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 Amendments
The amendments filed December 1, 2025 have been entered. Accordingly, 1-9 and 17-31 are currently pending and have been examined. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1, 3, 17 and 19. Claims 10-16 are cancelled by applicant. Claims 25-31 are newly presented. The previous claim objections and 112 rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant’s persuasive arguments. The previous 103 rejections has been modified due to applicant’s amendments. For the reason(s) set forth below, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive. The action is Final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner.
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, 4-9, 17-18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tulloch (US Pub. No. 2005/0205251) in view of Schneider (US Patent No. 6,848,143).
Regarding claim 1, Tulloch discloses: a back pressure valve (BPV) profile cleaning tool (Figures 1-5 and see also paragraph 0019), comprising:
a brush assembly (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A)) attached to a BPV rod (element 2 and see also figure 2 annotated below Detail C) of a BPV lubricator tool (see paragraph 0019 where the prior art discloses tool having “a casing connection” (element 4) on the end of element 2 (BPV rod) which allows element 1 to be secured to “other components of a tool assembly” (BPV lubricator tool)), the brush assembly comprising:
a core (element 9) coupled to the BPV rod (see figure 2 annotated below showing a cross-sectional view of the cleaning tool showing element 9 (dark hatch marks of element 9) operably coupled to portions of the BPV rod (Detail C));
a brush (see figure 2 annotated below Detail D) that comprises a plurality of bristles (element 24 and see also paragraph 0024 where the prior art discloses element 24 as “one or more bristles”) coupled to the core (see paragraph 0023 where the prior art discloses element 9 (core) comprises a central region (element 21) and wherein element 21 is “formed with a plurality of holes each of which receives one or more bristles 24”, thus plurality of bristles are operably coupled to a portion of the core), the brush further comprising an outer diameter sized (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B) for insertion into a BPV profile of a wellhead (The examiner indicates that the BPV profile of a wellhead and any associated structure has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the brush (Detail D) having the outer diameter (Detail B), and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the brush comprising the outer diameter be sized for insertion into a BPV profile of a wellhead, as recited.), and
at least one first magnet (element 10 and see also paragraph 0021 where the prior art discloses element 10 as “a magnet assembly”) coupled to the core within or between the plurality of bristles (see figure 2 annotated below showing portion (see box) of the at least one magnet (element 10) operably coupled within a portion of the core (element 9)); and
an end (element 3) of the BPV rod.
PNG
media_image1.png
485
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
413
1306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art further shows a threaded connection at the end (element 3) of rod (element 2) and further discloses utilizing element 3 to allow the tool to be secured to “other components” (see paragraph 0019). However, Tulloch appears to be silent comprising a second magnet configured to attach the end of the BPV rod and the second magnet comprising an outer diameter sized to fit through the BPV profile of the wellhead.
Schneider is also concern in providing a tool (element 10 Figures 1-7 and see also col. 3, ll. 20-30) inserted in a conduit (element 28) for removing metallic debris (element 36 and see col. 5, ll. 49-55), thus cleaning the conduit. Schneider further discloses wherein the tool comprises a rod (element 18) having an end (see annotated figures 1 and 3 Detail A) and a second magnet (element 12/24 and see also col. 4, ll. 16-28 where the prior art discloses that placed on element 12 are “permanent type” magnets (element 24)) configured to attach the end of the rod (see col. 3, ll. 27-29 where the prior art discloses utilizing “a screw” (element 16) in order to attach element 12 (portion of second magnet) to the end (Detail A) of the rod (element 18)), the second magnet comprising an outer diameter (see annotated figure 1 Detail B) sized to fit through the BPV profile of the wellhead (The examiner indicates that the BPV profile of the wellhead and any associated structure has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the second magnet (elements 12/24) having the outer diameter (Detail B), and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the brush comprising the outer diameter be sized for insertion into a BPV profile of a wellhead, as recited.).
PNG
media_image3.png
854
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tulloch with the teachings of Schneider to provide a second magnet configured to attach the end of the BPV rod and the second magnet comprising an outer diameter sized to fit through the BPV profile of the wellhead. The result combination would have the second magnet of Schneider now threadedly connected to the end of the rod of Tulloch. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having an additional magnet on the tool would necessarily provide the predictable result of providing a significant debris gathering activity to take place, whereby the metallic debris pictured is effectively moved and gathered to become magnetically caught on the underside of tool body closely adjacent one or more of magnets as disclosed by Schneider (see col. 5, ll. 51-55), thus allowing for a more thorough removal of metallic debris from the conduit and therefore promoting cleanliness.
Regarding claim 2, Tulloch modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of first magnets (element 25 and see also paragraph 0026 where the prior art discloses wherein the magnet assembly (element 10) comprises “a plurality of magnets” (element 25)).
Regarding claim 4, Tulloch modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the at least one first magnet is configured to attract metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush (See paragraph 0008 where the prior art discloses utilizing the magnet assembly (at least one first magnet) to “attract any iron or steel debris removed by the brush”, thus giving that the prior art discloses the at least one first magnet and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the at least one first magnet is configured to attract metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush, as recited.).
