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 Amendment
The Amendment filed May 4, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-12, 14-16 and 18-20 remain pending in the application. These claims have been amended to include additional limitations that are not addressed to all of the newly added limitations and therefore the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments directed specifically to those withdrawn grounds of rejection are moot and need not be addressed further. The withdrawal of those grounds does not constitute a determination that the presently amended claims are allowable, and the outstanding rejections are discussed separately below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 4, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that replacing “one magnetic bar of variable length” with “one magnetic bar of a length corresponding to a full width of a drilling mud flow path, the one magnetic bar providing separation of ferrous metal across the full width of the drilling mud flow path” addresses the prior rejection. This argument is not persuasive. Although the amendment removes the phrase “variable length”, it introduces a new dimensional relationship between the magnetic bar and the complete width of a drilling-mud flow path, together with a new functional requirement that the one bar provide separation across that complete width. The original and provisional disclosures state that the length of the magnet arrangement may vary, but do not disclose selecting or configuring on bar to correspond to the full width of a flow path or providing separation across that full width. The amendments also new require welded end plates and, in claims 1, 14, and 18, particular behavior in which captured ferrous metal spreads outward on the side of the wiper facing its direction of travel and does not fall downward by gravity. The original disclosure describes end plates that may be permanently affixed and a wiper that pushes or urges ferrous material through an open-architecture end plate. It does not disclose welding or the presently claimed outward-spreading and non-gravity behavior. Applicant’s post-filing explanation of how the device is constructed or how the debris behaves does not establish possession of those features at the time of filing. Accordingly, the amendment does not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). To the extent the prior action characterized the deficiency solely as lack of enablement, the present action clarifies that the currently claimed subject matter also fails the written-description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5-12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 18, claim 1 and 9 recite, in pertinent part: “one magnetic bar of a length corresponding to a full width of a drilling mud flow path, the one magnetic bar providing separation of ferrous metal across the full width of the drilling mud flow path”. Independent claim 18 recites substantially the same limitation in method form. The specification discloses an embodiment containing on magnetic bar and further indicates that two or more magnetic bars may be included (par. [0020]). The specification also discloses that raw magnets may cover an exemplary length of 24 inches and that “the length may vary”, as may the spacing between the raw magnets (par [0023]). However, the specification does not disclose that the length of the one magnetic bar is selected, sized or otherwise made to correspond to the full width of a drilling-mud flow path. The specification does not identify a full width of a drilling-mud flow path, describe measuring or determining such a width, describe opposite ends of the magnetic bar as extending to opposite sides of the flow path, or describe one magnetic bar as spanning the entire flow path. Further, the specification does not disclose that the one magnetic bar provides separation of ferrous metal across the full width of the drilling-mud flow path. Although the specification discloses generally that a magnetic tool may attract and retain ferromagnetic particulate from a drilling-mud stream, it does not describe the newly claimed relationship between one magnetic bar and the full width of the flow path or the newly claimed result of separation across that entire width.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 9 and 18: claims 1 and 9 recite end plates “welded” to each end of the one magnetic bar; claim 7 expressly requires installation, removal and replacement of the wiper without removing the end plates when the end plates are welded to the magnetic bar; and claim 18 similarly recites first and second end plates welded on respective ends of the magnetic bar. The specification discloses that the end plates may be “permanently affixed” to the magnetic bar without fasteners or bolts needed to removably secure the end plates (par [0022]). The specification also discloses that the magnetic bar tube and the end plates may be formed from stainless steel. The specification does not, however, disclose that the end plates are welded to the magnetic bar. The terms “weld”, “welded”, “welding” or an equivalent description of a welded joint do not appear in the originally filed disclosure. On the present record, the general disclosure of permanently affixed end plates does not specifically or inherently identify a welded connection or otherwise reasonably convey possession of the particularly claimed welded embodiment.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 18: claim 1 recites “wherein captured ferrous metal spreads outward from the one magnetic bar on a side of the wiper facing a direction in which it is travelling toward either of the end plates, the wiper allowing captured ferrous metal that spreads outward but does not fall downward via gravity to pass through the end plates”. Claim 14 recites that the wiper allows captured ferrous metal that “spreads outward but does not fall downward via gravity” and claim 18 recites both the outward-spreading behavior and passage of the material that does not fall downward via gravity. The specification discloses that the magnetic tool may be turned in a vertical direction, that the wiper may be moved from beneath a first end plate downward toward a second end plate, and that ferrous metal may release from the magnetic bar and move through the open architecture of the second end plate to form piles apart from the magnetic tool (par [0027]). The specification further discloses that the wiper may push or urge ferrous metal from one end of the magnetic bar through the open-architecture end plate by human action (par. [0028]). These disclosures support generally pushing or urging captured ferrous metal along the magnetic bar and through an attached open-architecture end plate. They do not disclose: that the captured ferrous metal “spreads outward” from the magnetic bar; that the spreading occurs specifically on the side of the wiper facing the direction of travel; that the captured ferrous metal does not fall downward by gravity; or that passage through the end plate is limited to or characterized by material that spreads outward but does not fall downward by gravity. Indeed, the disclosed procedure places the magnetic bar vertically and moves the wiper downward. The disclose does not distinguish between material moved by physical contact with the wiper and material whose movement is assisted by gravity, nor does it describe the particular outward and non-gravity particle behavior now recited.
