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 .
Applicant’s Response
In the response date 08/12/2025, the Applicant amended claim 9 and argued against the rejections in the RCE Non-Final rejection dated 05/14/2025.
In light of the claim amendments for claim #9, the examiner withdraws the previous claim objections set forth in the office action (Non-Final rejection) dated 05/14/2025.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-15 and 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurst et al (U.S Pub 2018/0142539) (“Hurst”) in view of Gordon et al (U.S Pub 2021/0246364) (“Gordon”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hurst discloses a gravel packing fluid (Abstract; [0006] and [0010]) comprising:
a carrier fluid (Abstract; paragraphs [0006] and [0010] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Hurst discloses wherein the particulates are dispersed in a carrier fluid); and
gravel packing particles (paragraphs [0010], [0012] and [0023] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Hurst discloses wherein the particulates refer to particulate material that constitutes a gravel pack, therefore gravel packing particles), the gravel packing fluid for forming a gravel pack within an annulus between a wellbore and a sand control screen assembly (Abstract; paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0021], and [0031]; Page 5, paragraphs [0039] and [0043] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Hurst discloses injecting a slurry comprising the particulates dispersed in a carrier fluid into an annular space in the open hole section of the wellbore to form a gravel pack between a screen element and the wellbore).
Hurst also expressly discloses low-density particulates (paragraph [0043]) and that the particulates suitable for use include proppants of different sizes and materials (paragraph [0023]).
Hurst, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the gravel packing particles are composed one or both of fluid coke and/or flexicoke, the gravel packing particles having an apparent density of less than about 1.7 g/cm3.
Gordon teaches proppant particulates composed one or both of fluid coke and/or flexicoke (Abstract; Figure 1; Page 1, paragraphs [0008] and [0011]), the gravel packing particles having an apparent density in the range of about 1.4 g/cm3 to about 2.0 g/cm3 (paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). Although silent to wherein “the gravel packing particles having an apparent density of less than about 1.7 g/cm3,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the gravel packing particles to have an apparent density as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Hurst to include gravel packing particles composed of one or both of fluid coke and/or flexicoke with specific apparent densities, as taught by Gordon above, for the purposes of improving particulate transport efficiency within the carrier fluid and improving particulate conductivity efficiency when the wellbore is brought on production (Abstract; paragraphs [0036] and [0037]). Further, Gordan teaches that using fluid coke in a subterranean formation sequesters carbon that would otherwise contribute to CO2 emissions (paragraph [0021]). This teaching provides additional motivation to use fluid coke particles as gravel packing particles.
Regarding Claim 2, Gordon teaches the gravel packing fluid of claim 1, wherein the gravel packing particles are composed of fluid coke (Abstract; Page 2, paragraphs [0023], [0024] [0026]).
Regarding Claim 4, Gordon teaches the gravel packing fluid of claim 1, wherein the gravel packing particles have an apparent density in the range of about 1.4 g/cm3 to about 2.0 g/cm3 (paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). Although silent to wherein “the gravel packing particles having an apparent density in the range of about 1.3 g/cc to about 1.7 g/cc,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the gravel packing particles to have an apparent density as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 5, Gordon teaches the gravel packing fluid of claim 1, wherein the gravel packing particles have a crush strength of about 3000 psi to about 12000 psi (Page 1, paragraph [0011] and paragraph [0031]; Page 4, paragraph [0049]).
Regarding Claim 6, Gordon teaches the gravel packing fluid of claim 1, wherein the gravel packing particles have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 50 µm to about 500 µm (Abstract; Figure 1; paragraphs [0011], [0048] and [0072]). Although silent to wherein “the gravel packing particles have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 50 μm to about 2500 μm,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the gravel packing particles to have an average size distribution as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 7, Hurst teaches the gravel packing fluid of claim 1, further comprising second gravel packing particles composed of a material that is not fluid coke or flexicoke (paragraphs [0012] and [0023]).
Regarding Claim 8, Hurst discloses a method comprising:
introducing a gravel packing fluid into a subterranean formation to form a gravel pack within an annulus between a wellbore and a sand control screen assembly (Abstract; paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0021], and [0031]; Page 5, paragraphs [0039] and [0043] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Hurst discloses injecting a slurry comprising the particulates dispersed in a carrier fluid into an annular space in the open hole section of the wellbore to form a gravel pack between a screen element and the wellbore), wherein the gravel packing fluid comprising a carrier fluid (Abstract; paragraphs [0006] and [0010]).