Regarding claim 5, Tulloch modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 4, wherein the plurality of bristles are metallic bristles (see paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 6, Tulloch modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 5, wherein the second magnet is configured to attract at least some of the metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush or bristle pieces broken off from at least one of the plurality of metallic bristles (See figure 4 and col. 5, ll. 49-60, of prior art Schneider, where the prior art disclose operations of the tool including lowering the tool and utilizing element 24 (second magnet) in order to “move and gather” the metallic debris (element 36), thus giving that the prior art of Tulloch modified discloses the second magnet attracting the metallic debris and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the second magnet is configured to attract at least some of the metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush or bristle pieces broken off from at least one of the plurality of metallic bristles, as recited.).
Regarding claim 7, Tulloch modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the second magnet is configured to threadingly attach to the end of the BPV rod (As described in the rejection of claim 1 (see pages 6-7), the prior art discloses in col. 3, ll. 27-29 utilizing “a screw” (element 16), which is well known in the art to be threaded, in a threaded engagement with the second magnet (see figure 3 phantom lines passing through element 12 as shown in the prior art of Schneider), thus as modified, the resultant combination would have the second magnet with threaded portion (i.e. portion of element 12 that interacts with the screw (element 16)) of Schneider now threadingly attach to the end (threaded portion of element 3 as best shown in figure 1 of Tulloch) of the BPV rod of Tulloch.).
Regarding claim 8, Tulloch modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the outer diameter of the second magnet is less than an outer diameter of a BPV configured to couple to the BPV profile (The examiner indicates that the BPV coupled to the BPV profile and any associated structure (outer diameter) has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the second magnet having the diameter (see rejection in page 7 above) and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the outer diameter of the second magnet is less than an outer diameter of a BPV configured to couple to the BPV profile, as recited.).
Regarding claim 9, Tulloch modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the brush assembly and the second magnet are configured to couple to the BPV rod with one or more threaded connection (As described in the rejection of claim 1 (see pages 6-7), the prior art discloses in col. 3, ll. 27-29 utilizing “a screw” (element 16), which is well known in the art to be threaded, in a threaded engagement with the second magnet (see figure 3 phantom lines passing through element 12 as shown in the prior art of Schneider), thus as modified, the resultant combination would have the second magnet with threaded portion (i.e. portion of element 12 that interacts with the screw (element 16)) of Schneider now threadingly coupled the BPV rod (element 2 as best shown in figure 1 of Tulloch) via the threaded connection provide by element 3.).
Regarding claim 17, Tulloch discloses: a downhole tool assembly (Figures 1-5 and see also paragraph 0019), comprising:
a back pressure valve (BPV) lubricator tool (see paragraph 0019 where the prior art discloses tool having “a casing connection” (element 4) which allows element 1 to be secured to “other components of a tool assembly” (back pressure valve (BPV) lubricator tool )) that comprises a BPV rod (element 2 and see also figure 2 annotated below Detail C); and
a BPV profile cleaning tool (see figure 1-2 annotated below Detail A, Detail C, Detail D, element 9, element 24, element 10, and element 3), comprising:
a brush assembly (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A)) attached to the BPV rod (element 2 and see also figure 2 annotated below Detail C) and comprising:
a core (element 9) coupled to the BPV rod (see figure 2 annotated below showing a cross-sectional view of the cleaning tool showing element 9 (dark hatch marks of element 9) operably coupled to portions of the BPV rod (Detail C));
a brush (see figure 2 annotated below Detail D) that comprises a plurality of bristles (element 24 and see also paragraph 0024 where the prior art discloses element 24 as “one or more bristles”), the brush further comprising an outer diameter (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B) sized for insertion into a BPV profile of a wellhead (The examiner indicates that the BPV profile of a wellhead and any associated structure has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the brush (element 9) having the outer diameter (Detail B), and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the brush comprising the outer diameter be sized for insertion into a BPV profile of a wellhead, as recited.), and
at least one first magnet (element 10 and see also paragraph 0021 where the prior art discloses element 10 as “a magnet assembly”) coupled to the core within or between the plurality of bristles (see figure 2 annotated below showing portion (see box) of the at least one magnet (element 10) operably coupled within a portion of the core (element 9)); and
an end (element 3) of the BPV rod.
PNG
media_image1.png
485
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
413
1306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art further shows a threaded connection at the end (element 3) of rod (element 2) and further discloses utilizing element 3 to allow the tool to be secured to “other components” (see paragraph 0019). However, Tulloch appears to be silent comprising a second magnet configured to attach the end of the BPV rod and the second magnet comprising an outer diameter sized to fit through the BPV profile of the wellhead.