Dependent claims 5-8 depend directly from claim 1 and are therefore rejected due to their dependency upon claim 1. Claims 10-12 and 14-16 depend directly from claim 9 and are therefore rejected due to their dependency upon claim 9. Claims 19-20 depend directly from claim 18 and are therefore rejected due to their dependency upon claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-11, 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branch (US-9227198-B2) in view of Holtby (US-20110108278-A1), and further in view of Thompson (US5316151) and Barker (US5190159).
Regarding claim 1, Branch discloses a magnetic tool comprising: one magnetic bar (Branch “magnet body” 17 claim 1 and col. 3); end plates attached to each end of the one magnetic bar, the one magnetic bar and the end plates forming a ditch magnet (Branch col. 2-4 “plates” 21 and 27 attached to “portions” 19 and 20 of the magnet body and refers to apparatus 10 as a ditch magnet); and a single wiper that contacts with the one magnetic bar to physically remove captured ferrous metal wherein captured ferrous metal spreads outward from the one magnetic bar on a side of the wiper facing a direction in which it is travelling toward either of the end plates (Branch abstract, col. 4 and claim 1 “wiper plate”), wherein the wiper is used regardless the length of the one magnetic bar (Branch claim 1), and wherein the end plates have an outside diameter that is greater than the single composite, multi-component wiper interior diameter (Branch plates extend radially and circumferentially outward from magnet body 17, while central opening 47 of the wiper closely conforms to the smaller transverse cross-section of magnet body 17 see Figs 1-4). Branch further teaches placing the ditch magnet in an oil-well drilling-mud stream, collecting metallic cuttings on the magnetic body, removing the ditch magnet from the stream, and moving the wiper between the end portions to remove the collected material.
Branch does not expressly disclose that the one magnetic bar is of length corresponding to a full width of a drilling mud flow path, the one magnetic bar providing separation of ferrous metal across the full width of the drilling mud flow path; that both end plates are welded to the bar; that the single wiper is a composite, multi-component wiper capable of being taken apart without removing the end plates; or that outward spreading captured material that does not fall downward by gravity passes through the attached end plates.
Holtby discloses a single composite, multi-component wiper comprising two or more arcuate body portions 14 and 16 pivotally connected by hinge 18 and releasably joined by latch mechanism 24, with separate seal members 34 and 35 forming a wiping opening around an elongated pipe (Holtby par. [0028-0031], Figs. 1-4 and claims 1-6). Holtby teaches that the body halves open so the wiper may be placed radially around the elongated member and then closed around it in a clamshell manner, and that the wiper may thereafter be opened and removed without passing over either end of the member. Holtby further teaches that the separate sealing members are removably installed and may be removed and replaced when damaged or when a different size is required.
