DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final office action on the merits and in response to amendments filed on 5/11/2026. All currently pending claims have been considered below. 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 & Arguments
Applicant's amendments are sufficient to obviate the 112(a) rejections. Regarding the prior art rejection over US 5,651,421 (Newton) in view of US 2013/0043078 (Qian), Applicant remarks on as-filed page 7 of their Remarks:
"The Office asserts that one skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the cylindrical bearing inserts 37 that may have diamond particles embedded therein with the PDC of Qian that includes a PCD table while also asserting that one skilled in the art would be motivated to reduce the amount of the total mass of diamond to below 0.5% of the mass of the bit due to cost, while referencing the use of diamond particles in the cylindrical bearing inserts. However, both cannot simultaneously be true. One skilled in the art looking to reduce the amount of the total mass of diamond would not replace the cylindrical bearing inserts (that may include diamond particles) of Newton with the PDC of Qian. Each PDC of Qian includes a PCD table. Newton also discloses adding secondary blades 27… As one skilled in the art cannot be motived to reduce the amount of total diamond material used in the drill bit of Newton to be less than 0.5% of a total mass of the drill bit while simultaneously significantly increasing the amount of diamond material by adding the secondary blades and replacing the cylindrical bearing inserts on both the primary and secondary blades…"
First, there is no "increasing the amount of diamond material" in the modification as alleged by Applicant. Newton already teaches "polycrystalline diamond" (col 6:23-25). How then, does Applicant reach the conclusion that there is any increase in diamond material, when all the elements of Newton being modified already have polycrystalline diamond therein? It is simultaneously true that diamond is a cost intensive material but is also suitable for use on bits. Minimizing diamond usage does not preclude using diamond per se, especially when diamond is well understood in the art as being an excellent cutter and gauge wear material.
Applicant's arguments conflate the modification of using the specific PDC material taught by Qian with "significantly increasing the amount of diamond material" of Newton. But again, Newton already teaches PDCs, just not sintered / thermally stable PDCs. The same is similarly true for Applicant's arguments regarding the "secondary blades 27". Post-modification by Qian, there is no "increase" in diamond on the bit from what there was before, because Newton already teaches diamond. No where in the modification by Qian is the addition of more diamond required. All the elements taught by Newton that are modified by Qian already contain diamond. This is a textbook 103 modification that takes an art recognized specific teaching in a secondary reference ("a PDC table sintered using…" - ¶ 32 of Qian) to modify a more general teaching of a comparable / analogous element in the primary reference ("polycrystalline diamond bonded to a cylindrical substrate" - col 3:60-61 of Newton).
The rejection is not, for example, changing a steel cutter to contain diamond, and then subsequently being modified to use less diamond, as Applicant implies. There is no "increase" in diamond material in Newton after being modified by Qian. Rather there is "sintered / thermally stable PDC" from Qian in place of the more general "polycrystalline or natural diamond particles" already taught by Newton.
Further, Applicant's arguments do not attempt to address much of the logical underpinning of the 103 modification for the claimed range; namely that the amount of diamond on the bit (before or after modification) is clearly substantially less than the entire mass of the bit, which the examiner respectfully asserts is clearly suggestive of a relatively low amount of diamond (described as "polycrystalline or natural diamond particles" by Newton (col 6:19-26) compared to the entire mass of the bit. Applicant does not attempt to respond to this.
By Applicant's logic, any modification of an existing general diamond cutter with a more specific type of diamond cutter inherently "significantly increase[es] the amount of diamond material", which has no basis in the rejection, nor is an inherently necessary outcome of the modification. The modification is merely taking a specific analogous teaching to modify a general analogous teaching. No additional diamond is being added to Newton beyond what was already there to begin with.
The present modification is akin to a hypothetical 103 between a primary reference teaching "a vehicle" being modified by a secondary reference teaching "a pickup truck". The end result is not "significantly increasing the number of vehicles" to have "a vehicle" and "a pickup truck" together as Applicant's arguments require. Rather the end result is just a singular "pickup truck" from the secondary reference for the "vehicle" already disclosed in the primary reference.