Schneider is also concern in providing a tool (element 10 Figures 1-7 and see also col. 3, ll. 20-30) inserted in a conduit (element 28) for removing metallic debris (element 36 and see col. 5, ll. 49-55), thus cleaning the conduit. Schneider further discloses wherein the tool comprises a rod (element 18) having an end (see annotated figures 1 and 3 Detail A) and a second magnet (element 12/24 and see also col. 4, ll. 16-28 where the prior art discloses that placed on element 12 are “permanent type” magnets (element 24)) configured to attach the end of the rod (see col. 3, ll. 27-29 where the prior art discloses utilizing “a screw” (element 16) in order to attach element 12 (portion of second magnet) to the end (Detail A) of the rod (element 18)), the second magnet comprising an outer diameter (see annotated figure 1 Detail B) sized to fit through the BPV profile of the wellhead (The examiner indicates that the BPV profile of the wellhead and any associated structure has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the second magnet (elements 12/24) having the outer diameter (Detail B), and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the brush comprising the outer diameter be sized for insertion into a BPV profile of a wellhead, as recited.).
PNG
media_image3.png
854
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tulloch with the teachings of Schneider to provide a second magnet configured to attach the end of the BPV rod and the second magnet comprising an outer diameter sized to fit through the BPV profile of the wellhead. The result combination would have the second magnet of Schneider now threadedly connected to the end of the rod of Tulloch. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having an additional magnet on the tool would necessarily provide the predictable result of providing a significant debris gathering activity to take place, whereby the metallic debris pictured is effectively moved and gathered to become magnetically caught on the underside of tool body closely adjacent one or more of magnets as disclosed by Schneider (see col. 5, ll. 51-55), thus allowing for a more thorough removal of metallic debris from the conduit and therefore promoting cleanliness.
Regarding claim 18, Tulloch modified discloses: the downhole tool assembly of claim of claim 17, wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of first magnets (element 25 and see also paragraph 0026 where the prior art discloses wherein the magnet assembly (element 10) comprises “a plurality of magnets” (element 25)).
Regarding claim 20, Tulloch modified discloses: the downhole tool assembly of claim of claim 17, wherein the at least one first magnet is configured to attract metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush (See paragraph 0008 where the prior art discloses utilizing the magnet assembly (at least one first magnet) to “attract any iron or steel debris removed by the brush”, thus giving that the prior art discloses the at least one first magnet and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the at least one first magnet is configured to attract metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush, as recited.).
Regarding claim 21, Tulloch modified discloses: the downhole tool assembly of claim of claim 20, wherein the plurality of bristles are metallic bristles (see paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 22, Tulloch modified discloses: the downhole tool assembly of claim of claim 21, wherein the second magnet is configured to attract at least some of the metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush or bristle pieces broken off from at least one of the plurality of metallic bristles (See figure 4 and col. 5, ll. 49-60, of prior art Schneider, where the prior art disclose operations of the tool including lowering the tool and utilizing element 24 (second magnet) in order to “move and gather” the metallic debris (element 36), thus giving that the prior art of Tulloch modified discloses the second magnet attracting the metallic debris and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the second magnet is configured to attract at least some of the metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush or bristle pieces broken off from at least one of the plurality of metallic bristles, as recited.).
Regarding claim 23, Tulloch modified discloses: the downhole tool assembly of claim of claim 17, wherein the brush assembly and the second magnet are configured to threadingly attach to the end of the BPV rod (As described in the rejection of claim 1 (see pages 6-7), the prior art discloses in col. 3, ll. 27-29 utilizing “a screw” (element 16), which is well known in the art to be threaded, in a threaded engagement with the second magnet (see figure 3 phantom lines passing through element 12 as shown in the prior art of Schneider), thus as modified, the resultant combination would have the second magnet with threaded portion (i.e. portion of element 12 that interacts with the screw (element 16)) of Schneider now threadingly attach to the end (threaded portion of element 3 as best shown in figure 1 of Tulloch) of the BPV rod of Tulloch.).
Regarding claim 24, Tulloch modified discloses: the downhole tool assembly of claim of claim 17, wherein the outer diameter of the second magnet is less than an outer diameter of a BPV configured to couple to the BPV profile (The examiner indicates that the BPV coupled to the BPV profile and any associated structure (outer diameter) has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the second magnet having the diameter (see rejection in page 7 above) and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the outer diameter of the second magnet is less than an outer diameter of a BPV configured to couple to the BPV profile, as recited.).
Regarding claim 25, Tulloch modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the core is cylindrical (see figure 1 showing portions (elements 18/19) of the core (element 9) being cylindrical).
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tulloch (US Pub. No. 2005/0205251) in view of Schneider (US Patent No. 6,848,143) as applied to claims 1-2 and 17-18 above, and further in view of Atkins (US Pub. No. 2021/0115746).
Regarding claim 3, Tulloch modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1-2, but appears to be silent wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise a plurality of ring magnets mounted on the core.