Thompson discloses elongated hollow tubes 18 containing magnetic rods, wherein each tube extends across the span of a particle-flow drawer and is attached at its opposite ends to the opposed drawer side walls, for example by welding. Thomson further provides deflectors 30 that direct the particle stream over the magnet-containing tubes to ensure contact between magnetic particles and the magnetic collection surfaces (Thompson, col. 2, Figs. 2-3). Thus Thompson teaches dimensioning an elongated magnetic collection member according to the full span of a flow path, positioning the magnetic member to provide separation across that span, and permanently securing it opposed ends to plate-like side structures by welding.
Barker discloses a self-cleaning grate magnet having a fixed first end 16 and a fixed intermediate partition 19, with magnetic tube 26 extending through respective holes 21 and 22. Barker teaches that hole 22 is substantially larger than the magnetic tube so that ferrous material adhering to the magnetic tube is carried through the fixed partition into discharge area 14. Barker further teaches annular wiper bushing 30 having a close-fitting wiper edge 56 that contacts the magnetic tube and wipes captured ferrous material from it while the fixed end and partition remain attached (Barker col. 2-3, Figs. 1-3 and claims 1 and 15)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Branch’s ditch magnet by using Holtby’s split, multi-component wiper so that the wiper could be installed, removed, and replaced without removing the end plates; arranging and securing the magnetic bar according to Thompson so that it extends across the full width of the drilling-mud flow path and is welded to the opposed end plates; and providing the end plates with Barker’s enlarged pass-through openings so that ferrous material removed by the wiper could pass through the end plates while the end plates remain attached. These modifications apply known magnetic-separation and wiping features according to their established functions and would have predictably produced a full-width ditch magnet having a readily serviceable wiper and fixed end plates through which captured ferrous material could be discharged.
Regarding claim 5, Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker discloses the magnetic tool of claim 1, wherein the wiper removes the captured ferrous metal from the one magnetic bar (Branch claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker discloses the magnetic tool of claim 1, wherein the wiper is applied to each of the one magnetic bar (Branch claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker discloses the magnetic tool of claim 1, wherein the wiper comprises two or more components that are capable of being installed, removed, and replaced without removing the end plates when they are welded to the one magnetic bar (Holtby par. [0028-0031], Figs. 1-4 and claims 1-6).
Regarding claim 8, Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker discloses the magnetic tool of claim 1, wherein the ditch magnet is used in an oilfield drilling fluid mud stream (Branch col. 3 and method claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker discloses a magnetic tool comprising: one magnetic bar of length (Branch “magnet bar”) corresponding to a full width of a drilling mud flow path, the one magnetic bar providing separation of ferrous metal across the full width of the drilling mud flow path (Thompson col. 2 “extend across the span”); end plates welded to each end of the one magnetic bar, the one magnetic bar and the end plates forming a ditch magnet (Branch “end plates” and apparatus 10 while Thompson teaches attaching “for example, by welding”); and a single take-apart wiper comprising two or more components that are capable of being installed, removed, and replaced without removing the end plates when they are welded to the one magnetic bar (Branch discloses a single wiper plate 44 around the magnetic body, Holtby teaches a single composite wiper having arcuate body halves secured by latch mechanism 24, together with separate removable seal members 34 and 35; Holtby’s wiper opens and closes radially around an elongated member and therefore may be removed, installed replaced without being passed over either end of the member), wherein the single take-apart wiper contacts with the one magnetic bar to physically remove captured ferrous metal and urges captured ferrous metal through the end plates from one end of the ditch magnet to an opposite end, wherein the single take-apart wiper is used regardless the length of the one magnetic bar (Branch claim 1 and Branch col. 2 wiper opening is configured according to the substantially uniform transverse cross-section of magnetic body 17 rather than its longitudinal length, and Holtby similarly teaches a wiper surrounding an elongated string and operating independently of the overall length of the string), and wherein the end plates have an outside diameter that is greater than the single take-apart wiper interior diameter (Branch plates extend radially and circumferentially outward from magnet body 17, while central opening 47 of the wiper closely conforms to the smaller transverse cross-section of magnet body 17 see Figs 1-4).
Regarding claim 10, Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker discloses the magnetic tool of claim 9, wherein the take-apart wiper is formed of a non-ferrous material (Holtby par. [0031]).