Applicant's arguments about "Newton… adding secondary blades 27" implies some hypothetical modification in which Newton is being modified by itself and which has no basis in the rejection as-presented. The examiner did not cite, and had no need to cite, "secondary blades 27" of Newton. While figure 4 was cited, the elements relied upon are applicable to all the blades therein, as well as applicable to the comparable features of the embodiment of fig 1.
Further, as discussed on pages 5 & 6 of the prior action (and not responded to by Applicant) even if "secondary blades 27" are used in the rejection, the inserts on blades 27 are already diamond per Newton ("…both the primary cutters and the secondary cutters each comprising a preform cutting element having a front facing table of polycrystalline diamond" - claim 1), so there is still no addition of more diamond to Newton beyond what was already there. And the non-diamond mass of any "added secondary blades 27" will far outpace the mass of diamond thereon, and would logically decrease the total mass of diamond relative to the remaining mass of the bit as is commensurate with the final clause of independent claim 12. Again, Applicant has not attempted to respond to these arguments when presented in prior actions.
As also articulated in the prior action and also not responded to by Applicant, if, as Applicant asserts, "Newton discloses the opposite" of the examiner's premise, and if the examiner's argument that "diamonds are well known to be a cost intensive material, thus motivating the artisan to use as little as reasonably possible" is false, why does Newton disclose only putting diamond elements on selected, specific portions? Junk slots 32 & 34 will be continuously subjected to extremely abrasive drilling fluid and cuttings; no diamond thereon. The space between bearing inserts 37 & 38 is exposed and unprotected with no diamond material. The space between cutters 28 and backup studs 40; exposed with no diamond material thereon. If Newton discloses "the opposite" of a minimally necessary amount diamond, why does Newton not surface the entire bit with diamond? That would be much closer to "disclosing the opposite" as Applicant currently argues. Applicant's arguments require the assumption that Newton teaches an unusual amount of extra diamond material, when no such disclosure is present.
In the same manner as discussed above, Qian teaches "a thermally stable diamond product" as now claimed (Qian: "PDCs that exhibit improved toughness, wear resistance, and thermal stability" - ¶ 7; "Overall, the PDCs of Working Example 8 have a better wear resistance than cobalt-sintered PDC due to the high thermal stability…" - ¶ 91; "The exceptional thermal stability of the PDCs of Working Example 8…" - ¶ 92) and therefore the examiner respectfully maintains the prior art grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,651,421 (Newton) in view of US 2013/0043078 (Qian).
Independent claim 12. Newton discloses a drill bit (title), comprising:
a longitudinal axis ("bit axis 13" - fig 1 & col 3:50-55);
a plurality of blades ("three primary blades 11 and three secondary blades 12" - ibid) extending radially outward from the longitudinal axis of the drill bit (figs 1 & 3) along a face region of the drill bit (figs 1 & 3) and extending axially along a gauge region of the drill bit (fig 4);
cutting elements ("Primary cutters 14 are spaced apart side-by-side along each primary blade 11 and secondary cutters 15 are spaced apart side-by-side along each secondary blade 12" - col 3:56-58) comprising polycrystalline compacts including diamond material ("Each cutter 14, 15 is generally cylindrical and of circular cross section and comprises a front facing table of polycrystalline diamond bonded to a cylindrical substrate of cemented tungsten carbide" - col 3:59-62) coupled to the plurality of blades (col 3:56-58);
an ultra abrasion-resistant material ("bearing or abrasion inserts 23" - fig 2; "the gauge pads 35 and 36 are formed with cylindrical bearing inserts 37 received in sockets in the gauge pads so as to be flush with the surface thereof. The inserts may be formed from tungsten carbide" - col 6:19-22) on at least a portion of a blade of the plurality of blades in the gauge region ("gauge pads 22" - fig 2; "gauge pads 35 and 36" - col 6:19-22); and
diamond inserts comprising polycrystalline compacts ("inserts, as indicated at 38, may have polycrystalline or natural diamond particles embedded therein" - col 6:23-25) comprising diamond material (ibid) coupled to the blade in the gauge region (figs 2 & 4), each diamond insert of the diamond inserts including an outer surface substantially coplanar with a surface of a respective portion of the gauge region in which the diamond insert is mounted ("abrasion inserts 23" - fig 2; '"each primary gauge pad may include only bearing and/or abrading elements which are substantially flush with the surface of the gauge pad" - col 3:10-13; "the gauge pads 35 and 36 are formed with cylindrical bearing inserts 37 received in sockets in the gauge pads so as to be flush with the surface thereof. The inserts may be formed from tungsten carbide, in known manner, and some of the inserts, as indicated at 38, may have polycrystalline or natural diamond particles embedded therein" - col 6:19-26; fig 4).
Newton does not expressly disclose the combined mass of all of the "polycrystalline or natural diamond particles" relative to the total mass of the bit. However, these "diamond particles embedded therein" are clearly relatively small and minimal compared to the mass of the bit as a whole (only two such diamond embedded inserts 38 are shown on pad 35 and, and only three are shown on pad 36). The examiner also emphasizes the disclosure of "diamond particles" ("a very small piece of part; a tiny portion or speck"). These are all clearly and reasonably suggestive that the combined mass of the "diamond particles" embedded in inserts 38 relative to the entire mass of the bit (which is clearly substantially larger) is quite small. However, Newton does not expressly disclose that the combined mass of the diamond material of inserts 38 is less than about 0.5% of a total mass of the drill bit. Further, diamonds are well known to be a cost intensive material, thus motivating the artisan to use as little as reasonable possible so as to help control manufacturing costs. The examiner notes that this logic does not preclude the use of diamond entirely, or preclude utilizing a secondary reference to teach specifics about the general diamond already taught by Newton. Rather the examiner is articulating the clearly large imbalance in mass between the "diamond particles" and the mass of the entire bit as-disclosed by Newton.
In light of the above articulated rationale, the examiner respectfully holds that it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, as routine optimization, to have the combined mass of the embedded diamond particles in inserts 38 relative to the total mass of the drill bit to be "less than 0.5%" since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (as discussed above; further, there is inherently a mass % difference between these two features), discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. MPEP §2144.05, subsection II(A) & (B).
Newton does not explicitly disclose that the diamond material is thermally stable. However Qian discloses polycrystalline diamond compacts (title) that may be used in "drilling tools" as "cutting elements, gage trimmers, etc" (¶ 2) as well as "bearing structures" (¶ 2) that a thermally stable diamond product (¶s 7, 91, & 92. See also ¶s 32, 33, 35, 48, 54).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of filing to use the thermally stable polycrystalline diamond material taught by Qian (¶s 7, 91, & 92) as the more generalized polycrystalline diamond material already taught by Newton. PCD tables that have not been thermally stabilized are prone to premature chipping or cracking (¶ 6). This improves toughness, wear resistance, and thermal stability (¶ 7). The examiner notes Qian teaches these polycrystalline diamond compacts as being appropriate for drill bit cutters, gauge elements on drill bit (¶ 2, applicable to elements 14, 15 of Newton) as well as bearing elements (ibid; comparable to "bearing inserts 37" and/or 38 of Newton).
PNG
media_image1.png
609
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
13. The drill bit of claim 12, wherein the at least a portion of the blade (Newton: portions of "gauge pads 35 and 36" which hold "cylindrical bearing inserts 37") comprises an uphole portion of the blade (37 are on the uphole portion of the blades as shown by the annotated version of fig 4 here. The claim is open-ended and does not exclude them be located elsewhere).
14. (Original) The drill bit of claim 12, wherein the at least a portion of the blade comprises an uphole portion of the blade (Newton: upper box in the annotated version of fig 4 above contains some of 37) and a downhole portion of the blade (lower box in the annotated version of fig 4 above which contains some of 37), the uphole portion of the blade separated from the downhole portion of the blade by a central portion of the blade (middle box in the annotated version of fig 4 above).
PNG
media_image2.png
609
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
15. The drill bit of claim 12, wherein the diamond inserts (Newton: "inserts, as indicated at 38, may have polycrystalline or natural diamond particles embedded therein" - col 6:23-25) are coupled to an uphole portion of the blade (the upper box in the annotated version of fig 4 here). The examiner respectfully notes that claim 15 does not depend from claims 13 or 14, and therefore the examiner is not obliged to use the same definition for "uphole portion" as used in claims 13 or 14. The interpretation applied to claims 13 & 14 work for those claim limitations and the interpretation applied to claim 15 works for that claim, and there is no limitation that requires the same interpretation be applied to both.
16. The drill bit of claim 12, wherein another portion of the blade is radially recessed relative to the at least a portion of the blade (the portions of the blades in the lower box in the annotated version of fig 4 used for claim 15 above are radially recessed relative to gauge pads 35 & 36. Further, "preform cutters 39" are shown on radially recessed portions of their respective blades).
17. The drill bit of claim 12, wherein the diamond inserts ("inserts, as indicated at 38, may have polycrystalline or natural diamond particles embedded therein" - col 6:23-25) are arranged in a pattern along a leading edge of the blade in the gauge region (fig 4 shows one pattern of 38 on pad 36 of blade 26. Similarly, pad 35 has a differing pattern. These "patterns" are commensurate with the present disclosure and the word "pattern" at the level of generality currently recited).
Claims 18 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,651,421 (Newton) in view of US 7,776,256 (Smith), and in further view of in view of US 2013/0043078 (Qian).
Independent 18. Newton discloses a method of manufacturing an earth-boring tool ("The methods of manufacturing drill bits of this general type are well known in the art and will not be described in detail" - col 4:15-17), the method comprising:
positioning ultra abrasion-resistant material ("the gauge pads 35 and 36 are formed with cylindrical bearing inserts 37 received in sockets in the gauge pads so as to be flush with the surface thereof. The inserts may be formed from tungsten carbide" - col 6:19-22) and diamond inserts comprising polycrystalline compacts ("inserts, as indicated at 38, may have polycrystalline or natural diamond particles embedded therein" - col 6:23-25) comprising diamond material (ibid) on a blade ("three primary blades 11 and three secondary blades 12" - col 3:50-55) within a gauge region (fig 4) of a drill bit (title, fig 4), each diamond insert of the diamond inserts including an outer surface substantially coplanar with a surface of a respective portion of the gauge region in which the diamond insert is mounted ("abrasion inserts 23" - fig 2; '"each primary gauge pad may include only bearing and/or abrading elements which are substantially flush with the surface of the gauge pad" - col 3:10-13; "the gauge pads 35 and 36 are formed with cylindrical bearing inserts 37 received in sockets in the gauge pads so as to be flush with the surface thereof. The inserts may be formed from tungsten carbide, in known manner, and some of the inserts, as indicated at 38, may have polycrystalline or natural diamond particles embedded therein" - col 6:19-26; fig 4); and
forming the drill bit comprising the diamond inserts and the ultra abrasion-resistant material (fig 4), the ultra abrasion-resistant material ("the gauge pads 35 and 36 are formed with cylindrical bearing inserts 37 received in sockets in the gauge pads so as to be flush with the surface thereof. The inserts may be formed from tungsten carbide" - col 6:19-22) on a surface of at least the portion of the blade within the gauge region of the drill bit (fig 4).
Newton does not disclose the details of the manufacturing process recited in the present claim. Rather the manufacturing process is only generally discussed ("The methods of manufacturing drill bits of this general type are well known in the art and will not be described in detail" - col 4:15-17), thus clearly directing the reader elsewhere for a more detailed disclosure regarding specific manufacturing steps.
However Smith discloses a method of manufacturing an earth-boring tool (abstract), the method comprising:
positioning ultra abrasion-resistant material ("FIGS. 3A-3E illustrate a method of forming the bit body 52, which is substantially formed from and composed of a particle-matrix composite material… The powder mixture 78 may include a plurality of the previously described hard particles and a plurality of particles comprising a matrix material" - col 9:47-57) and diamond inserts comprising diamond material ("if thermally stable synthetic diamonds, or natural diamonds, are employed", the diamond inserts "may be provided within the bold and bonded… during infiltration or furnacing of the bit body 12" - col 3:45-51) within a casting mold ("a mold or container 80" - fig 3A & last full ¶ of col 9) corresponding to a portion of a blade ("blades 30") within a gauge region (fig 3C) of a drill bit to be formed (col 10:57-60. Subsequent machining to form blades means that the material in the mold "corresponds to a portion of a blade" as claimed. The diamond inserts 124 taught by Spencer are already in the blade gauge, as cited above, and are in the mold as taught by Smith when thermally stable diamonds are used);
positioning displacements of cutting elements within the casting mold ("During all sintering and partial sintering processes, refractory structures or displacements (not shown) may be used to support at least portions of the bit body during the sintering process to maintain desired shapes and dimensions during the densification process. Such displacements may be used, for example, to maintain consistency in the size and geometry of the cutter pockets 36" - col 11:40-46) corresponding to a face region of the drill bit to be formed ("pockets 36 formed in the face 158 of the bit body 152" - col 14:64-65); and
forming a drill bit comprising the diamond inserts and the ultra abrasion-resistant material (the bit is ultimately formed), the ultra abrasion-resistant material on a surface of at least the portion of the blade within a gauge region of the drill bit (as similarly described for claim 12 above).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the manufacturing method taught by Smith to form the drill bit taught by Newton. As discussed above, Newton discloses the manufacturing only generally, thus forcing the reader to look elsewhere. The "mold or container 80" (last full ¶ of col 9) provides the ability to apply isostatic pressure to the powdered mixture (ibid) to sinter the powder.
The combination does not expressly disclose the relative weight / mass % between the ultra-abrasion resistant material and the diamond material relative to the total mass of the drill bit.
The limitation of "a combined mass of the diamond material is less than about 0.5% of a total mass of the drill bit" is held as obvious as similarly described for claim 12 above, respectfully not repeated again here.
The limitation of "the drill bit comprising from 1.0 wt% to 90.0 wt% ultra abrasion-resistant material" is similarly held as obvious by the following rationale. First, Both Newton and Smith disclose that the majority of the bit body is formed of an ultra abrasion-resistant material (Newton: "the bit body, or a part thereof, may be moulded from matrix material using a powder metallurgy process" - first full ¶ of col 4). Smith: "FIGS. 3A-3E illustrate a method of forming the bit body 52, which is substantially formed from and composed of a particle-matrix composite material… The powder mixture 78 may include a plurality of the previously described hard particles and a plurality of particles comprising a matrix material" - col 9:47-57).
Further, both Newton and Smith disclose that a steel blank may be used for the shank / core of the bit, onto which the ultra-abrasion resistant material is connected / formed (Newton: "the bit body and blades may be machined from metal, usually steel, which may be hardfaced. Alternatively the bit body, or a part thereof, may be moulded from matrix material using a powder metallurgy process" - first full ¶ of col 4. Smith: "Alternatively, the bit body may be formed from a particle-matrix composite material. Such materials include hard particles randomly dispersed throughout a matrix material (often referred to as a "binder" material). Such bit bodies typically are formed by embedding a steel blank in a carbide particulate material volume, such as particles of tungsten carbide…" - second full ¶ of col 2. "Shank 70" - fig 2. "Shank 278… may include steel" - fig 7 & col 22:50-52). This shows that the "ultra-abrasion resistant material" does not compose 100% of the body of the bit, but does compose the large majority of the bit.
In light of the above articulated rationale, the examiner respectfully holds that it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made as routine optimization to have the ultra abrasion-resistant material (taught by both Newton and Smith as cited above) comprise between 1.0 wt% to 90.0 wt% of the drill bit, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (as discussed above; further, there is inherently a weight % difference between these two features. The examiner also respectfully notes the broadness of this range and therefore the range can not reasonable said to be critical), discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In other words, narrowing a general condition taught by the prior art to a specific numerical value has been held to be an obvious variation thereof. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215. MPEP §§2144.05, subsection II(A) & (B).
Newton does not explicitly disclose that the diamond material is thermally stable. However Qian discloses polycrystalline diamond compacts (title) that may be used in "drilling tools" as "cutting elements, gage trimmers, etc" (¶ 2) as well as "bearing structures" (¶ 2) that a thermally stable diamond product (¶s 7, 91, & 92. See also ¶s 32, 33, 35, 48, 54).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA at the time of filing to use the thermally stable polycrystalline diamond material taught by Qian (¶s 7, 91, & 92) as the more generalized polycrystalline diamond material already taught by Newton. PCD tables that have not been thermally stabilized are prone to premature chipping or cracking (¶ 6). This improves toughness, wear resistance, and thermal stability (¶ 7). The examiner notes Qian teaches these polycrystalline diamond compacts as being appropriate for drill bit cutters, gauge elements on drill bit (¶ 2, applicable to elements 14, 15 of Newton) as well as bearing elements (ibid; comparable to "bearing inserts 37" and/or 38 of Newton).
PNG
media_image1.png
609
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
19. The method of claim 18, wherein positioning ultra abrasion-resistant material within the casting mold comprises positioning spherical cast tungsten carbide particles (Smith: "Tungsten carbide includes, for example, cast tungsten carbide" - col 7:53-24. The examiner respectfully asserts that "a powder of hard particles… of …. carbides [of] W" - col 4:66 to col 5:4 - that are further described as "cast tungsten carbide" - col 7:53-24 - is commensurate with "spherical cast tungsten carbide particles") within the casting mold (Smith: "a mold or container 80" - fig 3A & last full ¶ of col 9).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US 5,651,421 (Newton), US 7,776,256 (Smith), & US 2013/0043078 (Qian), in further view of US 2005/0183892 (Oldham).
20. The combination discloses or renders obvious all the limitations of parent claim 18. Smith further discloses flame-spraying (¶ bridging cols 13 & 14; claim 40) the ultra abrasion-resistance material comprising spherical cast tungsten carbide material ("Such hardfacing materials may include a particle-matrix composite material, which may include, for example, particles of tungsten carbide" - ibid. "Tungsten carbide includes, for example, cast tungsten carbide" - col 7:53-24 of Smith) on exterior surfaces of the bit (¶ bridging cols 13 & 14).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to flame spray a cast tungsten carbide particles hardfacing material on the bit as taught by Smith. This is applied to "selected areas on exterior surfaces of the bit body" (ibid) to provide the well known and understood benefit of increased wear resistance.
The combination does not explicitly disclose that it is specifically on the blade within the gauge region of the drill bit. However Oldham discloses a fixed-cutter matrix bit ("so called 'fixed cutter' drill bits" and "may comprise tungsten carbide composites… to fabricate so called 'matrix body' drill bits" - ¶ 110 & fig 1B) with a hardfacing applied onto the gauge of the blade ("Gage regions 25 comprise longitudinally upward (as the casing bit 12 is oriented during use) extensions of blades 22, extending from nose portion 20 and may have wear-resistant inserts or coatings, such as cutters, natural or synthetic diamond, or hardfacing material, on radially outer surfaces thereof as known in the art to inhibit excessive wear thereto." - ¶ 109).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the hardfacing taught by Smith the gauge of the blades as taught by Oldham. This aids in inhibiting excessive wear on the gauge (¶ 109) which is well known and understood to be a frequently damaged portion of the drill bit.
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 Blake Michener whose telephone number is (571)270-5736. The examiner can normally be reached Approximately 9:00am to 6:00pm CT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571.270.7741. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BLAKE MICHENER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Prosecution Insights