Atkins is also concern in providing a tool (element 100 Figures 1-5 and see also paragraph 0018) inserted in a borehole (element 11) for removing metallic debris (see paragraph 0025), thus cleaning the borehole. Atkins further discloses wherein the tool comprises a core (element 12), a plurality of first magnets (element 103 and see also paragraph 0025 where the prior art discloses element 103 as “one or more magnets”), and wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise a plurality of ring magnets (see paragraph 0053 where the prior art disclose element 103 (plurality of magnets) can have a plurality of different shapes including as best shown in figure 2G-2J) a ring shaped, thus being a plurality of ring magnets) mounted on the core (see figure 1 showing the plurality of ring magnets (element 103) operably mounted on the core (element 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tulloch with the teachings of Atkins to provide wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise a plurality of ring magnets mounted on the core. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a plurality of ring magnets would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing the user to remove, extract and/or collect the magnetic debris from the area being worked on, thus promoting cleanliness.
Regarding claim 19, Tulloch modified discloses all the limitations of claims 17-18, but appears to be silent wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise a plurality of ring magnets mounted on the core.
Atkins is also concern in providing a tool (element 100 Figures 1-5 and see also paragraph 0018) inserted in a borehole (element 11) for removing metallic debris (see paragraph 0025), thus cleaning the borehole. Atkins further discloses wherein the tool comprises a core (element 12), a plurality of first magnets (element 103 and see also paragraph 0025 where the prior art discloses element 103 as “one or more magnets”), and wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise a plurality of ring magnets (see paragraph 0053 where the prior art disclose element 103 (plurality of magnets) can have a plurality of different shapes including as best shown in figure 2G-2J) a ring shaped, thus being a plurality of ring magnets) mounted on the core (see figure 1 showing the plurality of ring magnets (element 103) operably mounted on the core (element 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tulloch with the teachings of Atkins to provide wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise a plurality of ring magnets mounted on the core. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a plurality of ring magnets would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing the user to remove, extract and/or collect the magnetic debris from the area being worked on, thus promoting cleanliness.
Claims 26, 28-29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tulloch (US Pub. No. 2005/0205251) in view of Schneider (US Patent No. 6,848,143) as applied to claims 1 and 25 above, and further in view of Silguero (US Pub. No. 2005/0274524).
Regarding claim 26, Tulloch modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 25, but appears to be silent wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of ring magnets that circumscribe the core.
Silguero is also concern in providing a tool (Figures 1-4C and see also paragraph 0024/0034) for removing metallic debris from a well bore (see Abstract), wherein the tool comprises a core (element 301), at least one first magnet (element 110), and wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of ring magnets (element 101 and see paragraph 0024/0025 where the prior art discloses element 101 as “a plurality of ring shaped magnets” and being “four magnets”) that circumscribe the core (see figure 4C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tulloch with the teachings of Silguero to provide wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of ring magnets that circumscribe the core. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a plurality of ring magnets would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing the user to remove, extract and/or collect the magnetic debris from the area being worked on, thus promoting cleanliness.
Regarding claim 28, Tulloch modified: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 26, wherein the plurality of ring magnets comprise three ring magnets (see rejection of claim 26 above where the prior art of Silguero discloses the plurality of ring magnets (element 101) comprises at least four, which would therefore comprise three ring magnets).
Regarding claim 29, Tulloch modified: the downhole tool assembly of claim 17, wherein the core is cylindrical (see figure 1 showing portions (elements 18/19) of the core (element 9) being cylindrical).
However, Tulloch modified appears to be silent wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of ring magnets that circumscribe the core.
Silguero is also concern in providing a tool (Figures 1-4C and see also paragraph 0024/0034) for removing metallic debris from a well bore (see Abstract), wherein the tool comprises a core (element 301), at least one first magnet (element 110), and wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of ring magnets (element 101 and see paragraph 0024/0025 where the prior art discloses element 101 as “a plurality of ring shaped magnets” and being “four magnets”) that circumscribe the core (see figure 4C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Tulloch with the teachings of Silguero to provide wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of ring magnets that circumscribe the core. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a plurality of ring magnets would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing the user to remove, extract and/or collect the magnetic debris from the area being worked on, thus promoting cleanliness.
Regarding claim 31, Tulloch modified: the downhole tool assembly of claim 29, wherein the plurality of ring magnets comprise three ring magnets (see rejection of claim 26 above where the prior art of Silguero discloses the plurality of ring magnets (element 101) comprises at least four, which would therefore comprise three ring magnets).
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-9, 17-18, 20, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knobloch (US Pub. No. 2010/0186962) in view of Schneider (US Patent No. 6,848,143).
Regarding claim 1, Knobloch discloses: a back pressure valve (BPV) profile cleaning tool (Figures 1-8 and 11 element 1 and see also paragraph 0034), comprising:
a brush assembly (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) attached to a BPV rod (element 10) of a BPV lubricator tool (see paragraph 0034 where the prior art discloses the cleaning tool (element 1) comprises connection female portion (element 26) which allows the tool to be connected to “various other tools” (BPV lubricator tool)), the brush assembly comprising:
a core (elements 16/50) coupled to the BPV rod (see figures 1-2):
a brush (see figure 6) that comprises a plurality of bristles (element 112) coupled to the core (see paragraph 0039 where the prior art discloses “slots” in elements 16 and 50 accept “an insert”, see paragraph 0058 where the prior art discloses element 110 as “an insert” which comprises the plurality of bristles (element 112), thus the brush that comprises the plurality of bristles is operably coupled to the core via the slots), the brush further comprising an outer diameter (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B) sized for insertion into a BPV profile of a wellhead (The examiner indicates that the BPV profile of a wellhead and any associated structure has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the brush having the outer diameter (Detail B), and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the brush comprising the outer diameter be sized for insertion into a BPV profile of a wellhead, as recited.), and
at least one first magnet (see paragraph 0035 where the prior art discloses the cleaning tool comprises a section (element 70) and see also paragraph 0072 where the prior art discloses element 200 as “a magnetic housing” having elements 220 (at least one first magnet) being secured in the section (element 70)) coupled to the core within or between the plurality of bristles (See figure 1 showing section of element 70 where the at least one first magnet is located (see rejection above), in between sections of element 16/50 where the brushes are located (see rejection above), thus the at least one first magnet would necessarily be coupled between the plurality of bristles, as recited.).
PNG
media_image4.png
852
539
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The prior art further shows a threaded male connection at the end (element 25) of the rod (element 10) which allow the tool to be secured to “various other tools” (see paragraph 0034). ). However, Knobloch appears to be silent comprising a second magnet configured to attach the end of the BPV rod and the second magnet comprising an outer diameter sized to fit through the BPV profile of the wellhead.
Schneider is also concern in providing a tool (element 10 Figures 1-7 and see also col. 3, ll. 20-30) inserted in a conduit (element 28) for removing metallic debris (element 36 and see col. 5, ll. 49-55), thus cleaning the conduit. Schneider further discloses wherein the tool comprises a rod (element 18) having an end (see annotated figures 1 and 3 Detail A) and a second magnet (element 12/24 and see also col. 4, ll. 16-28 where the prior art discloses that placed on element 12 are “permanent type” magnets (element 24)) configured to attach the end of the rod (see col. 3, ll. 27-29 where the prior art discloses utilizing “a screw” (element 16) in order to attach element 12 (portion of second magnet) to the end (Detail A) of the rod (element 18)), the second magnet comprising an outer diameter (see annotated figure 1 Detail B) sized to fit through the BPV profile of the wellhead (The examiner indicates that the BPV profile of the wellhead and any associated structure has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the second magnet (elements 12/24) having the outer diameter (Detail B), and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the brush comprising the outer diameter be sized for insertion into a BPV profile of a wellhead, as recited.).
PNG
media_image3.png
854
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knobloch with the teachings of Schneider to provide a second magnet configured to attach the end of the BPV rod and the second magnet comprising an outer diameter sized to fit through the BPV profile of the wellhead. The result combination would have the second magnet of Schneider now threadedly connected to the end of the rod of Knobloch. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having an additional magnet on the tool would necessarily provide the predictable result of providing a significant debris gathering activity to take place, whereby the metallic debris pictured is effectively moved and gathered to become magnetically caught on the underside of tool body closely adjacent one or more of magnets as disclosed by Schneider (see col. 5, ll. 51-55), thus allowing for a more thorough removal of metallic debris from the conduit and therefore promoting cleanliness.
Regarding claim 2, Knobloch modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of first magnets (see figure 11 and see also paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 4, Knobloch modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the at least one first magnet is configured to attract metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush (See paragraph 0074 where the prior art disclose the magnetic portion is “used to remove metallic debris from the wellbore” thus giving that the prior art discloses the at least one first magnet and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the at least one first magnet is configured to attract metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush, as recited.).
Regarding claim 7, Knobloch modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the second magnet is configured to threadingly attach to the end of the BPV rod (As described in the rejection of claim 1 (see pages 22-27), the prior art discloses in col. 3, ll. 27-29 utilizing “a screw” (element 16), which is well known in the art to be threaded, in a threaded engagement with the second magnet (see figure 3 phantom lines passing through element 12 as shown in the prior art of Schneider), thus as modified, the resultant combination would have the second magnet with threaded portion (i.e. portion of element 12 that interacts with the screw (element 16)) of Schneider now threadingly attach to the end (threaded portion of element 25 as best shown in figure 1 of Knobloch) of the BPV rod of Knobloch.).
Regarding claim 8, Knobloch modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the outer diameter of the second magnet is less than an outer diameter of a BPV configured to couple to the BPV profile (The examiner indicates that the BPV coupled to the BPV profile and any associated structure (outer diameter) has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the second magnet having the diameter (see rejection in page 26 above) and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the outer diameter of the second magnet is less than an outer diameter of a BPV configured to couple to the BPV profile, as recited.).
Regarding claim 9, Knobloch modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the brush assembly and the second magnet are configured to couple to the BPV rod with one or more threaded connection (As described in the rejection of claim 1 (see pages 6-7), the prior art discloses in col. 3, ll. 27-29 utilizing “a screw” (element 16), which is well known in the art to be threaded, in a threaded engagement with the second magnet (see figure 3 phantom lines passing through element 12 as shown in the prior art of Schneider), thus as modified, the resultant combination would have the second magnet with threaded portion (i.e. portion of element 12 that interacts with the screw (element 16)) of Schneider now threadingly coupled the BPV rod (element 10 as best shown in figure 1 of Knobloch) via the threaded connection provide by element 25.).
Regarding claim 17, Knobloch discloses: a downhole tool assembly (Figures 1-8 and 11 and see also paragraph 0034), comprising:
a back pressure valve (BPV) lubricator tool (see paragraph 0034 where the prior art discloses a tool having a connection female portion (element 26) which allows the tool to be connected to “various other tools” (BPV lubricator tool)) that comprises a BPV rod (element 10); and
a BPV profile cleaning tool (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A, elements 16/50/112/70/200/220), comprising:
a brush assembly (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) attached to the BPV rod (see figure 1 annotated below) and comprising:
a core (elements 16/50) coupled to the BPV rod (see figures 1-2);
a brush (see figure 6) that comprises a plurality of bristles (element 112), the brush further comprising an outer diameter (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B) sized for insertion into a BPV profile of a wellhead (The examiner indicates that the BPV profile of a wellhead and any associated structure has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the brush having the outer diameter (Detail B), and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the brush comprising the outer diameter be sized for insertion into a BPV profile of a wellhead, as recited.), and
at least one first magnet (see paragraph 0035 where the prior art discloses the cleaning tool comprises a section (element 70) and see also paragraph 0072 where the prior art discloses element 200 as “a magnetic housing” having elements 220 (at least one first magnet) being secured in the section (element 70)) coupled to the core within or between the plurality of bristles (See figure 1 showing section of element 70 where the at least one first magnet is located (see rejection above), in between sections of element 16/50 where the brushes are located (see rejection above), thus the at least one first magnet would necessarily be coupled between the plurality of bristles, as recited.).
PNG
media_image4.png
852
539
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The prior art further shows a threaded male connection at the end (element 25) of the rod (element 10) which allow the tool to be secured to “various other tools” (see paragraph 0034). ). However, Knobloch appears to be silent comprising a second magnet configured to attach the end of the BPV rod and the second magnet comprising an outer diameter sized to fit through the BPV profile of the wellhead.
Schneider is also concern in providing a tool (element 10 Figures 1-7 and see also col. 3, ll. 20-30) inserted in a conduit (element 28) for removing metallic debris (element 36 and see col. 5, ll. 49-55), thus cleaning the conduit. Schneider further discloses wherein the tool comprises a rod (element 18) having an end (see annotated figures 1 and 3 Detail A) and a second magnet (element 12/24 and see also col. 4, ll. 16-28 where the prior art discloses that placed on element 12 are “permanent type” magnets (element 24)) configured to attach the end of the rod (see col. 3, ll. 27-29 where the prior art discloses utilizing “a screw” (element 16) in order to attach element 12 (portion of second magnet) to the end (Detail A) of the rod (element 18)), the second magnet comprising an outer diameter (see annotated figure 1 Detail B) sized to fit through the BPV profile of the wellhead (The examiner indicates that the BPV profile of the wellhead and any associated structure has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the second magnet (elements 12/24) having the outer diameter (Detail B), and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the brush comprising the outer diameter be sized for insertion into a BPV profile of a wellhead, as recited.).
PNG
media_image3.png
854
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knobloch with the teachings of Schneider to provide a second magnet configured to attach the end of the BPV rod and the second magnet comprising an outer diameter sized to fit through the BPV profile of the wellhead. The result combination would have the second magnet of Schneider now threadedly connected to the end of the rod of Knobloch. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having an additional magnet on the tool would necessarily provide the predictable result of providing a significant debris gathering activity to take place, whereby the metallic debris pictured is effectively moved and gathered to become magnetically caught on the underside of tool body closely adjacent one or more of magnets as disclosed by Schneider (see col. 5, ll. 51-55), thus allowing for a more thorough removal of metallic debris from the conduit and therefore promoting cleanliness.
Regarding claim 18, Knobloch modified discloses the downhole tool assembly of claim of claim 17, wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of first magnets (see figure 11 and see also paragraph 0072).
Regarding claim 20 , Knobloch modified discloses the downhole tool assembly of claim of claim 17, wherein the at least one first magnet is configured to attract metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush (See paragraph 0074 where the prior art disclose the magnetic portion is “used to remove metallic debris from the wellbore” thus giving that the prior art discloses the at least one first magnet and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the at least one first magnet is configured to attract metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush, as recited.).
Regarding claim 23, Knobloch modified discloses: the downhole tool assembly of claim of claim 17, wherein the brush assembly and the second magnet are configured to threadingly attach to the end of the BPV rod (As described in the rejection of claim 1 (see pages 6-7), the prior art discloses in col. 3, ll. 27-29 utilizing “a screw” (element 16), which is well known in the art to be threaded, in a threaded engagement with the second magnet (see figure 3 phantom lines passing through element 12 as shown in the prior art of Schneider), thus as modified, the resultant combination would have the second magnet with threaded portion (i.e. portion of element 12 that interacts with the screw (element 16)) of Schneider now threadingly coupled the BPV rod (element 10 as best shown in figure 1 of Knobloch) via the threaded connection provide by element 25.).
Regarding claim 24, Knobloch modified discloses: the downhole tool assembly of claim of claim 17, wherein the outer diameter of the second magnet is less than an outer diameter of a BPV configured to couple to the BPV profile (The examiner indicates that the BPV coupled to the BPV profile and any associated structure (outer diameter) has not been positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the second magnet having the diameter (see rejection in page 33 above) and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the outer diameter of the second magnet is less than an outer diameter of a BPV configured to couple to the BPV profile, as recited.).
Regarding claim 25, Knobloch modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 1, wherein the core is cylindrical (see figure 1).
Claims 5-6 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knobloch (US Pub. No. 2010/0186962) in view of Schneider (US Patent No. 6,848,143) as applied to claims 1, 4, 17, and 20 above, and further in view of Tulloch (US Pub. No. 2005/0205251).
Regarding claim 5, Knobloch modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 4, but appears to be silent wherein the plurality of bristles are metallic bristles.
Tulloch is also concern in providing a cleaning tool (Figures 1-5 and see also paragraph 0019) comprising a brush (see figure 2 annotated below Detail D) that comprises a plurality of bristles (element 24 and see also paragraph 0024 where the prior art discloses element 24 as “one or more bristles”) and wherein the plurality of bristles are metallic bristles (see paragraph 0024).
PNG
media_image2.png
413
1306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Knobloch with the teachings of Tulloch to provide wherein the plurality of bristles are metallic bristles. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the metallic bristles, specifically made of hardened tempered steel, would necessarily provide the predictable result of having a plurality of bristles that offers an optimal balance of high strength, increased toughness, and enhanced wear resistance.
Regarding claim 6, Knobloch further modified discloses: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 5, wherein the second magnet is configured to attract at least some of the metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush or bristle pieces broken off from at least one of the plurality of metallic bristles (See figure 4 and col. 5, ll. 49-60, of prior art Schneider, where the prior art disclose operations of the tool including lowering the tool and utilizing element 24 (second magnet) in order to “move and gather” the metallic debris (element 36), thus giving that the prior art of Knobloch modified discloses the second magnet attracting the metallic debris and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the second magnet is configured to attract at least some of the metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush or bristle pieces broken off from at least one of the plurality of metallic bristles, as recited.).
Regarding claim 21, Knobloch modified discloses all the limitations of claims 17 and 20, but appears to be silent wherein the plurality of bristles are metallic bristles.
Tulloch is also concern in providing a cleaning tool (Figures 1-5 and see also paragraph 0019) comprising a brush (see figure 2 annotated below Detail D) that comprises a plurality of bristles (element 24 and see also paragraph 0024 where the prior art discloses element 24 as “one or more bristles”) and wherein the plurality of bristles are metallic bristles (see paragraph 0024).
PNG
media_image2.png
413
1306
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Knobloch with the teachings of Tulloch to provide wherein the plurality of bristles are metallic bristles. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the metallic bristles, specifically made of hardened tempered steel, would necessarily provide the predictable result of having a plurality of bristles that offers an optimal balance of high strength, increased toughness, and enhanced wear resistance.
Regarding claim 22, Knobloch further modified discloses: the downhole tool assembly of claim of claim 21, wherein the second magnet is configured to attract at least some of the metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush or bristle pieces broken off from at least one of the plurality of metallic bristles (See figure 4 and col. 5, ll. 49-60, of prior art Schneider, where the prior art disclose operations of the tool including lowering the tool and utilizing element 24 (second magnet) in order to “move and gather” the metallic debris (element 36), thus giving that the prior art of Knobloch modified discloses the second magnet attracting the metallic debris and giving that there is no additional structural or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the second magnet is configured to attract at least some of the metallic debris detached from the BPV profile by the brush or bristle pieces broken off from at least one of the plurality of metallic bristles, as recited.).
Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knobloch (US Pub. No. 2010/0186962) in view of Schneider (US Patent No. 6,848,143) as applied to claim 1-2 and 17-18 above, and further in view of Atkins (US Pub. No. 2021/0115746).
Regarding claim 3, Knobloch modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1-2, but appears to be silent wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise a plurality of ring magnets mounted on the core.
Atkins is also concern in providing a tool (element 100 Figures 1-5 and see also paragraph 0018) inserted in a borehole (element 11) for removing metallic debris (see paragraph 0025), thus cleaning the borehole. Atkins further discloses wherein the tool comprises a core (element 12), a plurality of first magnets (element 103 and see also paragraph 0025 where the prior art discloses element 103 as “one or more magnets”), and wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise a plurality of ring magnets (see paragraph 0053 where the prior art disclose element 103 (plurality of magnets) can have a plurality of different shapes including as best shown in figure 2G-2J) a ring shaped, thus being a plurality of ring magnets) mounted on the core (see figure 1 showing the plurality of ring magnets (element 103) operably mounted on the core (element 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Knobloch with the teachings of Atkins to provide wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise a plurality of ring magnets mounted on the core. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a plurality of ring magnets would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing the user to remove, extract and/or collect the magnetic debris from the area being worked on, thus promoting cleanliness.
Regarding claim 19, Knobloch modified discloses all the limitations of claims 17-18, but appears to be silent wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise a plurality of ring magnets mounted on the core.
Atkins is also concern in providing a tool (element 100 Figures 1-5 and see also paragraph 0018) inserted in a borehole (element 11) for removing metallic debris (see paragraph 0025), thus cleaning the borehole. Atkins further discloses wherein the tool comprises a core (element 12), a plurality of first magnets (element 103 and see also paragraph 0025 where the prior art discloses element 103 as “one or more magnets”), and wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise a plurality of ring magnets (see paragraph 0053 where the prior art disclose element 103 (plurality of magnets) can have a plurality of different shapes including as best shown in figure 2G-2J) a ring shaped, thus being a plurality of ring magnets) mounted on the core (see figure 1 showing the plurality of ring magnets (element 103) operably mounted on the core (element 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Knobloch with the teachings of Atkins to provide wherein the plurality of first magnets comprise a plurality of ring magnets mounted on the core. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a plurality of ring magnets would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing the user to remove, extract and/or collect the magnetic debris from the area being worked on, thus promoting cleanliness.
Claims 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knobloch (US Pub. No. 2010/0186962) in view of Schneider (US Patent No. 6,848,143) as applied to claims 1, 25, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Silguero (US Pub. No. 2005/0274524).
Regarding claim 26, Knobloch modified discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 25, but appears to be silent wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of ring magnets that circumscribe the core.
Silguero is also concern in providing a tool (Figures 1-4C and see also paragraph 0024/0034) for removing metallic debris from a well bore (see Abstract), wherein the tool comprises a core (element 301), at least one first magnet (element 110), and wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of ring magnets (element 101 and see paragraph 0024/0025 where the prior art discloses element 101 as “a plurality of ring shaped magnets” and being “four magnets”) that circumscribe the core (see figure 4C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Knobloch with the teachings of Silguero to provide wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of ring magnets that circumscribe the core. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a plurality of ring magnets would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing the user to remove, extract and/or collect the magnetic debris from the area being worked on, thus promoting cleanliness.
Regarding claim 27, Knobloch modified: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 26, wherein each of the plurality of ring magnets is coupled to the core between at least two of the plurality of bristles (see figure 1 showing section of element 70 where the at least one first magnet is located (see rejection of claim 1 above on page 24), in between sections of element 16/50 where the brushes are located (see rejection of claim 1 above on page 24), thus as modified, each of the plurality of ring magnets is coupled to the core between at least two of the plurality of bristles, as recited.) .
Regarding claim 28, Knobloch modified: the BPV profile cleaning tool of claim 26, wherein the plurality of ring magnets comprise three ring magnets (see rejection of claim 26 above where the prior art of Silguero discloses the plurality of ring magnets (element 101) comprises at least four, which would therefore comprise three ring magnets).
Regarding claim 29, Knobloch modified: the downhole tool assembly of claim 17, wherein the core is cylindrical (see figure 1).
However, Knobloch modified appears to be silent wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of ring magnets that circumscribe the core.
Silguero is also concern in providing a tool (Figures 1-4C and see also paragraph 0024/0034) for removing metallic debris from a well bore (see Abstract), wherein the tool comprises a core (element 301), at least one first magnet (element 110), and wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of ring magnets (element 101 and see paragraph 0024/0025 where the prior art discloses element 101 as “a plurality of ring shaped magnets” and being “four magnets”) that circumscribe the core (see figure 4C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Knobloch with the teachings of Silguero to provide wherein the at least one first magnet comprises a plurality of ring magnets that circumscribe the core. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a plurality of ring magnets would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing the user to remove, extract and/or collect the magnetic debris from the area being worked on, thus promoting cleanliness.
Regarding claim 30, Knobloch modified: downhole tool assembly of claim 29, wherein each of the plurality of ring magnets is coupled to the core between at least two of the plurality of bristles (see figure 1 showing section of element 70 where the at least one first magnet is located (see rejection of claim 17 above on page 30), in between sections of element 16/50 where the brushes are located (see rejection of claim 17 above on page 30), thus as modified, each of the plurality of ring magnets is coupled to the core between at least two of the plurality of bristles, as recited.) .
Regarding claim 31, Knobloch modified: the downhole tool assembly of claim 29, wherein the plurality of ring magnets comprise three ring magnets (see rejection of claim 26 above where the prior art of Silguero discloses the plurality of ring magnets (element 101) comprises at least four, which would therefore comprise three ring magnets).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/05/2025 regarding the newly presented features of claims 1 and 17 have been fully considered and have been addressed in the rejection above. Thus, arguments are not persuasive because the prior art discloses the argued features. Lastly, regarding the request for interview by applicant. In view of the new grounds of rejection, applicant’s representative is encouraged to call the examiner to schedule an interview once they’ve had the opportunity to review the instant Office action.
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 ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736