Regarding claim 11, Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker discloses the magnetic tool of claim 9, where the take-apart wiper further includes one or more fasteners (Holtby par. [0029] and claims 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker discloses the magnetic tool of claim 9, the wiper allowing captured ferrous metal that spreads outward but does not fall downward via gravity to pass through the end plates without releasing the end plates from the one magnetic bar (Branch’s close-fitting wiper 44 pushes captured ferrous material ahead of the wiper on the side facing its direction of travel; in the modified device, the centrally positioned magnetic bar and the solid portions of the fixed end plate obstruct continued axial movement of the accumulated material, while Barker’s enlarged opening surrounding the magnetic member provides a discharge path, such that continued movement of the wiper necessarily causes the accumulated material to spread outward from the bar and pass through the opening in the end plate; Barker expressly teaches ferrous material adhering to magnetic tube 26 being carried through enlarged opening 22 in fixed partition 19 into discharge area 14 while the partition remains fixed; Thompson’s welded attachment maintains the end plates on the bar throughout the operation; and orienting the magnetic tool horizontally or moving the wiper upward toward an upper end plate would mechanically urge the material through the opening rather than permit the material to fall downward via gravity).
Regarding claim 18, Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker discloses or renders obvious a method for using a magnetic tool comprising: collecting ferrous metal on one magnetic bar (Branch “magnet body” 17 claim 1 and col. 3) of length corresponding to a full width of a drilling mud flow path, the one magnetic bar providing separation of ferrous metal across the full width of the drilling mud flow path (Thompson col. 2 “extend across the span”), the one magnetic bar having a first end plate welded on a first end and a second end plate welded on a second end with a single take-apart wiper secured beneath the first end plate (Branch col. 2-4 “plates” 21 and 27 attached to “portions” 19 and 20 of the magnet body while Thompson teaches attaching “for example, by welding”), wherein the end plates have an outside diameter that is greater than the single take-apart wiper interior diameter (Branch plates extend radially and circumferentially outward from magnet body 17, while central opening 47 of the wiper closely conforms to the smaller transverse cross-section of magnet body 17 see Figs 1-4), wherein the single take-apart wiper is capable of being installed, removed, and replaced without releasing either the first end plate or the second end plate when they are welded to the one magnetic bar (Branch discloses a single wiper plate 44 around the magnetic body, Holtby teaches a single composite wiper having arcuate body halves secured by latch mechanism 24, together with separate removable seal members 34 and 35; Holtby’s wiper opens and closes radially around an elongated member and therefore may be removed, installed replaced without being passed over either end of the member) and wherein the single take-apart wiper is used regardless the length of the one magnetic bar (Branch claim 1 and Branch col. 2 wiper opening is configured according to the substantially uniform transverse cross-section of magnetic body 17 rather than its longitudinal length, and Holtby similarly teaches a wiper surrounding an elongated string and operating independently of the overall length of the string), turning the one magnetic bar in a vertical direction (Branch col. 4 and Fig. 7 depicts these instructions); and contacting the single take-apart wiper with the one magnetic bar to physically remove captured ferrous metal, wherein captured ferrous metal spreads outward from the one magnetic bar on a side of the wiper facing a direction in which it is travelling toward either of the end plates (Branch col. 4), the wiper allowing captured ferrous metal that spreads outward but does not fall downward via gravity to pass through the end plates without releasing the end plates from the one magnetic bar (Barker teaches mechanically carrying ferrous material through an enlarged opening in a fixed position, and moving the combined wiper upward toward an upper end plate after the bar is turned vertically will mechanically transport the material through the opening against gravity while both welded plates remain attached).
Regarding claim 19, Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker discloses or renders obvious the method of claim 18, wherein the magnetic tool is placed in an oilfield drilling fluid mud recycling stream having ferrous metal from the wellbore to attract and retain the ferrous metal to prevent the ferrous metal from being reintroduced into the wellbore (Branch col. 3 teaches that drilling mud is pumped down the well, collects cuttings at the drill bit, returns to the surface, passes through the shale shaker and mud-storage sections, and is then returned by the mud pump; ditch magnet may be placed in the possum belly, suction pit, pipeline, or other portion of this recycling stream to attract metallic material generated in the well before the drilling mud is recirculated).
