent liner 4 from being inserted further into tubular body).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Greci by having the relative sizing for as disclosed by Bell because in seeking to implement the invention of Greci, one would be required to select the relative sizing of the components. Bell teaches one such set of relative sizing which is known to be usable in a wellbore environment to allow for coupling of an overshot tool to a pre-existing downhole tubular with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 THEODORE N YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8745. The examiner can normally be reached typically 8am-4pm 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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached on (571) 270-7741. 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.
/THEODORE N YAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676