Hurst also expressly discloses low-density particulates (paragraph [0043]) and that the particulates suitable for use include proppants of different sizes and materials (paragraph [0023]).
Hurst, however, fails to expressly disclose gravel packing particles composed one or both of fluid coke and/or flexicoke, the gravel packing particles having a density of less than about 1.7 g/cm3.
Gordon teaches proppant particulates composed one or both of fluid coke and/or flexicoke (Abstract; Figure 1; Page 1, paragraphs [0008] and [0011]), the gravel packing particles having an apparent density in the range of about 1.4 g/cm3 to about 2.0 g/cm3 (paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). Although silent to wherein “the gravel packing particles having an apparent density of less than about 1.7 g/cm3,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the gravel packing particles to have an apparent density as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Hurst to include gravel packing particles composed of one or both of fluid coke and/or flexicoke with specific apparent densities, as taught by Gordon above, for the purposes of improving particulate transport efficiency within the carrier fluid and improving particulate conductivity efficiency when the wellbore is brought on production (Abstract; paragraphs [0036] and [0037]). Further, Gordan teaches that using fluid coke in a subterranean formation sequesters carbon that would otherwise contribute to CO2 emissions (paragraph [0021]). This teaching provides additional motivation to use fluid coke particles as gravel packing particles.
Regarding Claim 9, Hurst discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
forming a gravel pack (Abstract; paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0021], and [0031]; Page 5, paragraphs [0039] and [0043] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Hurst discloses injecting a slurry comprising the particulates dispersed in a carrier fluid into an annular space in the open hole section of the wellbore to form a gravel pack between a screen element and the wellbore).
Regarding Claim 10, Hurst discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the subterranean formation is an open hole wellbore (Abstract; paragraphs [0006] and [0010]).
Regarding Claim 11, Hurst discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the subterranean formation is a cased hole wellbore (paragraph [0021]).
Regarding Claim 12, Gordon teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the gravel pack has a permeability in the range of about 30 D to about 100 D at a closure stress in the range of about 1000 psi to about 8000 psi (Page 1, paragraph [0011] and paragraphs [0041]-[0047]; Figures 2A-2C; paragraph [0080]).
Regarding Claim 13, Gordon teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the gravel pack has a conductivity in the range of about 50 mD-ft to about 1000 mD-ft at a closure stress in the range of about 1000 psi to about 8000 psi (Page 1, paragraphs [0011] and [0051]; Figures 2A-2C; paragraph [0080]).
Regarding Claim 14, Gordon teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising:
sequestering carbon in the subterranean formation in the form of the gravel packing particles (Abstract; paragraphs [0011] and [0021]; Claim 23).
Regarding Claim 15, Gordon teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the gravel packing particles are composed of fluid coke (Abstract; Page 2, paragraphs [0023], [0024] [0026]).
Regarding Claim 17, Gordon teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the gravel packing particles have an apparent density in the range of about 1.4 g/cm3 to about 2.0 g/cm3 (paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). Although silent to wherein “the gravel packing particles having an apparent density in the range of about 1.3 g/cc to about 1.7 g/cc,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the gravel packing particles to have an apparent density as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 18, Gordon teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the gravel packing particles have a crush strength of about 3000 psi to about 12000 psi (Page 1, paragraph [0011] and paragraph [0031]; Page 4, paragraph [0049]).
Regarding Claim 19, Gordon teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the gravel packing particles have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 50 µm to about 500 µm (Abstract; Figure 1; paragraphs [0011], [0048] and [0072]). Although silent to wherein “the gravel packing particles have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 50 μm to about 2500 μm,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the gravel packing particles to have an average size distribution as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 20, Hurst teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the gravel packing fluid further comprises second gravel packing particles composed of a material that is not fluid coke or flexicoke (paragraphs [0012] and [0023]).
Regarding Claim 21, Gordon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the gravel packing particles have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 50 µm to about 500 µm (Abstract; Figure 1; paragraphs [0011], [0048] and [0072]). Although silent to wherein “the gravel packing particles have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 500 µm to about 2500 µm,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the gravel packing particles to have an average size distribution as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 22, Gordon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the gravel packing particles have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 50 µm to about 500 µm (Abstract; Figure 1; paragraphs [0011], [0048] and [0072]). Although silent to wherein “the gravel packing particles have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 750 µm to about 2500 µm,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the gravel packing particles to have an average size distribution as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 23, Gordon teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the gravel packing particles have an average particle size distribution in the range of 50 µm to about 500 µm (Abstract; Figure 1; paragraphs [0011], [0048] and [0072]). Although silent to wherein “the gravel packing particles have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 1000 µm to about 2500 µm,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the gravel packing particles to have an average size distribution as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 1, 3, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurst et al (U.S Pub 2018/0142539) (“Hurst”) in view of Gordon et al (U.S Pub 2021/0253944) (“Gordon2”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hurst discloses a gravel packing fluid (Abstract; [0006] and [0010]) comprising:
a carrier fluid (Abstract; paragraphs [0006] and [0010] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Hurst discloses wherein the particulates are dispersed in a carrier fluid); and
gravel packing particles (paragraphs [0010], [0012] and [0023] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Hurst discloses wherein the particulates refer to particulate material that constitutes a gravel pack, therefore gravel packing particles), wherein the gravel packing fluid for forming a gravel pack within an annulus between a wellbore and a sand control screen assembly (Abstract; paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0021], and [0031]; Page 5, paragraphs [0039] and [0043] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Hurst discloses injecting a slurry comprising the particulates dispersed in a carrier fluid into an annular space in the open hole section of the wellbore to form a gravel pack between a screen element and the wellbore).
Hurst also expressly discloses low-density particulates (paragraph 0043) and that the particulates suitable for use include proppants of different sizes and materials (paragraph [0023]).
Hurst, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the gravel packing particles are composed one or both of fluid coke and/or flexicoke, the gravel packing particles having an apparent density of less than about 1.7 g/cm3.
Gordon2 teaches proppant particulates composed one or both of fluid coke and/or flexicoke (Abstract; Figure 1; Page 1, paragraphs [0008]-[0010] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Gordon2 teaches wherein the proppant particulates are flexicoke), the gravel packing particles having an apparent density in the range of about 1.0 g/cm3 to about 2.0 g/cm3 (paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). Although silent to wherein “the gravel packing particles having an apparent density of less than about 1.7 g/cm3,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the gravel packing particles to have an apparent density as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Hurst to include gravel packing particles composed of one or both of fluid coke and/or flexicoke with specific apparent densities, as taught by Gordon2 above, for the purposes of improving particulate transport efficiency within the carrier fluid and improving particulate conductivity efficiency when the wellbore is brought on production (Abstract; paragraphs [0035] and [0036]). Further, Gordan2 teaches that using fluid coke in a subterranean formation sequesters carbon that would otherwise contribute to CO2 emissions (paragraph [0021]). This teaching provides additional motivation to use fluid code particles as gravel packing particles.
Regarding Claim 3, Gordon2 teaches the gravel packing fluid of claim 1, wherein the gravel packing particles are composed flexicoke (Abstract; Page 2, paragraphs [0021], [0024] [0026]).
Regarding Claim 8, Hurst discloses a method comprising:
introducing a gravel packing fluid into a subterranean formation to form a gravel pack within an annulus between a wellbore and a sand control screen assembly (Abstract; paragraphs [0006], [0010], [0021], and [0031]; Page 5, paragraphs [0039] and [0043] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Hurst discloses injecting a slurry comprising the particulates dispersed in a carrier fluid into an annular space in the open hole section of the wellbore to form a gravel pack between a screen element and the wellbore), wherein the gravel packing fluid comprising a carrier fluid (Abstract; paragraphs [0006] and [0010]).
Hurst also expressly discloses low-density particulates (paragraph [0043]) and that the particulates suitable for use include proppants of different sizes and materials (paragraph [0023]).
Hurst, however, fails to expressly disclose gravel packing particles composed one or both of fluid coke and/or flexicoke, the gravel packing particles having a density of less than about 1.7 g/cm3.
Gordon2 teaches proppant particulates composed one or both of fluid coke and/or flexicoke (Abstract; Figure 1; Page 1, paragraphs [0008]-[0010] [Wingdings font/0xE0] Gordon2 teaches wherein the proppant particulates are flexicoke), the particles having an apparent density in the range of about 1.0 g/cm3 to about 2.0 g/cm3 (paragraphs [0009]-[0011]). Although silent to wherein “the gravel packing particles having an apparent density of less than about 1.7 g/cm3,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the gravel packing particles to have an apparent density as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Hurst to include gravel packing particles composed of one or both of fluid coke and/or flexicoke with specific apparent densities, as taught by Gordon2 above, for the purposes of improving particulate transport efficiency within the carrier fluid and improving particulate conductivity efficiency when the wellbore is brought on production (Abstract; paragraphs [0035] and [0036]). Further, Gordan teaches that using fluid coke in a subterranean formation sequesters carbon that would otherwise contribute to CO2 emissions (paragraph [0021]). This teaching provides additional motivation to use fluid code particles as gravel packing particles.
Regarding Claim 16, Gordon teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the gravel packing particles are composed flexicoke (Abstract; Page 2, paragraphs [0021], [0024] [0026]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 08/12/2025 with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot.
The applicant argues wherein the combination of reference Hurst with Gordon or Gordon 2 is not properly combinable because one of skill in the art would not consider Gordon or Gordon2 relevant when working in the area of gravel packing. The Applicant further states neither Gordon references (Gordon nor Gordon2) disclose a gravel packing fluid at all, as recited by the Applicant on pages 5-9 of the Applicant’s arguments/remarks dated 08/12/2025.
As stated in the previous Response to Arguments (see Non-Final rejection dated 05/14/2025), the above rejections do not rely upon Gordon (US 20210246364) nor Gordon2 (U.S 2021/0253944) to teach a gravel packing fluid comprising particles/particulates. Rather, primary reference Hurst (US 20180142539) is relied upon solely to teach that limitation. Further, the above rejections do not rely upon Hurst to teach particles/particulates comprising fluid coke or flexicoke. Rather, Gordon and Gordon2 (US 20210253944) are relied upon to teach these limitations wherein the proppant particulates are specifically fluid coke and/or flexicoke.
Applicant notes that the term "gravel" is used in Paragraph [0028] of Gordon to provide a citation to a Prior Art publication entitled "Measurement of Properties of Proppants Used in Hydraulic Fracturing and Gravel-packing Operations." As demonstrated in this publication, particles (or, "proppants") are used in both fracturing operations and gravel-packing operations. Thus, one of ordinary skill would look at proppants used in fracturing operations when determining which particles to use in gravel-packing operations. Simply stated, particles and/or proppants have many uses in the oil and gas art.
Therefore, in light of the arguments presented above, the rejection stands as previously set forth.
The Applicant further argues wherein the combination of references Hurst with Gordon and Gordon2 fail to disclose the specific characteristics recited in claims 21-23 for gravel packing particles composed of one or both of fluid coke and/or flexicoke, and having average particle size distributions in the ranges set forth therein (see pages 10-11 of the Applicant’s arguments/remarks dated 08/12/2025).
The examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments above moot.
References Gordon and Gordon 2 both disclose wherein typical proppant particulates have particle diameters ranging from about 100 µm to about 1,000 µm (Gordon: paragraph [0048], Gordon2: paragraph [0050]), wherein the fluid coke and flexicoke have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 50 µm to about 500 µm. Moreover, Hurst teaches particle sizes in the range of from about 2 to about 400 mesh, U.S. Sieve Series (paragraph [0023]). The examiner asserts although silent to wherein “the gravel packing particles have an average particle size distribution in the range of about 500 µm to about 2500 µm,” as instantly claimed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide for the gravel packing particles to have an average size distribution as claimed insofar as because it has been held "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As a result, the combination of references Hurst with Gordon and Gordon2 are enough to overlap the Applicant’s claimed average particle size distribution ranges.
Lastly, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
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 ASHISH K VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30pm, Telework Mondays and Fridays.
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, Doug Hutton can be reached at 571-272-4137. 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.
/ASHISH K VARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3674
/WILLIAM D HUTTON JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3674