Regarding claim 20, Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker discloses or renders obvious the method of claim 19 further comprising: removing the magnetic tool from the oilfield drilling fluid mud recycling stream for cleaning; and removing the captured ferrous metal from the one magnetic bar (Branch Fig. 5-7 and col. 4 illustrate the instructions for removal of metal from the ditch magnet; Branch col. 3-4 teaches the ditch magnet configured to be removably suspended within a drilling mud flow path and provides an opening in the end plate for attachment of a rope, cable chain, or other connector when the ditch magnet is suspended. One of ordinary skill would have understood that the ditch magnet would be removed from the drilling mud flow path using the provided lifting connection before performing the manual cleanup operation illustrated in Fig. 7 since the wiper is translated substantially the entire length of the magnetic body).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branch (US-9227198-B2) in view of Holtby (US-20110108278-A1), and further in view of Thompson (US5316151) and Barker (US5190159) as applied to claim 11 above in further view of Boyer (US-20190277329-A1) and further supported by Nutsandbolts.com ("Nylon Lock Nuts: Applications, Advantages, and Compatibility with Bolts.")
Regarding claim 12, Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker discloses the magnetic tool of claim 11.
Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker does not disclose that the one or more fasteners comprising: nylon-insert flange locknuts that firmly grip threads to resist loosening and distribute load.
Boyer discloses that nylon lock nuts are a type of prevailing torque nut (Boyer abstract) designed to provide secure and reliable fastening in various applications. These nuts are known for their unique internal nylon insert, which creates resistance against loosening due to vibrations, temperature changes, and other external factors (Nutsandbolts.com p. 1 par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teaching of nutsandbolts.com with the magnetic tool of Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker. The metal wipers (23a and b Fig. 1b) are held between the metal scrapers (21a and 22b and 22a and 22b) and in the event that they require replacement due to repeated contact with sharpened metal debris the only way to do so would be the loosening of the fasteners which connect the metal scrapers. Nylon insert flanged locknuts would provide a fastener which could be loosened repeatably and still maintain their prevailing torque while in use and this would have been motivation to do so as disclosed by Nutsandbolts.com "their ability to withstand vibrations makes them suitable for heavy-duty machinery" and there would be a high probability of success given that "Nylon lock nuts are compatible with a wide range of bolts, screws, and threaded fasteners" (Nutsandbolts.com p. 3 par. 2).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branch (US-9227198-B2) in view of Holtby (US-20110108278-A1), and further in view of Thompson (US5316151) and Barker (US5190159) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ruttley '90 (US-20060042790-A1) and Rhodes (US-20190262842-A1).
Regarding claim 15, Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker discloses the magnetic tool of claim 9.
Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker does not disclose the one magnetic bar comprising: the one magnetic bar comprising: two or more magnets affixed to a low-carbon steel pole, wherein the two or more magnets affixed to the pole are installed in a stainless-steel tube.
Ruttley ’90 teaches an elongated magnetic assembly comprising multiple magnets arranged along an internal supporting member and installed within an exterior stainless steel sleeve or tube. Ruttley ’90 does not expressly identify the internal magnet-supporting member as low-carbon steel.
Rhodes, however, teaches that permanent magnetic separators conventionally employ permanent magnets together with mild steel to concentrate and direct the magnetic-flux pattern and an external nonferrous housing such as stainless steel. Because mild steel is a low-carbon steel, Rhodes teaches the claimed use of low-carbon steel for the internal flux-directing member and stainless steel for the surrounding tube.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the magnetic tool of Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker to form the internal magnet-supporting pole of Ruttley ’90 from the mild or low-carbon steel taught by Rhodes while retaining Ruttley’s stainless-steel outer tube because Rhodes teaches that mild steel provides a suitable external nonferrous housing. The modification would have predictably increased and directed the useful external magnetic field of the magnetic bar while providing a durable, corrosion-resistant exterior surface for exposure to the drilling-mud flow.
Regarding claim 16, Branch in view of Holtby, Thompson and Barker and further in view of Ruttley '90 and Rhodes discloses the magnetic tool of claim 15, the at least one magnetic bar further comprising: spacers (Ruttley #46 and #48 par. [0025] Fig. 6) positioned between the two or more magnets when affixed to the pole.
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 WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights